Eroding our right to assemble? Police repression at the WEF protest

Off Our Backs, Mar/Apr 2002 by Killian, D

activism

Activists protested against the recent meetings of the World Economic Forum (WEF) held in New York City from January 31 to February 4. A large number of activists were arrested. These articles, written by women who attended the protests, report on the protests and discuss police actions and protest tactics.

I attended two very different protests during the WEF: a demonstration organized by UNITE! (a trade union for garment workers), supported by the local labor council and the AFL-CIO and, two days later, a demonstration organized by A.N.S.W.E.R. (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism), assisted by the International Action Center and endorsed by numerous progressive organizations. The one organized by UNITE! was single issue-sweatshop labor-and was held outside a GAP store on Fifth Avenue. The one organized by ANSWER was held at the belly of the beast, outside the Waldorf Astoria and the WEF meetings themselves, and addressed a broad range of issues. Despite these differences, both were treated the same by the NYPD: oppressively.

Unlike other actions, there were no tear gas, plastic bullets, or mass arrests. But the cops didn't need to use these tactics. In effect, the warning was already given in Seattle and Genoa. And in the weeks leading up to the WEF, New Yorkers were given several messages. For example, while leafleting to build WEF actions, I encountered hesitation. People were interested in the issue: protesting AOL Time Warner (a sponsor of the WEF) for their blacklisting authors over copyright issues.* But when people realized the protest was part of larger protests at the WEF, they were scared. "I'm angry about this, and I'll help out ... but I'm not going to the WEF" was a typical response. The Village Voice, which likes to present itself as progressive, ran a cover story featuring walls of police in riot gear herding up demonstrators. The demonstration wasn't real-this was a WEF practice session. A police official interviewed on NPR said he "hoped" there would be no violence. Before the WEF even started, New Yorkers were encouraged to stay away from a ten-block area around the Waldorf, closed to vehicle traffic. Banks and other hot spots were being patrolled by private armed guards with attack dogs. New York increasingly looked to me like scenes from a WWII film.

In some ways, such tactics are not new and are a sign of the movement's success. When citizens in this country ever start to have a real impact, be it the labor movement of the thirties, civil rights in the fifties, the antiwar movement of the seventies, or AIDS activism in the eighties, you have police beating up activists, water-gunning us down, or the army (via the National Guard) firing on innocent civilians. Since we do not have the money or connections to get our message out the way the World Bank and the police can, our bodies are the front line-and we (and the police) know it. What's changed in recent years, and culminated with the WEF protests in NY, is that the police are now restricting our very physical access to a site. They've gotten increasingly media-savvy. After 9/11 in NY, no one wanted more disruption in the streets. Rather than get violent (remember: they're the ones with guns, horses, and shields-not us), they clearly decided that those who couldn't be scared away (via media coverage and police violence at past actions) would be physically obstructed.

On the day of the UNITE! rally, every parallel block to the Fifth Avenue site was shut down. Block after block, when trying to gain access, I was told by cops that "the next street" was open-and of course it was not. At one point, me in my union cap and jacket, I told a cop I was trying to reach the AFL-CIO rally which, at that location, was clearly audible a block away. The cop told me with a straight face that he knew nothing of a rally scheduled for that day. The street was closed. Period. I didn't get into it with him, but I was tempted to ask if he needed hearing aids.

On the day of the ANSWER demo, it was even worse. Like a game of Chinese checkers, not only were parallel avenues shut down, but alternating streets. After going up several blocks on one avenue to reach a street supposedly open, when you had gone up that street to the next avenue, it was shut. The cops blocking the way directed you to street so-andso being open-which meant retracing your steps, going up more blocks, and trying another route, again and again. Those wearing business suits or uniforms and who could show identification to prove that they worked in one of the offices on the shut-off street would be allowed entry. But those clearly trying to reach the protest site-a protest arranged in advance with the police and with a legal permit-were turned away. At the site, protesters were corralled into narrow pens that scaled several blocks down from the Waldorf, making it difficult to see or hear the speakers and minimizing the number of those allowed to be seen or heard directly outside the Waldorf. While allowing the impression in the media that the turn out was low (even with a wide angle lens, it's impossible to get in one shot all the protesters present), it also fragmented demonstrators, making the heavy police presence even more intimidating because we were so isolated from one another. Even getting to a toilet was difficult (and closely supervised by police, guarding the porta-potty) and those who left to make a phone call or get something hot to drink were not allowed to return. Once a corral was considered full by the cops, it was shut off. One woman, who briefly left the protest site, was trying to get back into the same "pen" where she had left her teenage daughter. The cops were unmoved. And not only were we isolated from each other within pens, marchers from Central Park were blocked from joining protesters already at the Waldorf, as previously arranged.