Alleged context (feel free to correct if you have info in comments):
After Israeli Maccabi hooligans terrorized Amsterdam, the Dutch government demonized the pro-Palestine movement and banned protests. People came to protest anyways (peacefully)
The police arrested peaceful protesters and put them in a bus. They were driven to a parking lot. The police released them from the bus in a parking lot near a station.
While the protesters were walking to the station the police started hitting them. Allegedly for not moving fast enough.
So they participated in an illegal protest and then are surprised police used violence to stop it after giving warnings?
Why would violence be the appropriate / expected result in your mind?
Using violence to enforce the law and government decree is literally the job of the police.
The job of the police is to enforce law and government decree without violence. Violence is just a tool they have access to, but it doesn’t mean it should be used for every kid and granny.
That’s a silly way to word it, that normalizes violent behavior. It’s a common tactic / tool they use, but more accurately:
“enforce the law and government decree is literally the job of the police.”
Violence, at the most cynical, is a common way they do it.
In this case, (not discussing the whole bussing thing), if an arrest was required, say, for the bus damage, it should have been completed with the absolute minimum violence.
It’s not silly. It is the most reasonable lens through which to examine the citizen’s relationship with police: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence
Normalizing via speech is entrenching this very problem. I’m not saying this thread is gonna tip the scales, I’m discussing that the above commenter replied as if it’s the right response. They are condoning and almost evangelizing the topic (evangelizing is way too active a word, I can’t think of a better one, but this one is too much).
I think there’s distinction between your raising the issue that police have a monopoly on violence, and their commenting that violence is their job. Given the context, it comes off as they are saying “it is correct and GOOD that the police met this group with violence.”
I contend it is not appropriate, but accept that is is common (even systemically so)
Arresting a person in a pissed off crowd isn’t exactly easy.
What we see in the video is the end of police enforcing dispersal of the crowd. We don’t see the repeated non violent orders to disperse that preceded this.
The people in the video participated in an illegal protest and ignored repeated police orders to disperse.
As far as police violence goes, the video isn’t terrible. You even see the cop help up the guy on the ground.
I agree. This video does not depict a person being “beat up”
If Russia outlawed protests and their police came to beat up people protesting anyway, would you say the same thing? Or would you laud those protesters as heroes?
Russia is not a free and democratic country.
In this case the city of Amsterdam only made pro palestine protest illegal for a few days to protect public order after incidents of rioting. Protesting would have been fine just a few days later.
Russia is nothing like that.
So when the USA resumes conducting illegal detentions, extraordinary renditions, and mass expulsions in a few months, I guess that’s just the consequence of living in a free and democratic country, and we should just accept it.
The temporary ban on demonstrating against the governments complicity in genocide. Out of fear of extreme violence which never manifestaties.
#JustDemocracyThings.
There were several violent riots in the preceding days? First around the football match with lots of injured and then arson in a tram a day later.
Was any of those things done during an organized planned peaceful protest?
How’s that boot taste?
Says they stopped the protest and bussed them to a second area, and then beat them.
What did you think happened?
There was rioting at the second area as you know well.
“Illegal protest”
“Uhm, guys, could you please wait until the war is over to protest against genocide in Palestine? Otherwise we’ll kick your teeth in.”
When you have to work this hard to maintain your worldview, it’s not a good sign.
I believe in democracy and rule of law.
Utter non sequitur. This is something someone says to bulwark their worldview to themselves, not to convince others of the merits of their view. You’re just proving my point.
The lies we tell ourselves are not convincing to others.
lol, what a summary