"Interior Senator Grote has already warned protesters against seeking to try and block Trump's motorcade, saying nobody knows how the American Secret Service might react."
Well, I suppose if Americans even think about going wild-west and shooting up people here, our police had better be prepared to shoot at the Secret Service.
Alternatively, the Americans could let our police in on their contingency plans, so that mutually acceptable reactions to different scenarios can be developed.
I am pretty sure that the plan is to never let the protesters get even close to any Americans. That's how we handled it when I was at German military police. There would be a huge diplomatic problem if the Secret Service would do anything to Germans.
Actually, there has been a diplomatic problem lately because some of Erdogan's guards beat up on protesters near the Turkish embassy some weeks ago. The Washington, DC, police arrested some of the pro-Erdogan group, some employed by the Turkish government and some not.
The Senator told the press a few days ago that Hamburg police would not tolerate such behaviour and step in. He explicitly said that foreign security services have no sovereign rights in Germany and operate strictly in cooperation with local police.
Speak for your self. As a non American the idea of a European swat team surrounding Limousine One and arresting secret service guards would be an amazing thing to watch.
The Secret Service actually stopped Chancellor Schröder in 2005 from approaching Air Force One when the American president visited Germany, and later even made ATC delay the departure of the Chancellor's airplane, because the president's motorcade was still only a few kilometers away.
Does Germany have a concept of self-defence/defence of others as a legal right? Frankly if somebody were forcibly trying to stop my car, I would assume hostile intend and I think most people would.
In most countries, when presented with a threat, the onus is on you to retreat from it - unless you are somewhere you cannot retreat from - say, your home.
It exists, but good luck with that defense if your armed security really attacks unarmed protesters. Self-defense is to prevent immediate danger to you if nothing else works, not "I assumed hostile intent by those protesters" (and even in legitimate self-defense situations, overuse of force remains a thing, and I would hope a court would put very high standards for that against trained professionals, which would be expected to be able to evaluate the actual threat)
You have a right to defend yourself with the minimal force necessary to counter a threat to your safety. What a threat is and what "minimal force" is depends on the knowledge of a defendant: If you know martial arts or medicine you are held accountable for the results of your "self defense" according to much stricter standards than somebody who does not. Same for the evaluation of a threat: If you are trained in threat evaluation, you are expected to be much more level-headed in dangerous situations.
German police cameras have an honored tradition of always facing away at the exact moment when police violence happens, like at the 2009 "Freedom not Fear" protest in Berlin.
Should they submit to having no protection from a minority group of people who wish them harm? It really is not odd given the gravity of the event and attendees
> Should they submit to having no protection from a minority group of people who wish them harm?
Look at how Jeremy Corbyn behaved - he went right to the victims of the London blaze. Theresa May, on the other side, did not. That's the difference between a politician with a spine and a walking disgrace clothed like a politician.
And yes, both have about the same danger level - May because her politics caused that desaster in the first place and Corbyn because left-wing politicians have been murdered in UK before. So you can go directly to the population without tons of security, all it takes is guts.
I do understand what you're saying, but I don't think it is practical to ask for world leaders to drop their security detail. There will always be dissenters because you can't make everyone happy, that's nothing new. But with the risk (is it even still a risk when it's expected according to the article?) of violence breaking out, its not worth taking the chance
English is not my mother tongue, but I'm not sure 'ostensibly' as used by the parent is the point. Because there is no pretense on any side that the "leaders" represent those "people".
Definition of ostensibly
1: in an ostensible manner
2: to all outward appearances
The leaders make no appearance to represent this group. This group makes no appearance that they think they are represented by those leaders. So I'm not getting the point you've made.
For sure they don't. I don't think Mrs. Merkel makes the appearance of representing violent left-extremists. I would be interested in a quote from Mrs. Merkel to support your claim.
No it isn't. There are always going to be violent nutjobs that want to prove something by taking out the leader. Doesn't matter how "free" (whatever your definition of that is) the country is.
Like what? In Germany? Like beeing an economic power house? Or our universal healthcare? Free Education/Universities? Our extremely low level corruption? The functioning bureaucracy? Our social net of Hartz4?
Or do you mean that the world leaders talk?? Should Merkel not talk to Putin and Erdogan?
We in Germany do enjoy a quite nice life, but look over the border (e.g. Greece, or if that's too far away, Italy) and the situation looks way different.
Germany has massively risen in power, both political and economical. This is partially due to political mismanagement/corruption (esp. Eastern Europe), but a huge part of the growth of Germany results out of the loss that has been paid in poorer Europe.
And, surprise, both foreign countries and the German left do not like this.
> This is partially due to political mismanagement/corruption (esp. Eastern Europe)
That, and conflict in which aggressor aimed to physically destroy our population followed by half of century of being colony for USSR also had its part in our economies. When 90's finally came we had few people that remembered democracy and even less businesses that could kickstart our economies, only massive debts inherited from communist goverments.
I suspect that on a certain animalistic level, the "message" that the protestors want to get across (to Merkel and people at her level) is, basically: "Do what you have to do. But don't pretend to feel that there's anything dignified and civilized about it."
Violence is an incredibly legitimate way to get your voice heard. It's why the heads of state meeting at the summit will be employing it, in order to speak. How else would they be able to expel people from large portions of the city, if not through application of violence?
It's just that states only view their own use of violence as legitimate.
1. There is a difference between "application of violence" and "threat of violence". When police asks people to stay away, 90-99% are going to comply politely.
2. You make it sound like there wasn't overwhelming support for delegitimizing use of violence by any unsanctioned actor. That implicit agreement is what enables society in the first place.
>It's just that states only view their own use of violence as legitimate.
They're correct. That is the entire premise of the "monopoly on violence" which defines a state.
You can possibly argue that violence is effective, but by definition it's not legitimate, unless you choose to simply disregard the framework by which that legitimacy is conferred and substitute your own, in which case your criteria become relevant to no one but yourself.
It's certainly a consistent position. I am inclined to agree with it, even.
However, it does not follow that the state is not using violence to enable speech.
State violence is still violence. The army of riot police descending on the city is there for a reason - to suppress the rights to freedom of speech and assembly for the many.
There are always going to be violent nutjobs that want to prove something by taking out the leader.
Who are tired of being expected to keep their heads down while the violent nutjobs at the top commit global mayhem on a much, much broader scale than a few rioters could ever hope to accomplish, you mean?
No, I don't support violence, or cheer on those who do. I've also been observing the European-style "antifa" crowd and their tactics long enough to just how ironic that label can be.
But I would pretend for a nanosecond that when it comes to "nutjob violence", this is anything like a one-sided contest.
If they care so much you'd think they'd care about being effective. When was the last time the assassination of a leader of a functioning democracy changed anything for the better?
And in this case, guess what? You take out Trump and you get President Mike Pence! He's mostly been off to the side so far, so I wonder if many outside of the US have heard his name much, but he's arguably worse than Trump. Definitely a lot more religious zeal.
Whatever the crimes those at the top have committed, if they lead a functioning democracy then violent action is about the least effective option you have at removing their policies. If some people are that pissed off then they should dedicate themselves to the cause, start or volunteer for political movements, even perhaps run for office themselves. Be a political force on whatever scale they can mange for years as opposed to a violent flash in the pan for a few minutes. Attempting assassination is just a last show of selfish, pathetic despair, and only makes things worse for the rest of us.
Attempting assassination is just a last show of selfish, pathetic despair, and only makes things worse for the rest of us.
I get it, OK? As I think I've made it abundantly clear, I don't advocate (and and certainly not the least bit romantic about) the "revolutionary violence" route.
It's that this pigeonholing of street-level malefactors as "violent nutjobs", while pretending that those at the top (especially the likes of Erdogan and Putin) who stand patiently at the sidelines† while others enact "nutjob violence" on their behalf -- are to be considered as somehow in a different category than their street-level counterparts -- that I don't buy either.
† Quite literally, as we all saw in Erdogan's case a just a few weeks ago in the U.S. capitol.
Not really. All it takes is one man who wants to kill a lizard/punch a nazi or wants to make a stand and you have a dead president.
Add to that that the extreme left definitely have a segment that sees violence as justified and necessary and you have to do something. Again not all or many, but enough.
I have seen protests in Copenhagen go completely nuts.
Not from the people. From a bunch of literal violent communists/anarchists. These people would happily kill anyone who opposes them if they were to come to power, so it's only fair if the current powers that be give them a cold shoulder.
I'll be in the hood for the protests, so if anyone is interested in a HN meetup... mail's in profile.
The protests themselves... I'm not sure what to expect. The German radical left is waaaay more peaceful than in the past, and the numbers have shrunk, plus the usual leftie infighting (militance debate, the old Israel question to name the core differences), so I think the German protests will be mostly a couple ten thousand people marching, with the occasional thrown bottle or stone plus a huge load of marijuana smoking (at least it was this during the OSZE summit in late 2016).
What I can't estimate at all is the role the anarchists from Italy, Greece and France will be - they're really militant, and for the young ones, they don't have anything to lose and therefore are willing to risk much more, including a couple years in jail, for protesting against those who put them into their position.
What I'm also not sure is what the cops will do. There will be the usual battalion of "chilled cops" (Bereitschaftspolizei) who will do the major parts of policing, but fuck I'm scared of our riot cops (BFE/USK). Had my fair share of run-ins with them, and there are a LOT of them who enjoy punching and peppering left-wing demonstrators.
As a side note, if anyone not from Germany is planning to attend: avoid being near any cop with "BFE" or "USK" written on the front label or on the shoulder/arm label. They're dangerous, and even more so when they feel they've lost control. Also, there will be a huge presence of horseback police and dog units, stay away as far as possible from these. Especially horseback police are known to literally ride into assemblies of people.
I wish you the best of luck. I'll probably be on my company provided bus traveling to work eating my startup provided breakfast while watching Netflix during rush hour.
I misread the topic as "Hamburg Grids" and was expecting some kind of theoretical system for making large protests more efficient or effective or something.
Which raises the question: what significant study has been done on the most efficient and effective ways to protest? We are looking for minimum input for maximal change with built in systems to prevent rioting and protect the members of the protest from brutality (e.g. Violent counter protests, letting, etc).
not mentioned in this article: there will be a huge camp in the Stadtpark (now permitted by court verdict) and lots of events/concerts in the local clubs and on the streets
violence from protesters and the police - quite likely, but no reason to get scared, just keep your eyes open. meet interesting people from all over europe instead and protest against the ever increasing stupidity & brutality of the worlds leaders
48 comments
[ 4.8 ms ] story [ 128 ms ] threadWell, I suppose if Americans even think about going wild-west and shooting up people here, our police had better be prepared to shoot at the Secret Service.
Alternatively, the Americans could let our police in on their contingency plans, so that mutually acceptable reactions to different scenarios can be developed.
You have a right to defend yourself with the minimal force necessary to counter a threat to your safety. What a threat is and what "minimal force" is depends on the knowledge of a defendant: If you know martial arts or medicine you are held accountable for the results of your "self defense" according to much stricter standards than somebody who does not. Same for the evaluation of a threat: If you are trained in threat evaluation, you are expected to be much more level-headed in dangerous situations.
Should they submit to having no protection from a minority group of people who wish them harm? It really is not odd given the gravity of the event and attendees
Look at how Jeremy Corbyn behaved - he went right to the victims of the London blaze. Theresa May, on the other side, did not. That's the difference between a politician with a spine and a walking disgrace clothed like a politician.
And yes, both have about the same danger level - May because her politics caused that desaster in the first place and Corbyn because left-wing politicians have been murdered in UK before. So you can go directly to the population without tons of security, all it takes is guts.
I don't think extreme-left violent G20 "protesters" think they are served by those "leaders".
Germany has massively risen in power, both political and economical. This is partially due to political mismanagement/corruption (esp. Eastern Europe), but a huge part of the growth of Germany results out of the loss that has been paid in poorer Europe.
And, surprise, both foreign countries and the German left do not like this.
That, and conflict in which aggressor aimed to physically destroy our population followed by half of century of being colony for USSR also had its part in our economies. When 90's finally came we had few people that remembered democracy and even less businesses that could kickstart our economies, only massive debts inherited from communist goverments.
I suspect that on a certain animalistic level, the "message" that the protestors want to get across (to Merkel and people at her level) is, basically: "Do what you have to do. But don't pretend to feel that there's anything dignified and civilized about it."
It's just that states only view their own use of violence as legitimate.
2. You make it sound like there wasn't overwhelming support for delegitimizing use of violence by any unsanctioned actor. That implicit agreement is what enables society in the first place.
They're correct. That is the entire premise of the "monopoly on violence" which defines a state.
You can possibly argue that violence is effective, but by definition it's not legitimate, unless you choose to simply disregard the framework by which that legitimacy is conferred and substitute your own, in which case your criteria become relevant to no one but yourself.
However, it does not follow that the state is not using violence to enable speech.
State violence is still violence. The army of riot police descending on the city is there for a reason - to suppress the rights to freedom of speech and assembly for the many.
Who are tired of being expected to keep their heads down while the violent nutjobs at the top commit global mayhem on a much, much broader scale than a few rioters could ever hope to accomplish, you mean?
No, I don't support violence, or cheer on those who do. I've also been observing the European-style "antifa" crowd and their tactics long enough to just how ironic that label can be.
But I would pretend for a nanosecond that when it comes to "nutjob violence", this is anything like a one-sided contest.
And in this case, guess what? You take out Trump and you get President Mike Pence! He's mostly been off to the side so far, so I wonder if many outside of the US have heard his name much, but he's arguably worse than Trump. Definitely a lot more religious zeal.
Whatever the crimes those at the top have committed, if they lead a functioning democracy then violent action is about the least effective option you have at removing their policies. If some people are that pissed off then they should dedicate themselves to the cause, start or volunteer for political movements, even perhaps run for office themselves. Be a political force on whatever scale they can mange for years as opposed to a violent flash in the pan for a few minutes. Attempting assassination is just a last show of selfish, pathetic despair, and only makes things worse for the rest of us.
I get it, OK? As I think I've made it abundantly clear, I don't advocate (and and certainly not the least bit romantic about) the "revolutionary violence" route.
It's that this pigeonholing of street-level malefactors as "violent nutjobs", while pretending that those at the top (especially the likes of Erdogan and Putin) who stand patiently at the sidelines† while others enact "nutjob violence" on their behalf -- are to be considered as somehow in a different category than their street-level counterparts -- that I don't buy either.
† Quite literally, as we all saw in Erdogan's case a just a few weeks ago in the U.S. capitol.
Add to that that the extreme left definitely have a segment that sees violence as justified and necessary and you have to do something. Again not all or many, but enough.
I have seen protests in Copenhagen go completely nuts.
The protests themselves... I'm not sure what to expect. The German radical left is waaaay more peaceful than in the past, and the numbers have shrunk, plus the usual leftie infighting (militance debate, the old Israel question to name the core differences), so I think the German protests will be mostly a couple ten thousand people marching, with the occasional thrown bottle or stone plus a huge load of marijuana smoking (at least it was this during the OSZE summit in late 2016).
What I can't estimate at all is the role the anarchists from Italy, Greece and France will be - they're really militant, and for the young ones, they don't have anything to lose and therefore are willing to risk much more, including a couple years in jail, for protesting against those who put them into their position.
What I'm also not sure is what the cops will do. There will be the usual battalion of "chilled cops" (Bereitschaftspolizei) who will do the major parts of policing, but fuck I'm scared of our riot cops (BFE/USK). Had my fair share of run-ins with them, and there are a LOT of them who enjoy punching and peppering left-wing demonstrators.
As a side note, if anyone not from Germany is planning to attend: avoid being near any cop with "BFE" or "USK" written on the front label or on the shoulder/arm label. They're dangerous, and even more so when they feel they've lost control. Also, there will be a huge presence of horseback police and dog units, stay away as far as possible from these. Especially horseback police are known to literally ride into assemblies of people.
Which raises the question: what significant study has been done on the most efficient and effective ways to protest? We are looking for minimum input for maximal change with built in systems to prevent rioting and protect the members of the protest from brutality (e.g. Violent counter protests, letting, etc).
violence from protesters and the police - quite likely, but no reason to get scared, just keep your eyes open. meet interesting people from all over europe instead and protest against the ever increasing stupidity & brutality of the worlds leaders
lovely time to visit Hamburg!