Danish police abuse climate-change demonstrators

Zoran sez, "Earlier this week (12th Dec), a massive, peaceful protest of 100,000 people -- the largest demonstration for climate justice in world history -- was met with a heavy-handed response by the Danish police. Thousands of riot police swarmed the march route, blocked off streets surrounding large groups of protestors, and arrested almost 1,000 people. Arrestees were cuffed and forced to sit in rows for hours, as the temperatures dipped below freezing; numerous people urinated on themselves after being denied use of toilets."
Of course, these protests are being motivated by frustration at the incredibly weak results of the COP-15 negotiations. Last week, a closed-room group of delegates from Global North countries shocked Global South delegates and climate justice activists by pushing for a secretly-negotiated "deal" that would allow global temperatures to be allowed to rise by another 2 degrees Celsius - over the vehement protests of delegates from Africa and small island countries, argue that any increase larger than 1 degree will devastate and - in some instances - literally flood them. Then, in the past two days, the negotiations on a deal on REDD (reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation) - which are being touted as the "success" of Copenhagen - have degenerated into an incredibly weak potential deal, in which immediate targets for deforestation limits would be dropped and no financial commitments from Global North countries would be made. These failings on the part of negotiators from the Global North have been met with protests - both planned and spontaneous - by youth activists as well as delegates from the Global South.
Crackdown in Copenhagen (Thanks, Zoran!)


  1. I think this a rather one-sided approach. I believe that some overstepping occurs, but most of the arrestees were just Black Bloc members, rioting and trashing the streets just for the fun of it. This article makes it seem as Danish police arrested thousands of innocent people…

    1. Justice – particularly social justice – as it relates to the problem of climate change. Usually implies the principle of “the polluter pays”, meaning that the countries overwhelmingly responsible for and benefiting from carbon emissions historically should have a proportionately large share of the responsibility for mitigating climate change.

  2. It’s easy for me to say this, of course, from the comfort of my chair in Manchester. But it looks to me as if the more people the Danish police arrest the stupider they look and the bigger point the protesters are going to make.

    Sooner or later they will run out of room to put the people that they arrest.

    I think the protesters win either way — although whether they will have any effect on climate change policy is another thing altogether.

  3. “a secretly-negotiated “deal” that would allow global temperatures to be allowed to rise by another 2 degrees Celsius”

    Seriously? How would that be measured exactly? Over what span of time? And like Moriarty said…”climate justice”???

    Sounds like a bunch of bullocks to me.

    1. I don’t know the exact methodology, but I suspect global temperature is measured by basically averaging together data collected all over the globe. We’ve gathered global temperature data plenty of years past, I don’t see what’s so outrageous about that.

      I also don’t know over what time frame the US/EU deal allows the temperature to rise by 2 Celsius, but I don’t see why that matters much. Either the temperature rises or it doesn’t. If it rises, ice melts and we have a rotten time. If it doesn’t, it doesn’t.

      If you want to be more specific about your complaints or questions about the term “climate justice”, it might be possible to have a discussion about it.

  4. the danish police did not arrested 1000 they ended up only arresting 15 people,

    what they did was remove 1000 people from the demonstration by using a new law created just for the cop15 event, keeping them for 6 to 12 hours with out pressing any charges

    additionally it’s illegal to demonstrate while wearing a mask in Denmark and a large group of the 1000 was wearing masks.

    1. So these people were cuffed and forced to sit in rows, but they weren’t arrested?

      And this makes it better how, exactly?

    2. The Daily Telegraph — which, like most MSM, mangles the story more often than not, so take it for what it’s worth — did in fact say that they were arrested. Pre-emptively arrested, to be exact.

      They also described the protesters as anarchists, which seems odd to me because anarchists do not usually agitate for more laws.

      Links to commentary and the original Telegraph article.

      1. “They also described the protesters as anarchists, which seems odd to me because anarchists do not usually agitate for more laws.”

        While anarchists are generally opposed to government and the existence of a ruling class, they are not necessarily opposed to the rule of law. Moreover, while most anarchists would probably ideally prefer to have the problem of climate change solved by bottom-up community control of all industry, I think a lot of them (like everyone else) are prepared to compromise on things like “the use of laws” in the short term in order to avoid a mass worldwide die-off of poor people. Being an idealist doesn’t necessarily mean being blindly unyielding.

  5. Ah, I see. Well, as my fourth grade teacher used to say, are you going to fix the blame, or fix the mistake? I should think the focus would be on effectively mitigating climate change, not punishing people whose ancestors got on board the industrial revolution early.

    As for “social justice,” that term always seemed to me to mean whatever the speaker wants it to mean, so that’s not all that illuminating.

    1. Well, the problem with a lot of the current climate change negotiations is that a LOT of resources are needed to fix the problem. Money, expertise, industrial infrastructure, etc. All of these things happen to be controlled overwhelmingly by industrialized high carbon-emitting nations. So it makes sense from both a utilitarian and a moral perspective to demand that these countries bear the most burden of mitigating climate change. They’re the ones with the tools to fix it – and on top of that, one of the big reasons they have those tools in the first place is how much carbon they’ve emitted.

      Fixing the problem and fixing the blame are the same right now, because the nations with the power to fix the problem are ducking the blame to avoid having to act.

      1. zikzak replied to comment from Moriarty | #10 | 06:45 on Wed, Dec.16:


        From my perspective (sitting before my coal-fired first-world computer with an African child’s worth of extra weight around my middle) the actual problem is that the issues of fixing blame and settling costs are rapidly reduced to a simple transfer of wealth from developed to developing nations. This will not solve the problem.

        The amount of bureaucratic overhead, corruption, graft, and outright theft inherent in foreign aid distribution means that redistributing hundreds of billions of dollars is just about the least effective way to accomplish anything. The support should be given solely in terms of expertise and industrial infrastructure: knowledge transfer, not wealth transfer.

        As an example: say your small African nation runs off of a handful of decaying coal-fired plants. Half of them need to be replaced outright. The other half can be retrofitted with scrubbers. Instead of getting handed a billion dollars, of which a significant percentage will line the pockets of the same people who let hundreds of tons of WFP food shipments rot on your docks, along with the petty officials, clerks, and rubber-stampers who get involved with every construction project. Sorry! No piles of cash for you.

        Instead: a crack multinational climate engineering team shows up. Employing and training local labor, they retrofit some of the plants with CO2 capture scrubbers. They demolish and clean up the plants that can’t be salvaged, and replace them with equivalent solar plants, because your sub-Saharan country has fabulous sun exposure. Why not go all solar? A) lower immediate costs B) if you stop buying coal from the country next door, what little economy they have left will tank. Maybe later, but not now.

        This same climate engineering team trains up a local workforce that is responsible for maintaining the power plants and (more importantly) wiring the country up to those plants. But here’s the thing: their paychecks come from the international climate engineering consortium, not from the your government. All the consortium does is build things and teach people how to maintain the things it built.

        If things go well, after a few years the engineering team comes back and builds you a factory that makes CO2 abatement systems and reactor vessels for nuclear power plants. These abatement systems and vessels are used by the team for projects in the countries along your borders.

        And so on.

        What do we have instead? A cap and trade shell game with Russia sitting on billions in unused Kyoto carbon credits, the sale of which will accomplish exactly nothing for the troposphere. A “Copenhagen launch fund” that would deliver funds to poorer states on a “payment by results system.” Countries that showed they were taking action to halt climate change would receive more cash. Which means verification, bureaucracies…you know, the stuff that worked so very well with Iran’s nuclear program and Iraq’s UN obligations. (Remember Oil-for-food?) The only thing that model provides is ample opportunity for corruption and near-certain failure.

        Call me an arrogant first world imperialist if you want, but to hell with “payment by results.” If this is truly about worldwide climate change, it trumps a bit of sovereignty. If this is truly an emergency situation, rapidity and effectiveness of action is paramount.

        Everything I’m hearing from Copenhagen, however, tells me that people are treating this like a post-colonial shakedown.

        Money will not reduce emissions. Technology will. You’re right–the First World does have the tools. Let’s use them.


        Of course, we can’t manage to do that on our own shores, so why the hell do I think we’ll be able to do it elsewhere?

        1. Instead: a crack multinational climate engineering team shows up. Employing and training local labor, they retrofit some of the plants with CO2 capture scrubbers.

          That’s a great idea, and I think that many developing nations are looking for exactly that kind of assistance. However, I think your perspective in general is pretty skewed in that you see corruption as something that only happens in Africa. First of all, not all developing nations are as corrupt as you characterize them. Secondly, there is another type of very pernicious corruption that’s been shown to happen when western powers like the US get to control “development aid”. They skew the aid towards employing American workers, depending on American products, and toward making economic conditions favorable for American business – all at the expense of actual efficiency and sustainability. This can be seen in the World Bank/IMF model of third world development, and it has the potential to cause just as much economic devastation as climate change.

          That’s not to say it’s impossible to provide assistance in the form of labor, expertise, and equipment. But one has to be very very careful about who controls it and how it’s being used.

          Beyond that, such an “international climate engineering consortium” would require huge sums of money to operate. Who’s going to pay for it? That’s one of the major points of negotiation on the table in Copenhagen. The developed world – most egregiously the US – is offering up a laughably small amount of money to fund these kinds of efforts. Nobody’s expecting a direct transfer of wealth in the form of, say, the US giving Sudan tons of cash. But the agreement will involve a transfer of wealth from rich to poor nations in the form of development and practical assistance in mitigating climate change. This is the only possible solution, because poor nations don’t have the resources to do it on their own. If you really want to talk pragmatism, you should accept the need for wealth transfer.

          1. Corruption is everywhere, and I didn’t say otherwise. My hypothetical African nation is just an egregious example, as is the UN. And obviously if I’m suggesting building power plants and creating an international climate engineering consortium, I am not assuming that they’ll be funded by pixie dust. Finally, the emphasis in international climate engineering consortium is on international. It is the nature of the wealth being transferred that’s at issue, not the transfer itself.

            My concern is that Gordon Brown’s proposed “Copenhagen launch fund” and the $100 billion IMF-based “climate fund” suggested by George Soros are exactly what you’re saying nobody’s expecting: huge piles of UN-administered cash.

            Maybe I’m just being naive, and there’s no other way because the world’s political class isn’t clever enough or hasn’t got enough will to do anything else.

  6. If temperatures dropped below freezing then you can’t really say that global warming is an issue.

    I kid. I kid.

  7. To be fair to the Danish authorities, they have had quite a lot of experience recently with militant elements wanting to turn demonstrations from protests to takeovers in an almost urban guerilla or ‘alternate government’ fashion. As is stated in the newspaper link above, some protesters do desire to occupy the conference and turn it into their forum. I am not sure if the majority of of us desire to see scientists and politicians attacked by masked protesters, either.

    That having been said, there is apparently quite a lot of debate in Denmark (I am not Danish, by the way, but I live in another Scandinavian country) about the recent powers given to the police in what is popularly called “lømmelparagrafen” (might perhaps be translated as the lout section), in (or so I gather) the Danish Penal Code and that these powers might be too general or too wide.

    1. “I am not sure if the majority of of us desire to see scientists and politicians attacked by masked protesters, either.”

      Well… not attacked, no. But maybe they could give them signs with neoconservative slogans and the politicians could protest against us for a change.

  8. This is, alas, totally IN character for the police in our increasingly Fascist country.

    Some weeks ago, The Guardian published a letter I wrote warning about this very thing, which may be read here:


    Alas, they abbreviated it almost away.

    What I wrote to them is this:


    On November 23, the Danish Ambassador to Britain declared (”We’ll protect protest in Copenhagen“) that the Danish government has no intention to ban or suppress peaceful protest and the new “anti-riot” legislation introduced for the climate conference in Copenhagen will only target violent protesters.

    While the Ambassador obviously has to defend the government he is
    representing, his remarks are disingenuous.

    The new law will (as reported on November 26, “Denmark approves new police powers ahead of Copenhagen“) impose a mandatory minimum sentence of 40 days in prison for anyone charged with “obstructing police work”.

    It will also impose a minimum fine of about £500 for anyone charged with “disorderly conduct” or for not leaving immediately after a demonstration has been broken up.

    These regulations effectively criminalise a wide variety of peaceful protest and anyone participating in a demonstration. In Denmark, all kinds of peaceful civil disobedience are now punishable with 40 days of prison – and this is only the last of a long list of totalitarian and xenophobic measures which are seriously undermining democracy and freedom in Denmark.

    Visiting activists are likely to learn about this the hard way when they are imprisoned or fined for peaceful dissent which should be legal in any civilised country.


    So they’re holding the summit in an increasingly racist country which is getting to be about as “dissent-friendly” as Qatar.

    People who wish to get an idea about conditions in Denmark could do worse than check out this blog:


    It’s written by an angry expat who think he needs to tell the world about the levels of xenophobia my country is reaching. And he should.

  9. I don’t get it.

    It seems to me that this is the continuation of a trend started a few years ago wherein police all over the world are doing everything they can to make protest difficult and dangerous.

    They funnel protesters into confined areas and hold them there, arrest people for the crime of standing around, set up checkpoints and subject people to abusive searches, and purposely try to incite rioting in otherwise peaceful gatherings.

    As I said, I don’t get it. The widespread protests of 2003 during the planning stages of the Iraqi war proved that protest is, as a tool, completely useless. The first wave of protests in the civil rights / vietnam era had an impact: thousands of people gathering and expressing their discontent scared politicians, defined an era, and at least where civil rights are concerned, made a difference.

    Since then a very important lesson has been learned: you, as the political force in power, can completely ignore the masses assembled in your public squares. Just pretend they aren’t even there and go about your business: after a day of standing around and listening to speeches, they’ll go home tired and resign themselves to occasionally whine on the internet while you put in double time on your invasion plans.

    So, given that protest is utterly useless, why are we seeing unprecedented (at least in recent memory) belligerence from the police? One argument is that the people in power still harbor an irrational fear of protest. I don’t buy that. In my opinion, unsubstantiated though it may be, this is a case of unchecked police power run amok.

    A protest is a chance for police to stop issuing traffic citations and go back to doing what they love: beating down those no-good peaceniks and hippies. The order from higher up probably isn’t “harass and detain people to discourage protest” but rather “do as you like, have some fun: nobody gives a shit about these whiny little pansies anyway.”

    Protest today serves as little more than a convenient gathering of unarmed pacifists to beat on and arrest for the sheer joy of it.

    1. “The first wave of protests in the civil rights / vietnam era had an impact”

      a) big political protest rallies weren’t invented in the 1960s

      b) lots of people said the protests of the 1960s were as useless as recent demonstrations against the Iraq War, lack of climate change plans, etc. The Vietnam War continued despite the protests. Civil Rights movement fought alot of their battles in the courts.

      1. Kent State made quite an impact…

        4 dead in Ohio…

        that was right at the end of the 60’s technically

        mid 1970… sure made me sit up and start watching what was happening…

        the Watts riots were reported over this side of the pond as well and I’m pretty sure they had an impact

        along with Martin Luther King’s peaceful protest in Washington DC. The “I have a Dream” speech…

  10. Someone wrote above that the new law is only for the duration of COP15. This is completely false. There is no expiry date to the new and expanded powers the police have been granted (arbitrary detaining people and so on).

  11. May as well re-purpose Shakespeare in this context:

    “This most excellent canopy the air, look you, this majestical roof fretted with golden fire, seems to me no more than a foul and pestilent congregation of vapors.”

    The usurped Danish Prince speaks truth!

  12. If people come out to peacefully express their grievances and are greeted with intimidation, repression and brutality, they figure they’ve fought the good fight and stood up for their ideals as much as could be expected. They go home quietly and try to avoid getting in any more conflict with the authorities.

    They may be pissed off when they realize that they’ve been completely ignored by the people in power, but it seems to the protesters that they’ve already tried all options reasonably available to them to object, including getting physically attacked and jailed. Ah well, at least they tried.

    But if people come out to express their grievances and are allowed to do their thing unhindered, those people start feeling powerful. They start feeling like they actually have a right to express dissent, and that there are a lot of other people who feel the same. They start feeling that they don’t have to be afraid of criticizing the government, and maybe even that the government should actually be afraid of their criticism.

    They go home quietly too. But later, when they realize they’ve been completely ignored by their supposed representatives, their reaction is quite different.

  13. I know you go on to explain it in the article, but perhaps “climate-change demonstrators” in the title is a little misleading.

  14. i disagree that protests are completely useless. example: last december Sarcozy backpedaled his projects fearing that the Greek protests could spread.


    it is a matter of time before protesters coordinate all over Europe. and i believe that when this happens they will start listening.

    also governments already see the risk and that’s why are passing all these “anti-terrorism” laws. these laws are there to protect the Elites against the people not the people against phantomatic terrorists

  15. We have a few writers in Copenhagen now and Alex wrote about this event, the arrests and tried to add some context to the media coverage. You can find that here: http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/12/how-historys-biggest-climate-change-march-almost-got-lost.php

    Our slideshow of photos from this event is here: http://www.treehugger.com/galleries/2009/12/worlds-largest-climate-change-demonstration-in-pictures.php

    While we certainly don’t like that so many were detained, we think the big story is how many people peacefully gathered to bring attention to climate change issues.


  16. All for naught, in my opinion. If humans are significantly contributing to a global warming trend, we’re not going to stop it short of mass-scale, dramatic regulations that would completely change or cripple the economies of every nation in the world (for example, building one new nuclear power plant somewhere in the world each and every day, among other things), or we’re not significantly contributing to a warming trend and there’s approximately jack we can do about it then anyway.

    Either the warming stops on its own and everyone’s ok, or a lot of people get screwed. I’m all for cleaning up our act, but let’s not get carried away with the fantasy that we really know what’s going on or have any real power over it.

  17. “…numerous people urinated on themselves after being denied use of toilets.”

    Well, obviously I’m just a dick, but in such circumstances I prefer to urinate on other people.

  18. I hate to admit, but I looked at that picture of all those protesters sitting peacefully in neat lines and thought

    Civil disobedience – You’re doing it wrong.

    1. They’re handcuffed, in strips.

      To be fair, British journalist Emily Apple, who was among those arrested, makes the same point in the Guardian:


      Mass repression requires mass resistance and we have to be able to say no when dealing with large policing operations such as this. Many people understandably looked terrified, and for a large number, it was the first time they had been arrested. However, arrests on this scale required co-operation from arrestees – people were not actually physically forced to sit in lines, they could have moved.

      Unfortunately, we are too often the agents of our own repression. The culture of obedience and fear of reprisals is often too much for people to challenge. However, the rewards and sense of empowerment that come from refusing to co-operate far outweigh any consequences.

  19. The phrase “climate justice” is used to significate two things:

    1. Most of the actions proposed at the meeting to stop the climate change happens in a far away future when the people responsible for the problem are long dead. The protesters is mostly young people who want to see action now, when the guilty parties is still alive and have to share the burden and not later when the problem have grown even more and all of the politicians and other people in power who is at the meeting and is the direct cause of the situation is long dead or very old (Obamah would be in his mid-eighties before any serious action is taken and he’s one of the younger people at the meeting).

    2. USA and to a lesser extent the rest of the industrial world should take on most of the costs and responsibilities. USA should take most of the burden since that nation almost single-handedly have created the situation. (Yeah, you suck ;-)

    I’m not one of the activists at this meeting and I’m not as hard in my judgement of the guilty (propably because I have been protesting about this for more than 20 years and is just content that something finally happens). As I understand Danish and a few other languages I know what’s missing in the English language media coverage (quite a lot as usual, it should be everybodies civic duty to learn at least a few languages and follow media from different parts of the world, nobody tell exactly the same story and the US press usually tell something completely different than anybody else (you could at least listen to BBC to get a different perspective)).

  20. I’m honestly tired of people living in their one dimensional world.

    What you see in newspapers during this event is more about the demonstrators (and about their “unfair” treatment) and less about the meetings themselves. If the demonstrators really want us to focus on how these meetings aren’t leading anywhere they’re doing a pretty bad job, since all the focus in media seems to be on the demonstrations and how the police did this and that. Even if some of the demonstrators might be honest informed people, they drown in the noise of those who aren’t. Hint: there’s more to this than CO2.

    What noone seems to discuss is that politicians themselves can’t solve the issues we’re facing. They can create frameworks for larger institutions to work with. But in the end it isn’t the politicians or the organizations who make out the majority of the fossil fuelled vehicle driving population. That my friends, would be the rest of us. *There’s* your problem.

    Oh and don’t forget to tell an up and coming China they can’t have what many of the Western societies have enjoyed for along time because the resources would become to scarce.

    Nothing will change as long as we won’t, which, I suspect, won’t be until it’s too late anyway.

    But, sure, go ahead and make your posts and petty discussions about unfair treatment of demonstrators. I’m sure mother earth will thank you. No really, it helps. Alot.

      1. I’ve experienced far too many demonstrations where the majority of the participants are simply going for the “fight the power” angle, regardless of the issue at hand (and yes I have asked them and tried to discuss it). Ignorance won’t solve anything, much less ignorance in groups. It *does* become a problem when uninformed people are simply there to complain for the sake of complaining. Especially since this is the most important issue we can ever have on our agenda.

        When anyone I talk to bring up “political correctness” and “principles”, I ask them what their motivations are for using those words. The biggest problem is that I seldom get an informed answer; they simply don’t know far too often. Try those terms in any academic writing and you are lucky if you don’t get laughed at before being shown the door. Still, the very same two words have the power to swing the opinion of an entire nation and bring people out on the streets without a second thought, nowadays. It’s like Pavlov’s dogs hearing the bell.

        Of course, I believe “civil rights” are important. Now go to some non-democratic country and try those words again, or investigate any group within a democratic nation that does have actual problems with a rigid bureaucracy forcing them to live in misery. This? Pah.

        And if you really think that there won’t be an issue or two within the scope of these demonstrations you are naive. Neither you nor I want robots in uniforms. However, whenever the police or any law enforcing unit looks in the wrong way at someone the media and “people with agendas” are all over it, making the protesting escalate and in turn forcing the police to take the next step. And on it goes.

        Before you ask, I’m not a police officer nor am I part of any law enforcing or political organization.

        Again, I doubt we have heard much those of the honest demonstrants who *do* know why they are there (“to complain” isn’t a complete answer). There is no excuse for being uninformed anymore. Fact checking is possible even on the internet.

        1. “the majority of the participants are simply going for the “fight the power” angle

          Any movement or political camp has its share of idiots and zealots. Tell me your opinion and I’ll find some morons who claim the same position in an embarrassingly ignorant way. Judge the ideas and actions, not certain individuals who are involved.

          “whenever the police or any law enforcing unit looks in the wrong way at someone the media and “people with agendas” are all over it”

          Damn those people with agendas. If only everyone was like you: completely apathetic, with no opinions, ideals or goals whatsoever. Agendas are ruining the world.

          Seriously though, your out-of-touch description of what supposedly always happens at demonstrations like this makes you extremely suspect as a primary source. Even establishment reporters who aren’t sympathetic to demonstrators often come away from large protests shocked at unprovoked police violence when they experience it firsthand.

          And that’s all I have to say about that.

  21. I participated in the demonstration with my mother, sister and youngest son. We walked towards the demonstration and then followed it back home, standing for a long time just watching it pass by.

    So I must say that I find the article a bit misleading. The article is very one-sided and it mixes the facts and does not give a complete picture of the events.

    The amount of police was quite high, yes but they where not wearing helmets until late in the afternoon as far as I could tell. Please take note that the demonstration was routed through one of the most densely populated parts of Copenhagen at a time when people are getting home from work/school etc. The atmosphere was great and all of the demonstrators seemed to be in a good mood.

    In my opinion the police did a very good job for the main part of the demonstration.

    I do have however have sincere concerns about the preemptive arrests, this is just not very Danish or democratic IMHO.

  22. It’s worth pointing out that observers are being increasingly shut out of the climate summit.

    The funny thing is that they were all clamoring for what the conference aimed to achieve.

    It’s like people rioting outside the Capitol and White House because they want them to start a war in Iraq.

    1. “The funny thing is that they were all clamoring for what the conference aimed to achieve.”

      No, they’re clamoring for what the conference *should* be aimed to achieve. Important difference.

  23. Anarchists tour every available protest like other people tour music festivals or football cups. Like hooligans they live for violence and adrenaline rush with police and the politics/football is secondary. The ones wearing hoodies and masked by a scarf aren’t there for peaceful protests.

    1. The ones wearing hoodies and masked by a scarf aren’t there for peaceful protests.

      You obviously never had to deal with a bunch of nazis who spotted you after an antifascist protest.

      People who want to hide their identity should have every right to do so, as long as they don’t break the law. Call me a coward, but while it’s still legal to protest, I’d like to do it in a way that doesn’t put my life in danger. The police doesn’t help, and these new anti-protest laws don’t help.

      1. Wearing a scarf is like wearing a Hells Angels jacket, it’s a sure sign you plan a crime and/or have done so previously. Anarchists and fascists are the same. Both are organized criminals. It’s not like one side is good and the other is bad. Both are bad and both want to bring down our democracy. Anarchists/fascists regularly attacks each other in their homes, and also family members, neighbors etc. as collateral damage. They jam police radios on protest days and use high tech to coordinate their attacks/street wars. A few years ago police found explosives abandoned on a train heading to a nazi meeting. That is something completely different than just protesting. And if you join their “protests” then you support this violence.

Comments are closed.