Observe the purple-headed woman in the screenshot above. She has her back partially turned to the Victorian Police officer who is raising his left arm (centre of the image). Indeed, the police are pushing her and other protesters away. She isn’t threatening anybody, least of all the officer himself. Note the fist. Go here to see the whole event developing (as the screenshot shows, a slow motion repeat starts at about 0:16-0:17).
According to the ABC News’ James Oaten, Victorian Police calls that a “palm strike”. Oaten adds that such technique is “used to move on protesters and to prevent them from being able to assault an officer” and quotes from a police statement: “This is a commonly applied clearance move in dynamic public order scenarios which is designed to create distance from police … so that both police and protesters can be protected from further violence.”
I am not imaginative enough, for I can’t imagine that woman assaulting the officer; what I am absolutely certain is that that commonly applied clearance move wasn’t used to protect her.
Indeed, as harmless as police and Oaten describe that technique, I would advise readers not to apply it, even with your hands ostensibly open (unlike in this case), on a police officer: chances are readers would be charged with assault (an offence) on a police officer (an aggravating circumstance).
There is an asymmetry in the situation, clearly.
----------
By way of comparison, two Afghan women were recently harassed, threatened, and bullied by two NSW Police Force officers. A video of the event emerged.
If readers watch the video, they’ll realise that, as reprehensible as the officers’ behaviour was, at no moment they laid their hands on the women: not to push them, let alone to slap or punch them. And yet, understandably calls are being made for their dismissal.
More tellingly, the NSW Police Force are not justifying their behaviour.
I suggest that comparison tells something about protests in Australia.
----------
In Australia weapons laws differ from State to State, but are restrictive without exception. Law enforcement and the military excluded, and as a general rule, fire arms are forbidden (partial exceptions are made for some private security officers, sport shooters, and hunters). But beyond fire arms, a wide variety of weapons, ranging from slingshots to swords, and from automatic knives to batons are also generally unlawful. Indeed, even strictly defensive weapons, like pepper sprays and tasers and bullet-proof vests, are also unlawful for civilian, personal use.
A personal anecdote illustrates an attitude towards weapons not uncommon in Australia. A customer once asked my help to unwrap a cardboard box. To that end, I produced a little multi-tool, part of a key-ring. It had a pocketknife, its blade 4 cm long, 5 mm at its widest (yes, you read that right: 4 cm x 5 mm). The customer, oblivious to the size of the knife and to the fact he asked for my help, and ignorant of the difference between a flicker knife and a tiny foldable knife -- in essence a scaled-down version of the Swiss Army knife boy scouts all over the world use -- horrifiedly mumbled “but … but … that’s a weapon”.
The point is that, in Australia, if at all allowed, weapons are meant to be used very carefully because Australians go beyond a rational fear of fire arms to an irrational fear of all weapons or even something vaguely resembling a weapon. Moreover, whether using weapons or not, in Australia self defence is strictly constrained by the principle of proportional force: one is only allowed to deploy force enough to deter a threat.
Law enforcement is not exempted from that.
 |
| (source) |
This second screenshot shows the moment a female protester climbs down from a column at the Melbourne Exhibition and Convention Centre (go here to see the event developing). Can anyone other than spokespeople for the Victorian Police and Daniel Andrews say the Victorian Police acted within the limits provided by the principle of proportional force?
----------
It should go without saying that spitting and pushing attendants to the conference is an offence and those protesters who did that are tarnishing all protesters’ image and risking a criminal charge themselves. But we are really fucked, if people like the ABC’s Andrew Probyn and Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews can’t see the difference between that and this:
 |
| Daniel Andrews: “I think police have done an outstanding job.” Female protester hospitalised after being trampled by police horse. (source) |
To justify brutality by heavily armed police officers on account of assholism by unarmed protesters borders itself on criminality. After all, everybody rightly condemned Donald Trump for his “both sides” comment after Charlottesville.
History will hold all of you to account.
No comments:
Post a Comment