Slog

News & Arts

Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

« Log Cabin Republicans | So, I Finally Got Around to Watchin… »

Saturday, March 24, 2012

Occupy / Economy Looks Like Occupy Chased the G8 Out of Chicago

Posted by Brendan Kiley on Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 2:58 PM

This is oldish news, but in case you hadn't heard: The G8 was supposed to meet, along with NATO, in Chicago this May. In January, Adbusters put out the call for people to amass in Chicago for an Occupy-style protest:

Against the backdrop of a global uprising that is simmering in dozens of countries and thousands of cities and towns, the G8 and NATO will hold a rare simultaneous summit in Chicago this May. The world’s military and political elites, heads of state, 7,500 officials from 80 nations, and more than 2,500 journalists will be there.

And so will we.

On May 1, 50,000 people from all over the world will flock to Chicago, set up tents, kitchens, peaceful barricades and #OCCUPYCHICAGO for a month. With a bit of luck, we’ll pull off the biggest multinational occupation of a summit meeting the world has ever seen.

A few weeks ago, the Obama Administration announced it would move the G8 meeting to the more secure location of Camp David. The White House explained that Camp David would offer a more "intimate" setting for a "free-flowing discussion"—without a backdrop of police clashes and bloody protesters and journalists.

Chicago mayor Rahm Emmanuel was reportedly surprised by—and couldn't have been very happy about—the move:

The decision came as a surprise to Mayor Rahm Emanuel, who was praising city’s plans to host the G8 summit as recently as Monday morning, when asked about downtown businesses preparing for the possibility of having to board up windows if expected G8 protests were to turn violent.

“I think this is a unique opportunity for Chicago to showcase itself to the world, and the world to see the city of Chicago. I think our police department is highly trained, very professional, with the right leadership,” he said.

If nothing else, this is a public-relations victory for Occupy. As the news stories tell it, the mere specter of its presence has forced a major international event out of a major American city and into a fortified citadel. Whatever you might think of Occupy or the G8, the news creates a mental image of worried world leaders—without a popular mandate to lead—hiding out from their pissed-off citizens.

The NATO meeting is still planned for this May, and the city of Chicago has been rejecting permits for protest marches, arguing that there aren't a “sufficient number of on-duty police officers, or other city employees authorized to regulate traffic."

FacebookShare

Comments (17) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment

Of course the global banksters are ducking Occupy.

Chicago Spring Declares G8 Move a Victory
http://truth-out.org/index.php?option=co…

Taking nearly everyone by surprise, the White House announced last Monday that the world’s economic leaders with the G8 would not be enjoying the sights and sounds of a democratic #ChicagoSpring. The announcement that the G8 would be skipping President Obama’s hometown in favor of the much more remote and secure Camp David location reveals the fears the administration has of public assembly and popular protest.

Huffington Post‘s Julie Pace reported that “security and the possibility of protests were not factors in the decision” made by the White House. Not a security concern? That is a hard pill to swallow considering the city expects to spend between $40 and $65 million to police the Chicago protests and Obama’s recent signing of HR 347, the “anti-Occupy” law officially known as the Federal Restricted Building and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011. Clearly, the administration is anticipating “security concerns” regarding the thousands of citizens nonviolently demanding more democracy, justice and peace.

Sugar Russell, an activist on the Occupy Chicago Press Committee, spoke with me via email about the Chicago Spring and the G8 move. “The location of G8,” said Russell:

will not affect our plans to voice dissent against the atrocities that G8 inflicts upon the global population. The move signifies that they are afraid of the global voices that will be gathered in Chicago and that they feel the need to hide.

More...

Posted by What Now?

on March 24, 2012 at 3:23 PM

Doesn't requiring a permit to protest violate the freedom of assembly?

Posted by Central Scrutinizer on March 24, 2012 at 3:36 PM

I don't buy it. Even before the "threat" of the occupiers, people around here were not happy about the prospect of G8. Emanuel wasn't going to take any chances. This is what happens when you have friends in the white house. This is why he was our first-round draft pick.

Posted by Lilliable on March 24, 2012 at 4:11 PM

Were they afraid another of Jennifer Pox's fetuses would make another appearance?

Posted by Jennifer Foxy on March 24, 2012 at 4:53 PM

I'm sure they were not enthusiastic for anything that could even remotely be compared to the '68 convention.

Posted by Catalina Vel-DuRay

on March 24, 2012 at 5:00 PM

This type of thing is one of the most fascinating forms of political conflict...one we see over and over...the clash of the radical left with moderate liberals.

We saw it in the 60s, and in Seattle WTC and now Occupy goes up against one of Obama's staunchest lieutenants!

It seems like the Left spends more of its energy trying to define itself versus soft bellied Liberalism than it does actually going up against the powers that be who hurt everyone! Is it because they know they can only win with their daisies in rifles approach so long as their opponent is a boo-hoo-hoo who will give in to "those kids and their good natured ideas".

Guess so.

Posted by Supreme Ruler Of The Universe

on March 24, 2012 at 5:18 PM

Making some distinction between the radical left and the merely moderate (we'll call them "liberal") left--and there is some true distinction; the groups have nothing to do with each other; the former is composed of disadvantaged minorities and many blue-collar, especially unionized workers; the latter are typically affluent, white, well-employed, property-owning, white-collar people who have historically fucked over the former group, failing to provide support when conservatives draw back the rights of said disprivileged "radicals"-- they ought to be represented by separate political parties. Democrats very infrequently legislate, at the federal level, for policies advantageous to the "radicals." Long story short, relatively affluent whites have lives too cozy to actually get up off their asses, rather than merely moan, to do something for their less affluent neighbors.

I don't even think you're a troll. You're just too stupid to know any better. But I'll forgive you; I'd never kick a dog merely because it was to stupid not to eat its own shit.

Posted by Central Scrutinizer on March 24, 2012 at 5:42 PM

it was not so much OCCUPY and more of the fact that the G8 has med serious WTO style protest everywhere it has been held for the last 20 years, hell it hasn't been held in a major city since Genoa Italy in 2001. The G8 is usually held in some rural stronghold military complex.

Posted by Cascadian Bacon on March 24, 2012 at 6:14 PM

@1 (What Now?): So, if protesters assemble outside a restricted area, refrain from disorderly or disruptive conduct, and do not impede ingress or egress to or from that area, they wouldn't be violating the law? Maybe just a few tens of thousands of unarmed people wearing t-shirts with identical messages out for a stroll along the shoulders of the route between Naval Support Facility Thurmont (Camp David) and whatever military airport they're planning to use? Yeah, I know. They'd just ferry everyone back and forth by helicopter, which they're probably going to do anyway. You know where they wouldn't have this problem? Gitmo.

Posted by PCM on March 24, 2012 at 6:42 PM

@8, yeah, G8's have always been what one alderman called "Mardi Gras for protestors". Occupy's again leaping in to claim it's all their doing.

Posted by gloomy gus on March 24, 2012 at 8:05 PM

@2

Any radical would say "yes." The U.S. courts consistently say "no."

Mind you, the constitutional right is to peaceably assemble, a phrase that definitely doesn't cover every form of "protest." There's no constitutional right to riot.

Posted by robotslave on March 24, 2012 at 8:10 PM

"is composed of disadvantaged minorities and many blue-collar, especially unionized workers"

Which explains why Occupy Seattle is 98% white kids with college degrees (you know, the 28%), one mixed race weepy trannie and Ian 'ass gerbil on his head' Finklewanker. About the lowest class person at occupy Seattle was the boil-faced, crustyJennifer Fix who turned out to be totally fucking insane, even by OS's standards.

Down at your union hall the actual union workers tried to beat down this motley crew of anarchists and radicals. Go figure.

Posted by Occupy the Recovery on March 24, 2012 at 8:19 PM

@10

To be fair, the organizers and core participants of Occupy and the organizers and core participants of the Global Justice Movement are pretty much one and the same, and the issues and rhetoric are interchangeable when they're not identical. It's entirely reasonable to view Occupy as the latest GJM action, only this time undertaken on behalf of the poor in the US, instead of those in some benighted corner of the Global South.

Posted by robotslave on March 24, 2012 at 8:27 PM

@ 12. As a matter of fact, that union-hall scrap is interesting in its causes/participants/outcomes. (I'm guessing you're talking about the fistfight about the ILWU.) Care to tell it from your perspective?

Posted by Brendan Kiley on March 24, 2012 at 9:33 PM

@14: You don't and will never know the half of it. Let's just say when a bunch of rag tag out of towners and local Trotskyists try to tell you what to do at your job, and the local anarchoMaoist-thug-security cadre tries to jump off on some shit, dockworkers don't take kindly to it. The "occupy" people were warned that this could happen months in advance, because of the tack they were taking. Like good radicals, they were not interested in advice and they reaped what they sowed.

Posted by another interested party on March 25, 2012 at 6:26 PM

"aren't a “sufficient number of on-duty police officers, or other city employees authorized to regulate traffic.""

I remember that part of the constitution "you have the right to protest only if the local governments are totally cool with it and have enough police force to successfully infiltrate and cause violence to blame on the protesters who will then only be remembered by the violence the government needed to create because wait, you had a right to protest"

Posted by watchout5

on March 25, 2012 at 11:03 PM

@4 - What you and many others seem to elide is the fact that this is less about pure politics, than it is about the influence of money and corporate power in politics. Dem or Rep, both parties are corporate lapdogs for the most part.

And the factor of money in politics would seem to be a crucial issue for ALL Americans... but rhetoric and propaganda (aka "emotionalist" issues) have been successful at dividing the populace in these global times.

Posted by treacle on March 25, 2012 at 11:33 PM