Over 1000 Illegally Assemble in Geneva, Switzerland to Protest WEF

January 31st - It was a cold and cloudy afternoon in Geneva when people began assembling on the Rue du Mont Blanc not far from the central train station. Despite a decree issued by the city council a week beforehand banning the protest, between 1000 and 2000 activists showed up nevertheless to express their opposition to the World Economic Forum, symbol of capitalism and corporate globalization, currently being held in the ski resort town of Davos.

Fearing a renewal of the riots and sabotage that had afflicted the city’s commercial district during the 2003 protests against the G8, the Geneva general council, in addition to declaring the protest illegal, had also called in a massive number of police officers, including agents from neighboring France and Germany, to monitor the city centre and train station as well as incoming trains. In spite of these intimidation tactics, including I.D. checks, searches, and even preventative arrests of suspicious persons, by 2pm a significant crowd of well over a thousand had already assembled. The crowd itself was fairly diverse, comprising a good balance of both young and old, with significant number of labor unionists, Marxists, and anarchists being distinguishable. Although it was not the 5000 predicted by some local newspapers, the atmosphere was still both festive and radical.

After an hour or so of speeches by several labor and community organizers, including one former city councilman who described the WEF summit as “ball of capitalist vampires” to great applause, organizers proceeded to enter into discussions with the chief of police in hopes of renewing their request for permission to march along a proposed route.
The police, who had declared themselves tolerant of the assembly as long as it remained where it was, refused permission, although they did agree to release those who had already been arrested while on route to the protest.

Following this, organizers showed themselves to be split over which course of action to follow next, with some calling for a dispersal of the crowd while others called for people to march anyway. After about 20 minutes of indecision, it was ultimately the crowd itself which took the initiative as it began to slowly make its way along the route initially planned. By this time, a fairly large black block of about 250, possibly more, had emerged from the midst of the crowd and made their way to the front of the march. Several chants could be heard, including “Police Partout, Justice Nul Part” (Police everywhere, Justice Nowhere) and “One Solution: Revolution!” A surge of excitement and anticipation could be felt as protestors approached a line of cops in riot gear who stood blocking the way, a mere 50 meters from where the march had started. As we stood off face to face, a dozen or so demonstrators began to taunt police and throw beer bottles.

As the crowd moved even closer, police (who had until this point showed themselves restrained) suddenly drew their batons and began beating people back; two concussion grenades were also tossed. We managed to stand our ground and began to march back. The response this time was tear gas, which succeeded in dispersing everyone for awhile. After this, the majority of the older folks left, leaving the streets to the younger and more militant groups, who proceeded to reassemble in small cluster. From here militants began playing games of cat and mouse with the cops, spreading themselves throughout the city center. Police used primarily tear gas as well as water canons in their attempts to disperse protestors, although there have been several reports of hand to hand confrontations as well.

It was only 3 hours later that the last of the militants were either dispersed or arrested, allowing calm to return to the city. Surprisingly and to the movement’s credit, not a single storefront or car was destroyed in the entire time despite ample opportunities, as black blockers made it clear that their fight was with the cops. Although this fact probably won’t manage to improve our image in the eyes of the local populace, it did succeed in countering the arguments of those who had predicted that the people who would attend the protest would do so only for the sake of inciting vandalism. The 3 hours of unrest did manage to temporarily disrupt business as usual downtown, with most of the public transportation being suspended, as well as forcing many stores to close early. No injuries have been reported on either side, although one woman unaffiliated with the demonstration was apparently taken to the hospital after inhaling too much gas.

At the end of the day, 130 people were arrested, all of which have been released except 4 who will probably have to stand trial for “disturbing the peace.” An action will most likely be planned sometime in the following week in solidarity with these 4.

Inspiration

Scanned from "Making Stuff & Doing Things: A DIY Guide" published by Microcosm Publishing

Don't (Just) Vote

There's a saying I hear from time to time that goes something like "If voting changed anything, it would be illegal". Whether that's true or not can be debatable, but one thing at least is certain: the American democratic process has failed. I don't mean to say that it is not actually working, because it is. The question is: who is it working for?
If you ask the average American, they will most likely answer "why, the American people of course!" A quick look at reality, however, will prove this notion to be false.
The truth is that politics in America have come to revolve around the interests of a select minority, the rich. It is the corporations and wealthy elite who finance and publicise the two primary candidates who ultimately dictate their policies. This is why even though candidates may advocate a national health care system or stricter policies to curb climate change, these none of these will likely ever be put in place because, although they may be in the best interests of the average American, they are not in the best interests of those who control America's wealth.
With this in mind, it seems to me that every time an election swings around, Americans are ultimately always led into choosing "the lesser of two evils" rather than a candidate who actually represents their interests. It should be obvious that any democratic system that functions this way is not a democracy, it is a joke. However, this joke has some very severe repercussions for the lives and futures of not only Americans, but almost everyone else on the planet as well.
There are many reasons as to how this state of affairs came to be and why so many people continue to be fooled each time into believing that the candidate they elect this year is finally going to be the one who solves all their problems (take the current situation with Obama for example). I believe the main reason for this, however, is that Americans have been pacified and subdued into accepting the way things are and accepting that the only say they have in political and social affairs is one measly vote.
A true democracy, one that is "for the people, by the people", does not mean voting every four years. A true democracy means EVERYONE is involved in the decision making process. It means people asserting their rights and saying what needs to be said. A true democracy requires people to be active participants in the system and, when necessary, to challenge the system when it begins to stray from its founding principles.
Whether or not the current political machine is too broken to be fixed is again debatable. However, I believe that at present it is crucial that the governed in America, as well as the rest of the world, stand up and remind our so called leaders who really is in charge. We must remind them that it is our livelihoods and the lives of our children they are messing with. We must remind them that America does not mean a handful of wealthy elites who are solely interested in making a profit but a nation of students, workers, teachers, artists, athletes, soldiers, farmers, bakers, lawyers, and clerks, most of whom want nothing more than food to eat, a warm place to sleep, a family to love, and air they can breathe. We must let them know that, as our elected representatives, they have a responsibility towards their electors to fulfil the task they have been given – in other words, to ensure that everyone is provided with their basic needs - because if they don't, the alternative can only be revolution.

Crashing the Party

With just 2 days left until the ballots are cast for the next president of the united states, the names Obama and McCain are all over the TV, in the newspapers, and on the tip of every pundit’s tongue. Will the Democrats be victorious, or will the Republicans manage to pull into the lead? With all the hype and obsession over these two and their VPs, its easy to forget that they are not the only ones running. In fact, many people are not even aware of the fact that there are other candidates. No not, just Ralph Nader, but also Cynthia Mckinney for the Green Party, Chuck Baldwin for the Constitution Party, Bob Barr for the Libertarian Party and many others. True, they have no chance in hell of winning the election. Even the most popular of these candidates, Ralph Nader, has only 2% of the vote according to polls. We have a tendency to dismiss these third party candidates and independents as extremist wackos, but where does this idea come from? In many, in fact, most other democratic nations there are more than two parties, and we don’t think they’re all psychos. Is the reason McCain and Obama are treated as the only candidates really because they are so much more credible? The reality is that the other parties just plain don’t have enough money to keep up with the Republicans’ and Democrats’ exorbitant spending over the impossibly long 2 year campaign. And why are they so poorly funded? When was the last time you heard any of the candidates in this article other than Barack Obama or John McCain mentioned on CNN or Fox News? With the exception of the odd derisive comment thrown in about Nader, the major news channels completely ignore the existence of any other candidates, making it impossible for them to disseminate their message.

One often hears complaints from democrats of how Nader cost Al Gore victory in Florida, causing him to lose the 2000 election, but this is of course nonsense. True, if everyone who voted for Nader had cast their ballot for Gore, then it may have made the difference between a Republican and a democratic victory, just as it also would have made a difference if some of those pesky Bush supporters had voted for Gore instead. But the point is that they didn't, and such accusations make the assumption that those who supported Nader agreed with what Gore had to say and would just as happily have voted for him. The Progressive Review, an online news publication showed in a study that in other states, there was in fact no correlation between the number of votes for Nader and those for Gore, proving that a vote for Nader was not necessarily stolen from democrats. Those who voted for Nader in 2004 did so because of their lack of faith in either of the ‘approved’ candidates, and had just as much of a right to cast their ballot for Ralph Nader (or any other independent candidate for that matter) as Republicans did to cast their vote for Bush.

This idea that third parties are somehow not legitimate is deeply entrenched in the American election process. The monopoly that the Republicans and Democrats have over the elections allows them make it impossible for a third party to have chance of getting elected. One example of this is the purposely obstructive laws and regulations third parties must deal with in order to just get their names on the ballots on election day, not to mention the direct interference from Republicans and Democrats. In Arizona, a state party chairman has actually hired an entire team of lawyers, for the sole purpose of making sure that Ralph Nader's name does not end up on the state's ballots on Tuesday. This kind of sabotage is shocking, yet surprisingly frequently employed against third parties and independents. The truth is that in spite of everything we are told about Democracy in the United States, it is not a fair race. How can we pretend that these two parties (who, all things are considered, are not so different) represent the beliefs of all Americans? In the last elections, only 60.7% of the population voted - and that was the highest voter turnout since 1968! If people don't vote for third party candidates, it certainly isn’t because they’re completely contented with the candidates presented to them by the republican and democratic parties, but it is because they don’t know about all of their options, and don’t have confidence in the ‘little guy’s ability to win. The main obstacle keeping third party candidates and independents from having a chance of winning the election is simply the common belief that they don’t have a chance. So, while voting for a third party candidate may not result in their victory on election day, it is not, as some would have you believe, a wasted vote. A wasted vote is not a vote for someone who doesn’t win, but it is a vote for someone who doesn’t represent you and your beliefs.

The Shurethings - Live 18/09/08 - REVIEW

It was a quite a sight to squeeze into a crowded Artist’s pub on the evening of Thursday 18th and see Phil Shaw rocking out on stage to old classic rock and blues hits. Backed up by 3 high school students on bass, drums, and guitar, the CDL English professor tore through such classics as “Suzy Q”, “Little Wing’”, and “Take me to the River”.
Beginning at around 7:30, The Shurethings - comprised of Phil on voice, rhythm guitar, and keyboards, Ludo D. on Bass, Arno S. on drums, and Nishant C. on lead guitar - kicked off the show with a cover of The Rolling Stone’s “Sympathy for the Devil”. Following that came several well recognized tunes, with the band covering a number of different artists including The Beatles, CCR, and Chuck Berry, not to mention playing a couple originals as well, getting several members of the audience (which numbered between 40 and 50) to start boogying in the process. The band finished their first set with a terrific rendition of “Sweet Home Alabama” which included the added treat of having Mr. Maguire dance and sing along on stage to the cheers of an enthusiastic crowd.
Concerning sound quality, the Shurethings performed the songs well and without error, which isn’t surprising considering all 3 instrumentalists have over 3 years each of experience under their belts. What was particularly nice about the evening was the sight of seeing some of the students and teachers mingle together, a nice break from the traditional relationships we experience in school. The show lasted until around 10, where the band finished off with a sweet version of “Twist and Shout” to a packed house.
Overall, it was a great evening and surely one to be remembered by all who attended. Considering the current hiatus of most of CDL’s musical projects, it was nice to have something going on (even if it wasn’t on campus) and we can only hope that many more of these types of events will occur throughout the year. As for The Surethings, be sure to keep an eye out for their next performance, especially if you missed this last one, as it is guaranteed that they will get your socks shaking.