« Jesus Camp | Main | Crashing The Party »
November 18, 2006
Here's What Class Warfare Looks Like
Among the most darkly grotesquely absurdities of contemporary political life is that class warfare is used to describe marginal tax increases for rich people and calls for mild redistribution to the working class. Here's what it actually means. These are janitors in Houston who make $20 a day with no health insurance. Their labor is physical, the chance for workplace injuries massive, and the desire for better conditions natural. So they struck. And the police came in with horses.
For those curious, horses are used for two reasons: The first is the enhanced visibility their height offers police. The second is because they're animals, not machines. Implicit in the use of the horse is that it is not fully in the officers control and could, at any time, take one errant step and crush you. They terrify in a way motorcycles or, say, stilts, don't. True to form, the horses trampled scores of the strikers, injuring a handful, including an 83-year-old man. The protest was broken and 44 janitors were arrested. Guess how that went:
when we got to jail, we were pretty beat up. Not all of us got the medical attention we needed. The worst was a protester named Julia, who is severely diabetic. We kept telling the guards about her condition but they only gave her a piece of candy. During roll call, she started to complain about light-headedness. Finally she just collapsed unconscious on the floor. It was like she just dropped dead. The guard saw it but just kept going through the roll. Susan ran over there and took her pulse while the other inmates were yelling for help, saying we need to call somebody. The medical team strolled over, taking their own sweet time. She was unconscious for like 4 or 5 minutes.
They really tried to break us down. The first night they put the temperature so high that a woman—one of the other inmates—had a seizure. The second night they made it freezing and took away many of our blankets. We didn’t have access to the cots so we had to sleep on a concrete floor. When we would finally fall asleep the guards would come and yell ‘Are you Anna Denise Solís? Are you so and so?’ One of the protesters had a fractured wrist from the horses. She had a cast on and when she would fall asleep the guard would kick the cast to wake her up. She was in a lot of pain.
The guards would tell us: ‘This is what you get for protesting.’ One of them said, ‘Who gives a shit about janitors making 5 dollars an hour? Lots of people make that much.’ The other inmates—there were a lot of prostitutes in there—said that they had never seen the jail this bad. The guards told them: ‘We’re trying to teach the protesters a lesson.’
That's what class warfare looks like. Support the Houston Janitors.
November 18, 2006 in Labor | Permalink
Comments
This may sound cynical, but I suspect that these brutal tactics may have just won the strike for the janitors. Huge misstep by the cops, strategically (and morally, of course).
Posted by: stuck working | Nov 18, 2006 6:53:49 PM
I doubt it.
Cynical, perhaps, but honestly: no.
Nobody cares.
Posted by: wcw | Nov 18, 2006 7:03:22 PM
If only those janitors were more educated! More retraining programs! Globalization made the cops do it because the world is flat!
Posted by: Tom Friedman | Nov 18, 2006 7:03:40 PM
It seems that Ezra likes to show heavy handed police in an effort to create sympathy for those break the law. And that is all this is about. Heavy handed police.
These people still broke the law. That is why the police were there in the first place.
Posted by: Fred Jones | Nov 18, 2006 7:32:24 PM
Goodness! I've never felt so proud to be part of a Union in the *cough* month that I've been a Union Man. Glad to know my dues are going (presumably) to bail those guys out...
Would you please cite whoever you're quoting? I'd love to read the full article...
Posted by: Andrew Cory | Nov 18, 2006 7:36:42 PM
Interesting to see that the lessons in jail management from Gitmo are starting to seep to local law enforcement level. What's next, systematic tasing of protesters?
Posted by: kvenlander | Nov 18, 2006 7:53:29 PM
I hope the next time Fred exceeds the speed limit, he gets pulled over and the has living crap beat out of him. I mean the works. Pistol whipping. Maybe penetration with a night stick. Sure, the tactics may be heavy handed, but the reason the cop is there in the first place will be because Fred broke the law, and his law breaking is what's really important.
Posted by: Seitz | Nov 18, 2006 7:58:50 PM
The link for the testimony is to this MyDD post.
It's all scarily familiar to this ex-pat Brit.
Regards, Cernig @ Newshog
Posted by: Cernig | Nov 18, 2006 8:34:21 PM
The strikers of the teens, twenties and thirties had an answer -- thousands of ordinary marbles.
Posted by: Davis X. Machina | Nov 18, 2006 8:42:05 PM
Helluva week. Bush's "never quit" lesson from Vietanm, UCLA taser... Houston trampling... and to top it off Gonzales declares that opposing warrantless wiretapping "is itself a grave threat to the liberty and security of the American people. Much work for all of us and for the Dems in the next Congress. We're still at the beginning of the beginning.
Posted by: Mickeleh | Nov 18, 2006 8:57:46 PM
Posted by: Ezra | Nov 18, 2006 9:51:08 PM
Nice to know our courts aren't needed to determine guilt and punishment anymore - saves money!.
Fred's 'type' thinks the police now perform that function, and should also 'teach them a lesson' (before they are even charged in court). Maybe we could save on prisons by just shooting all that the police arrest. Wouldn't that be great, baby Freddie? How about beheading the bodies like they do in 'democratic Iraq', so troublesome ID's can't be made? The GOP can stack the skulls like they did in Cambodia, as a warning to 'librul' folks of what is ahead - Bush-II's Presidential library would be a good spot for the skulls. The remainder of the bodies could be sent to "Work Makes You Free" camps (built by Halliburton) for reduction to dust in the ovens.
Since brown isn't popular anymore for shirt colors, so the Fred's of the world should conduct a poll of the GOP fascista to find out what shirt-color they want to adopt. Red is obviously out - odors of COMMUNISM and SOCIALISM. So is blue, for other obvious reasons. Green is out, since that would cause heart attacks and brain strokes among the faithful in the GOP.
Purple/violet/pink wouldn't seem to be superficially obvious as a good choice (except maybe the Foleys and Haggards of the GOP may be pointing the way.) The biggest brutes in 1930's Germany were the gay ones in the brownshirts, ya know, like the Mehlman's and other top Rethug staff of GOP congressmen and executive branch officials.
Actually, I think yellow (as in coward) best applies to the party that thinks American military lives can be wasted by those who've been chanting 'stay the course', and hide not only from the whole of the American people but also from foreigners while abroad - GOP Rethugs only, please, in the Presence of Our Leader. Fascist ass-lickers, welcome, of course.
I guess black is another color choice for our GOP fascista, to match the hue of their reality-denying, constitution-overriding, democracy-ignoring hearts. Anarchy is what they are bringing to the world, so that would not be a bad choice.
How about a compromise: yellow and black strips?
(and ya, I'm fuckin fed up with totalitarian Rethuglican overthrow of our democracy.)
Posted by: JimPortlandOR | Nov 18, 2006 9:51:27 PM
I read also that the court set bail for the arrested strikers at $39 million - an astonishing $888,888 each ($500 is the normal sum, apparently) - nice to know this country is taking care of its labor-relations issues in the usual manner.
Posted by: Jay C | Nov 18, 2006 9:59:17 PM
"The strikers of the teens, twenties and thirties had an answer -- thousands of ordinary marbles."
Effective, maybe, but the wrong target. You'll wind up getting a lot of horses killed when they fall and break their legs.
Horses don't like to trample anything but snakes. Horses racing at full speed, jumping at steeplechases, and ordinary ol' trail horses will twist in mid-stride and mid-air to avoid someone on the ground.
You've got to train a horse pretty ruthlessly to overcome that instinctive avoidance. And probably be pretty ruthless with the leg commands and spurs to get them to actually do it.
It's the cops that committed the atrocities. Not the horses.
I'm all in favor of suing the shit out of the police department; of massive protests, of a work stoppage.
But leave the horses alone.
Posted by: CaseyL | Nov 18, 2006 10:05:40 PM
Yo,
Remember Texas is a Republican State and Shrub was Governator here...Republican values means keeping the poor down - they don't deserve the money, 'cause the CEO's of Houston corporate and city offices are busy spending it. This is typical Texas B.S.
Posted by: Geoman | Nov 18, 2006 10:07:18 PM
May I say that not all Freds are alike.
Posted by: Fred | Nov 18, 2006 10:34:35 PM
God damn Texas. That state has never been anything except a blight upon the Union.
Posted by: Barry | Nov 18, 2006 10:47:07 PM
the court set bail for the arrested strikers at $39 million
Does this raise an 8th amendment issue?
Posted by: Matt Weiner | Nov 18, 2006 11:16:31 PM
BTW, according to the site the injured 83-year-old was a woman.
Posted by: Matt Weiner | Nov 18, 2006 11:18:57 PM
This is as low as our esteemed country is allowed to sink, okay? No lower; only up from here.
An 83-year-old woman shouldn't even be working. Much less scubbing toilets and hauling trash. And doing it without health insurance. And having to march in the street to make the point that she and her colleagues bloody need health insurance. And getting trampled in the process. Jesus.
We are no longer allowed to call America a civilized nation, a fucking developed nation--not until these travesties are addressed. And not just in Houston.
Posted by: litbrit | Nov 18, 2006 11:39:57 PM
"The second is because they're animals, not machines. Implicit in the use of the horse is that it is not fully in the officers control and could, at any time, take one errant step and crush you."
How do you know this? Did you learn in it at the police academy? Did you read it in an article by someone with experience in crowd control? Or did you make it up?
Posted by: JR | Nov 19, 2006 12:28:21 AM
"The second is because they're animals, not machines. Implicit in the use of the horse is that it is not fully in the officers control and could, at any time, take one errant step and crush you."
How do you know this? Did you learn in it at the police academy? Did you read it in an article by someone with experience in crowd control? Or did you make it up?
Posted by: JR | Nov 19, 2006 12:29:07 AM
It'll get really interesting when the folks who got their rights trampled exercise their 2nd amendment right to take up arms.
Posted by: jbou | Nov 19, 2006 2:41:27 AM
You're specializing in getting my blood boiling this week, Erza. I'm sending a small donation to their strike fund, and it'll feel a whole lot better than any of those donations I gave political candidates.
Posted by: djw | Nov 19, 2006 5:15:36 AM
$20 a day? How can this be Ezra? There's a federal minimum wage isn't there? $42.80 or so for an 8 hour day?
Please, don't shatter my illusions: tell me that passing a law really works!
Posted by: Tim Worstall | Nov 19, 2006 5:42:24 AM
Tim, the current minimum wage here in Texas is $5.15/hr. I get the sense that a lot of the janitors aren't given full-time hours because the employers don't want to provide benefits. I saw the same sort of thing when I worked in childcare -- 6 or 7 hour shifts to avoid full-time employees and insurance premiums.
Posted by: kcb | Nov 19, 2006 9:14:44 AM
My Goodness!
What great strawmen you can construct y simply mentioning that the protestors are out of line as well as the police being out of line. The largest strawman is that I, and others who ask culpability questions about the protestors, believe the protestors somehow deserve the heavy handedness.
How creative you all are!
Let's imagine, in your commondream, that the police act 'appropriately'. Ya' know by standing around and taking all of the shit the protestors see fit to give them, doing nothing. Now, are the protestors blameless and without responsibility? Is the MOB just fine with you because it represents one of your pet causes?
What if it were not a union struggle, but a cause that you loathe? Would you feel the same about over racists taking to the streets, or would you rather see the police bash their heads in?
Posted by: Fred Jones | Nov 19, 2006 9:38:05 AM
See Fred, that's your problem right there. OF COURSE I would hate it just as much if the police bashed the heads of a bunch of peacefully demonstrating racists, or tasered a non-threatening neo-Nazi. The police represent the force of order in society, and when they betray that they betray the whole society. A protestor can be an asshole, but they just represent themselves.
The police in both cases acted in manner completely inappropriate to their position. EVEN IF YOU'RE RIGHT (which you provide no evidence for), and the protestors were provoking, they don't represent me or you as forces of order. The only reason to talk about them at all is to DEFEND the police behavior.
And that's what you're doing. You're fine with what the police did. Wear it proudly, Fred. Don't hide behind the protestors -- it's pathetic.
Posted by: Marcel | Nov 19, 2006 10:08:28 AM
Now I understand why they relocated so many from New Orleans to Houston. Increase the labor pool, keep the wages down and treat 'em like sheep.
Thanks, Ezra, for adding more light to this. I'm not sure why some trolls insist the strikers were breaking the law, but if they were, in a non-violent civil disobedience effort, it doesn't excuse the acts of the police in carrying out the orders of fascists.
No working person should be subject to this kind of treatment from employers and public safety officials acting as their willing tools. Every decent cop in the country is put at risk by what the Houston cops have done.
After the janitors win, Houston will need a new police chief. I hope Houstonians will show the backbone to do both.
Posted by: Kevin Hayden | Nov 19, 2006 10:58:55 AM
JR, what CaseyL said is right. My wife trains horses, and I've spent a lot of time around them, too. Horses will go out of their way to avoid trouble. Having evolved as prey on the plains, they have a strong flight reflex. Takes a lot of training to overcome that reflex.
And a horse with a broken leg is usually a dead horse. Look at Barbaro, the horse who not just broke, but shattered his leg in the Preakness. Only his value as a breeder and a wealthy and determined owner have kept him from getting the needle.
You can buy a helluva lot of health care, even for a horse, if you have the money. Which brings us back to the reason for the strike.
Posted by: nima | Nov 19, 2006 11:14:22 AM
Their treatment is strikingly similar to the techniques the military is using to break down and demoralize its prisoners. I assure that treating people like animals (herding them with horses, for example) to make them seem even more powerless is on that list too. This is their answer now to civil disobedience.
Many of these policeman in accepting these vile techniques will dehumanize the people they are supposed to protect. Expect this to escalate into more cases of brutality, murder, and other extreme abuses of power. In their minds the law takes precedence over human decency, but it's a twisted perversion of the idea of law and order that demands absolute authority and aquiescence
Posted by: Zolodoco | Nov 19, 2006 11:17:12 AM
I was doing some consulting at Chevron in San Ramon, CA last week. They sent an email advising that there would be a protest in front of the entrance and recommended we stay on campus for lunch because traffic would probably be a mess.
That's the difference between CA and TX, I guess. In California, the voice of ALL people is respected and protected.
In Texas, people just go ape-shit about illegal immigration and discriminate against brown people.
Posted by: cosmo | Nov 19, 2006 11:30:16 AM
This, taken with the UCLA incident, serves to remind us what the real divide is in American politics: authoritarianism vs. individual liberty - the powerful vs. the people - the elite vs. workers. When you bore down to the core of any political dispute, that's what they're all ultimately about.
Posted by: jkd | Nov 19, 2006 11:43:20 AM
Is anyone noticing a trend here? UCLA campus cops taser a handcuffed student, police pepper spray a handcuffed suspect, police punch a handcuffed suspect in the face several times. It is all captured on a cell phone camera and uploaded to the internet. Now do you know why they want total control of the internet?
By the way, marbles stop the police from getting their footing as they attempt to drag off protestors. If the mounted police are aware of these items you can bet they will not endanger their mounts and will either not enter the area or will leave the area very quickly. However, if harm comes to one of those animals, it is just the same as doing it to a human police officer. And cameras work both ways, they will be videoing a crowd to identify anyone releasing such devices. And under the laws today, I wouldn't be surprised if they had made such a protest a terrorist act, just like interrupting animal experiments is now a terrorist act.
Posted by: Tas | Nov 19, 2006 11:58:54 AM
Poor Fred. He misses the good old days, days like April 20, 1914.
Posted by: Hamilton Lovecraft | Nov 19, 2006 1:37:33 PM
You're fine with what the police did.
You truly have a reading comprehension problem. Please show me where I have stated this.
Put up or shup up, weasel.
Posted by: Fred Jones | Nov 19, 2006 4:00:43 PM
My Goodness!
What great strawmen you can construct ...How creative you all are!
(...)
Let's imagine, in your commondream, that the police act 'appropriately'. Ya' know by standing around and taking all of the shit the protestors see fit to give them, doing nothing. Now, are the protestors blameless and without responsibility?
(...)
And there FJ constructs a strawman argument about the nature of a protest itself. The janitors' protest was not directed against the employers paying them sunsurvival wages; no, the protest was to give the police "shit"! The protest was not to call attention to their cause. It was to provoke the cops who were "standing around" and "doing nothing"!
Oh, Internet Crank, you amuse me.
Posted by: Jeopardude | Nov 19, 2006 5:07:31 PM
Let's cut to the chase, here.
I believe you think that protesting is some integral part of democracy and that anyone who protests deserves our undying admiration.
Has this group taken all other appropriate actions and protest is the absolute last resort? Or is it the easy route to try and gain public sympathy?
Posted by: Fred Jones | Nov 19, 2006 6:29:26 PM
If you think of protesting as the "easy route," I have no idea what to say to you. And usually protesting is part of an effort to redress grievances, not one in a chain of "if a fails then take action b, if b fails, take action c" logically direct sequences.
And protesting is no doubt an integral part of democracy. It's much more deserving of admiration than us, two posters on someone else's blog arguing and using names (me "- Internet Crank" you - "weasel").
I apologize for using the term Internet Crank. It could be self-applied for sure.
Back to work.
Posted by: Jeopardude | Nov 19, 2006 6:49:13 PM
Protesting is an integral part of democracy -- or at least of American democracy as laid out in the Constitution (remember that freedom of speech and assembly thing?). Anyone who protests deserves to have their persons and their civil rights protected by the government, not have both trampled, as happened in Houston. And why do you think gaining public sympathy is some sinister and unacceptable way to gain the benefits the janitors think they deserve (you wan them to use public protests as an "absolute last resort" for some reason)? The whole point of Ezra's post is that the janitors are fighting against powerful, entrenched interests -- they need public sympathy, or at the very least public awareness, to get health care and a living wage. So yes, I support their goals, and yes, I think police brutality is not an acceptable reaction to the protest - but I would feel the same way about the police brutality regardless of the protesters' goals.
Posted by: Houdini's Ghost | Nov 19, 2006 6:49:41 PM
"I believe you think that protesting is some integral part of democracy and that anyone who protests deserves our undying admiration.
Has this group taken all other appropriate actions and protest is the absolute last resort? Or is it the easy route to try and gain public sympathy?"
Protesting IS integral to the American historical experiance. Did you ever hear of the Boston Tea Party? How about the Boston Massacre? Or how about the right of all Americans to peacefully assemble and to petition their government for redress of grievances? Or maybe just a little labor law guaranteeing the right to picket? Jeebus, dude. You have $5.15 an hour part time labor protesting for better wages. That is the absolute last resort. You might want to consider where you would be right now if millions of Americans in the early 20th century had not fought those bloody labor battles to put limits on employers. Or do you really think business is really just a beneficial fraternity out to help the wonderful workers achieve paradise with the blessings of their stockholders?
Posted by: Tas | Nov 19, 2006 6:59:51 PM
I believe you think that protesting is some integral part of democracy
um... it is.
take away people's right to protest peacefully, and there is no democracy. all you'd have left was an audience.
I love how the same folks who foam at the mouth about the perceived injustices of "government intrusion" when issues like taxation or business regulation come up are perfectly ok with cops bullying and brutalizing the innocent.
Posted by: the dreaming ape | Nov 19, 2006 9:28:47 PM
A policeman on a horse is also safer, because people are less likely to attack horses than they are to, say, tip over an automobile.
Posted by: fiat lux | Nov 19, 2006 10:14:59 PM
Its a popular double standard that people use when describing police.
When they are in need they are described as:
-highly trained professionals
-trained to react w/cool heads in stressfull situations
-trained in techniques to subdue unruly citizens
-willing to risk their lives to protect the public
when they freak out and randomly beat people:
-normal people in a stressfull situation
-using unreasonable force as their life was threatened
-unable to handle an unruly citizen
(Though the citizen is usually untrained, vastly outnumbered, often physically smaller, and quite often already restrained.)
You cant have it both ways.
If they are highly trained professionals deserving of our trust and support, then those who demonstrate they are not need to be held accountable. Especially in the earlier case of the student, a superior force of policemen should be expected to be able to subdue a young student without the use of weaponry.
If they are not, we need to quit pretending and reel back some of support and praise they receive. Then we can hold them to the standards they claim to have.
Posted by: david b | Nov 20, 2006 7:20:21 AM
Oh yes and the 2nd point on the use of horses by the police is either wrong or incomplete. These are not just normal farm horses, used to riding and/or pulling.
These are modern war horses. They are trained in pushing people, in herding them. Their large physical size and overwhelming power is used to push back crowds and protect the police. Motorcycles and cars just arent as good in this capacity, horses are simply the best tool for it.
Sometimes and certainly not always the horses are trained to lash out on command as well. This is a formidable weapon, and its usually claimed only to be used when the policemans life is threatened.
Posted by: david b | Nov 20, 2006 7:24:31 AM
Let's be clear. No one is excusing the police and their harsh tactics in removing the protestors.
But the reason the protestors were to be removed in the first place is they were not exercising their constitional right of peaceful assembly. Their goal was to disrupt and garner just as much attention as possible. I think that is the difference that no one wishes to address. In fact, I have seen no one bring up the constitutionality issue except on blogs. Not their attorneys.....no one. It's doesn't seem to be a factor although the sixties retreads here would like to frame it that way.
Posted by: Fred Jones | Nov 20, 2006 7:42:37 AM
"$20 a day? How can this be Ezra? There's a federal minimum wage isn't there? $42.80 or so for an 8 hour day?
Please, don't shatter my illusions: tell me that passing a law really works!"
Posted by: Tim Worstall
F*ck off, ya little prostie pretending to be a libertarian. Go back to your brothel and write some more propaganda.
Posted by: Barry | Nov 20, 2006 7:50:02 AM
My earlier comments were more a general feeling.. This pertains a little more specifically to the video itself.
There is something to be said for a reasonable estimation of the use of force. The earlier student film was over the top use of force. The older case (not posted here) where there was video of environmental protesters in an office being peppersprayed for peacefully 'sitting in' was a much better example of excessive force.
Here at least the police weren't unduly cruel. People were screaming about being hurt, when nothing really justified it here. They were herded off the street, using force sufficient to overcome their resistance, but not really any more.
No pepperspray was used, no batons came out, noone was cuffed in the face or trampled.. they were herded, arrested, and then carried off the scene.
Protesters practice 'dead weight' techniques, which make it physically quite difficult to carry someone away. So that part of it looks worse then it actually is. It certainly isnt physically harmful, just undignified.
I disagree with this video being used as evidence of excessive force by 'the man'. It simply doesnt show it.
Posted by: david b | Nov 20, 2006 8:45:51 AM
I'm with you Fred. Just like those problem negros back in 'Bama we suck dogs on. Can't tolerate lawbreakers, they get what they deserve.
Posted by: Cheney's Mom | Nov 20, 2006 2:39:30 PM
Strawmen won't do the trick.
Posted by: Fred Jones | Nov 20, 2006 3:28:06 PM
There is a lot more to this situation than Ezra has explained. One of the most important facts is that the protesters in the video are NOT (for the most part) local Houston janitors, but rather 'professional protesters' that the union brought in against the wishes of the local janitors. The strikes alone were garnering public sympathy and protests were not needed.
Secondly, the protesters in the video were making 'human chains' across a busy downtown intersection blocking traffic and in violation of city ordinances; thus giving the Houston Police the authority to arrest them. Before the video, the police had already warned them they were in violation of city ordinances and that if they continued to block traffic, they would be arrested. The protesters resisted arrest (probably to try to incite some sort of police brutality) and that when the police brought in the horses to help them non-violently arrest the protesters. Watching the video you can see the protesters resisting arrest to the best of their abilities, and some even purposefully getting in the way of the horses (basically a, "you ran into me! bastard!' 'well you jumped in front of me with no warning giving me no time to avoid you.'). I don't know if the accounts of what is happening in the prison is true (and if it is, it is absolutely deplorable and someone should be held accountable for it), but the actual arrest of the protesters was as non-violent as the police knew how to make it. (as a side note, the chant 'no justice, no peace' is not a very good chant for trying to win the hearts and minds of people.)
p.s. Not all of the 'refugees' from N.O. are the peaceable citizens everybody imagines them to be. The crime in houston has increased drastically since Katrina, and the majority of the new criminals were 'refugees' during the period the the city of houston was tracking the refugees. Before Katrina, Houston had enough police (maybe slightly too few), but now there is way too few officers for the amount of crime we are experiencing. There were wonderful people who were displaced to houston because Katrina who have assimilated into our community (the Cajun food, for instance, has gotten demonstrably better), but there were also a lot criminals who packed up and moved their operations to Houston.
Posted by: HoustonLiberal | Nov 20, 2006 3:55:50 PM
Couldn't see anything in the video. They're lucky those horses are so well trained, or it would have been more than broken arms.
Mine would have made a few grease spots that used to be people. I've seen him take out wild dogs that were trying to get the mares. Made a huge mess of the fence, but it was worth it. Saved my mares.
Posted by: shewolf | Nov 20, 2006 7:23:07 PM
I encoureage ya'll to read more on this situation, there are a lot of allegations being made that are inaccurate. As a result of this police action, one woman, a 43 year old janitor from New York City was hospitalized, and 2 people got fractured arms, and one persons finger was broken by a horse stepping on it.
There have been 3 other major civil desobedience actions in Houston by the janitors (one blocked the intersection of Postoak and Galleria, probably the busyiest intersection in town), and all of them were handled by the police without injuring anyone. Each individual who was arrested had bail set at $888,888. which is unheard of for a class b misdemeanor.
Houston Indymedia has been covering this story since early october when the Janitors authorized a strike. The cleaning companies they were negotiating with offered them nothing the first go round and by taking direct action they have now won a contract which is better in some ways from how their conditions were before.
I Particularly recomend these features:
At the begining of third week; The Janitors strike continues
https://houston.indymedia.org/archives/archive_by_id.php?id=746&category_id=1
Janitors block downtown intersection, attacked by HPD, 44 arrested 4 receive serious injuries
https://houston.indymedia.org/archives/archive_by_id.php?id=753&category_id=1
SEIU takes on organizing the south
https://houston.indymedia.org/archives/archive_by_id.php?id=756&category_id=1
PS Houston Liberal, you are making, you are totally off base, the people arrested included Houston Janitors, and were primarily janitors from New York and California (not "professional protestors"") I have attended multiple rallies and marches of the janitors and they are extremly gratefull that someone is willing to take a stand for them, unlike the houston liberals that would rather drink their starbucks and ignore the plight off poor people in our city
Posted by: RoB | Nov 20, 2006 7:40:36 PM
Of course they were breaking the law. That's often a part of protest; it's called civil disobedience. So, yes, the police get to arrest them -- that's an expected consequence when one practices civil disobedience.
The police, however, are not justified in trampling them as a result. They arrest them. They cart them off. They use the absolute minimum amount of force unless an immediate threat is present. They don't beat them, they don't mace them, they don't make the jail worse than normal because they think the crime is worse than normal. In the USA, police are not supposed to mete out punishment and for a very good reason.
That's the thing that gets me about all the police apologists in these cases: the behavior of the victims is completely irrelevant unless they posed an immediate threat to someone's safety. So these folks broke the law by blocking traffic. So the kid at UCLA broke the rules and generally acted like a weirdo. So what? If they're not threatening to hurt someone (whether explicitly or implicitly through brandishing a weapon), the police have no justification for any violence.
Is mouthing off to a police officer more likely to get you abused? Probably. But it doesn't make the person mouthing off wrong; they're not responsible for the police officer's actions. Police officers are adults and civic employees, and ought to be treated as such.
Posted by: Trundle | Nov 21, 2006 12:59:11 AM
Anybody wonder if this would happen outside of Texas?
Posted by: Jon Koppenhoefer | Nov 21, 2006 1:50:24 AM
Police repressions of social actions is the same everywhere in the so-called "free world", and has always been the same.
Down here in France, we saw that during and after the struggle against some gvtal measures last spring. people, sometimes young and peaceful girls of 16 or less, beaten with clubs, young people dragged out of the mass of peaceful protesters in order to be beaten, huge sentences for those brought to trial, just because they refuse to be beaten by the police...
That is free speech, power to the people and all other myths of western democracy...
Posted by: bert | Nov 21, 2006 3:45:47 AM
Fred Jones: I believe you think that protesting is some integral part of democracy and that anyone who protests deserves our undying admiration.
Son, you must've slept through eighth-grade civics. You recall freedom of assembly being mentioned?
I don't care if the protesters were a bunch of cross-burning cluckers in white hoods waving rifles. NO ONE who is demonstrating peacefully, no matter how obnoxious their cause, deserves to be treated like this.
Now, if you have a problem with freedom, get the hell out of my country.
-- Lex, N.C. Republican since 1978
Posted by: Lex | Nov 21, 2006 4:24:47 PM
...you must've slept through eighth-grade civics. You recall freedom of assembly being mentioned.
Are you challenged in some way that keeps you from actually reading a post before responding? I will post what I said above one more time since you appear to be on drugs.
"But the reason the protestors were to be removed in the first place is they were not exercising their constitional right of peaceful assembly. Their goal was to disrupt and garner just as much attention as possible."
Posted by: Fred Jones | Nov 21, 2006 5:06:52 PM
Fred, you raised the point that some here think that "protesting is some integral part of democracy," and we do in fact think it is. And we think it is partly because it says so in the First Amendment. When someone quotes an entire paragraph you wrote and then responds to that paragraph, they are not "challenged." It's more than a little silly for you to pretend that that was not what you meant, or that folks are misconstruing your point. You said it, and it was dumb and wrong.
As I pointed out before, there are a couple of separate issues here. One is that there is a certain segment of our society, which you seem to represent here, which holds that public protests are inherently wrong, or at least distasteful. The rest of us think that public demonstrations have a long and proud history from the Boston Tea Party forward.
The protestors (in Houston and in Boston way back when) were breaking the law (the janitors less egregiously than Sam Adams). I don't think anyone here has denied that, and if they have, I disagree with them. But along with thinking they broke the law, I also think the janitors are entitled to have their civil liberties and personal safety protected, not assaulted, by the government.
Let me make it simple. Organizing a public protest to gain attention for your cause: OK. Blocking an intersection and being a public nuisance as an act of civil disobedience in order to gain more attention: possibly smart strategy, for which one can expect consequences including arrest. Police arresting protestors for blocking an intersection: OK. Police assaulting protestors, injuring them, treating them as worse than drug dealers, murderers, etc.: risible, possibly illegal, and certainly unjust.
Which of these opinions do you have a problem with?
Posted by: Houdini's Ghost | Nov 21, 2006 9:07:13 PM
They have the right of peacful assembly. They do not have the right to disrupt, regardless of how smart you think the strategy is. It simply is not a "right".
It is not up to you to decide if the police were out of line or not, that is for the courts....the courts that everyone has access to.
Until the courts decide (and since I was not there), I will have to default on the side of law and order and not those who deliberately try to disrupt, block traffic and make public asses of themselves.
Until that happens....
Posted by: Fred Jones | Nov 21, 2006 9:16:55 PM
OK, so we both agree that disrupting traffic is a crime that deserves arrest. Great, that's progress.
By default you support uniformed men on horses, and I default on the side of poor workers making public asses of themselves in order to secure a better life.
I also default on the side of people who did not break anyone's bones, did not set a ridiculous bail as some sort of pre-emptive punishment of the protesters, did not lower the temperature in a cell and then take blankets away from those arrested, did not kick a woman on the cast covering a broken wrist, and did not deny care to a diabetic woman.
Of course, these are simply allegations from some dirty hippy, and the courts have not yet decided whether the police acted inappropriately (although as far as I know, none of the protesters have been convicted of anything either, but I suppose that isn't as important to you). But assuming the cops assaulted people and harrassed them once in custody for, as you say, disrupting traffic (deliberately!) and making public asses of themselves, I have a problem with that. Do you?
Posted by: Houdini's Ghost | Nov 21, 2006 9:33:40 PM
Well said, Houdini's Ghost. =)
Posted by: trundle | Nov 22, 2006 3:37:44 AM
We hire and pay police to do a job.
You have railed and conviced them without evidence. Yes, I have a problem with that.
The sixites are long gone. Get over it.
Posted by: Fred Jones | Nov 22, 2006 8:35:44 AM
We hire and pay police to enforce the law and keep the peace, not injure civilians. I'm willing to entertain the idea that the reports from protesters are overblown, but I find it hard to believe that none of the claimed abuses took place, and the extraordinarily high bail set seems hard to square with any idea of a just system.
The question I asked is whether you would have a problem with what the protesters claim the police did, if in fact the police did all those things. How come you can't give a straight answer?
The twenties were a great time for police and private security to beat hell out of workers demanding better conditions and pay, and for the judicial system to crack down on the distasteful part of society that seems to still bother you so much. The twenties are long gone. Get over it.
Posted by: Houdini's Ghost | Nov 22, 2006 1:10:34 PM
They have the right of peacful assembly. They do not have the right to disrupt, regardless of how smart you think the strategy is. It simply is not a "right".
I think you're the one who's challenged, Fred. I never claimed that people have the right to disrupt (although they might in some circumstances). My point is that people *do* have the right not to be physically injured by police while being arrested or once in police custody unless they themselves are physically resisting arrest. (And while some of the strikers might have been resisting arrest, the majority apparently were not.) That's the part you just can't seem to wrap your head around, which is a shame because that's the part that separates us from the bad guys.
Or used to.
Posted by: Lex | Nov 24, 2006 2:12:32 PM
You forgot to mention black people are afraid of horses.
Posted by: Me | Nov 28, 2006 10:19:56 AM
