Post No. 1,430 - Cross posting: A commentary on protests, police, and perceptions - and violence

This first appeared on my political blog at https://politicalmusingsofkayleen.blogspot.com/2019/10/a-commentary-on-protests-police-and.html.


When I was a very young kid, Mum and I were in the city (Melbourne) for one of - if not the - the earliest Viêt Nàm war protests. It was incredibly loud - not very physically active, just people slowly walking and chanting, but the noise and one other aspect overwhelmed and terrified me. I wound up hiding behind Mum's legs - one of the protestors tried to reassure me, but I was having none of it, and Mum asked her to move on. (I've occasionally recalled that when former protestors have claimed they were welcomed by all - they weren't.)

The other aspect I mentioned was what I, in my early primary school years, perceived as anger.

I think that's something which people of passion need to keep in mind: that their passion can be perceived as anger by others, and thus feel threatening, even though there may be no intention of physical harm. In the case of the protests at a mining conference this week in my home city, protestors shouting at not just delegates but innocent people going past is likely, rightly or wrongly, to be perceived as threatening. (If the police inferences of protestors being physically violent are true, I would expect them to be able to produce evidence - or do they no longer film people at protests?)

In a domestic violence situation, words and the way they are spoken are accepted as being a form of violence (something a disgraced union leader demonstrated a few weeks ago, and well called out by Rosie Batty), but that seems to be forgotten in the passion of a protest - and we are considering a protest about the extinction of human and much other life.

When trying to justify the feelings of being threatened, many people try to find physicals act to justify their feelings, but often it is just a human reaction to being on the receiving end of passion that has been perceived as human aggression (one of our greatest fears, according to Paul K Chappell). It just seems embarrassing to say "they were making scary noises", even though that may be the truth. (The Australian soldiers facing a protest in Afghanistan, on the other  hand, that is being investigated, were facing genuine physical threats.)

This, in addition to the fundamental threat to a possibly cherished perception, value, or edifice (of individuals, groups, or society) can lead to excessive responses on the part of authorities and others.

When reading about protests, I've often thought of the view attributed to Gandhi (in the film, at any rate) that the role of a civil protestor is to provoke a reaction. I don't know how disciplined the protestors organising these protests are (having heard one of them interviewed, I am inclined to consider they are well-informed, and likely to be organised and probably disciplined), but I do know Gandhi acted to stop or calm protests when things got out of hand - and he was dealing with situations where police had been killed by protestors, in one instance, and various other forms of violence.

Mt opinion is that the protestors are being effective protestors, mostly physically peaceful, but forceful - noisily so, and in a way that is being perceived as threatening on a primitive, subconscious level by those around them. That leads to any wrongdoing by the protestors to be latched on to and magnified.

On the other sides - and yes, there are multiple others: police and attendees, I'll begin with the police. (There is also the role of the neoliberal denialist dinosaurs in the Federal government, but I consider them beyond the pale.)

The police are trained, but they're trained by people who I suspect are conservative, and maybe don't know much about human emotion (although that has slowly been changing for the better in recent years). But they're also trained from the perspective of power, and to ensure that they are not overwhelmed or lose control of a situation - and I think most people would want that when police are dealing with violent criminals, police also need to understand when to change tactics, when situation are fundamentally different.

Many people tend to think police are there to enforce laws, but they're actually charged with enforcing law and order, and it is the attraction to order that (a) draws some conservative personalities, and (b) makes for a bad copper (an example of this is the officer who described peaceful but effectively disruptive Extinction Rebellion protestors a few months ago as "violent" when there was no such thing).

In the case of the current protests, the police have been using capsicum spray. I'm an asthmatic, so that is potentially fatal to me, but for many people, the physical harm done by capsicum spray probably passes quicker than having bones broken or being bruised by a baton - and it definitely passes quicker than being shot (thinking back to what happened to those protesting for India's independence). Nevertheless, using capsicum spray indiscriminately, or against journalists, is not acceptable.

The police have also been using techniques, such as swarming onto people on the ground to stop them moving, which are aimed at arresting potentially violent people in the safest way possible.

Potentially.

I think the evidence is that the police have certainly felt threatened by the protestors in this instance - and again, that threat is probably from the display of raw human emotion, rather than any overt physical act, but that can be threatening, as is illustrated by the view of such behaviour in a domestic violence situation. Their responses have, at times, been concerning - using horses is an inherently dangerous act for all involved, including the horses, and I don't doubt that the woman reported to have two broken legs will successfully sue police.

Nevertheless, a lot of their actions have been reasonable (the construction barriers - water filled plastic - were a good idea: it would have been good to see those deployed earlier, and that will provably be the case in the future).

What has not been reasonable is the anger I saw on one officer's face as he wielded his baton against protestors (his colleagues were not resorting to using batons), anger that shows he has been overcome by working under the situation of threat, despite his training, and a similar incident where a police member very forcefully (I think it qualifies as "violently") pushed a protestor who had probably been giving lip. (I've also seen one officer calming and reassuring his colleagues, keeping them under control.)

Now, I consider that we expect too much of police. I would like to see frontline police managed the way frontline soldiers are - with time rotated out of the "firing line" of crime and human suffering and occasional protests, and given far more psychological support (which would probably be resisted by the toxic masculinity and emotion-denying conservative elements that still reside in pockets of the police force). I have admired the incredible restraint shown by police and similar forces - as exemplified by the restraint that US soldiers in Iraq eventually learned to use (in response to being filmed on mobile phones), or by the soldiers in early Viêt Nàm war protests who held their ground despite women unzipping their flies - which, make no bones about it, is sexual assault (being in a protest does not justify all acts any more than wearing a blue uniform automatically reassures members of the public).

Notwithstanding that, the reality of the modern world is that all people, including police are under extreme levels of surveillance and criticism, and actions in one situation can have effects elsewhere.

The film of the officer showing anger on his face is likely to cause some people to have concerns about calling on the police, although some  conservative people may consider it "good".

In this sort of situation, it behoves police to remember that they are acting not just to enforce order in this situation, but they are also advertising their conduct to all of society, and most people are probably less conservative than they are. Closing ranks at this time is understandable, but may not be the best long term response. I'll be interested to see how the discussion on conduct goes next week, after the conference has ended.

It is worth noting that one of the ways to calm someone who is angry is to let them have their say. I recall film from some years ago of an umpire running backwards as he was followed by a player who was having an absolute rant: it worked, the player got it out of his system, and the umpire was quite rightly praised later.  This is a technique that isn't always appropriate, and it may not be a cure, but letting protestors make a lot of noise is fundamental, in my opinion.

It equally behoves the protestors to keep the same in mind, and this is where we get to the third group involved: the mining profession, and those responsible for the current climate crisis. As a group, they have been slow to respond - remember my earlier comments about cherished views, but they are also correct about people not appreciating things like the minerals that make mobile phones possible (one of the many reasons my personal mobile phone is not a so-called "smart" phone). Those counter-points are true, but they do not outweigh the seriousness of the situation in - we really are in a crisis.

So how do you get someone to change their mind about what they've cherished probably most of their life?

You have to get their attention first, and that is what these protestors have certainly done. However, you then have to change their minds, and at that point it is important to remember Gandhi's admonition "Do you fight to changes things, or to punish?"

Changing people away from cherished positions takes sustained effort, by people who those you are trying to change consider have credibility - and there are some people trying to do that from within at the conference. The effort, however, needs to go on well beyond a three day conference, and that is where I have concerns: who is going to do that? Who is going to engage with mining companies, in a long, persistent campaign, in a way aimed at trying to change their minds, after all this metaphorical "fire and fury" is gone?

The protestors - and many others - are genuinely feeling desperately afraid and powerless: anyone prepared to get a persistent email conversation underway with those whose minds need to be changed? Of course, that question equally applies to the minind industry: anyone prepared to engage in a long term dialogue?