In this article Tristan Ewins refutes criticisms of the “We are the 99 per cent” movement and considers tactical questions facing that movement. He also considers the implications of violent tactics on the part of police for the liberal rights of all Australians.
At the time the author began writing this article (21/10/11) police in full riot gear had smashed a peaceful protest in Melbourne that was organised in solidarity with the ‘We are the 99 per cent’ and ‘Occupy Wall St’ movements in the United States and around the world.
Peaceful protestors have been left bruised and bleeding, many suffering the effects of capsicum spray, choke-holds and pressure-point tactics.
The protestors were engaging in peaceful ‘sit-in’ tactics of the kind popularised by the anti-segregation movement in the United States in the 1960s.
And yet the Melbourne Herald-Sun (22/10/11) labelled them a “defiant mob”, and a “threat to [the] Queen’s visit”, while also claiming the brutal crackdown comprised “[the] police [taking] back OUR city”. But citizens would be better advised to consider what this precedent means for all of us – for our right of free assembly. At the time of writing apparently at least 50 protestors have also been arrested by police; but perhaps the figure is much higher.
In Australia we are supposed to be a liberal democracy. Again: this should mean we enjoy certain rights – freedom of speech, of association and of assembly.
If citizens do not have the right to freedom of assembly in a dedicated public square – then is this a violation of those same liberal rights? What would we have said 25 years ago if a similar kind of occupation was forcibly and violently dispersed in East Berlin? If people will not stand up for their rights – or are contemptuous of those who do – then they have to be prepared to lose those rights – not because this would be right, but because that is the logic of their attitude.
Right-wing critics attempt to portray the “We are the 99 per cent” movement as being hypocritical. Apparently partaking of any of the benefits of modernity makes one unqualified to criticise the excesses of capitalism – which have almost brought the United States and Europe to ruin.
If I own an I-Pod apparently I am unqualified to complain if after losing my job and my home I am thrown onto the street. Apparently I am a ‘hypocrite’ if a own a mobile phone, but being unable to afford private schooling for my children instead watch them flounder in a state system starved of funds, resources, staff and infrastructure.
In reality poverty is relative. In today’s information age internet access is crucial for the most basic social inclusion; and even for job-seekers to have the opportunity to find employment in the first place. The fallacies of the political Right, here, need to be refuted clearly and logically.
It’s important to recognise the core message of the protests also. In Australia and worldwide extreme inequality is rife.
In the US the top 1% own about 43% of all wealth and the bottom 80% have only about 7% total wealth between them. See: http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
In Australia, meanwhile, the top 20% have on average *40 times* the wealth of the bottom 20%. See: http://evatt.labor.net.au/publications/papers/226.html
read more
http://leftfocus.blogspot.com/2011/10/after-melbourne-crackdown-rebuilding-we.html
No comments yet.