The violent suppression of a peace rally last week in Rochester, NY, which can be seen at
http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_seyret&Itemid=91&task=videodirectlink&id=4702and the use of military sonic weapons at the Pittsburgh protests against the G20 meeting a few weeks ago have me wondering why the police seem so intent on intimidating dissenters at this point in history. What was the difference between the peaceful and un-police-molested demonstation in Boston last week (
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VF2qn9qFusQ) and the other two?
My guess is that the participants in the demonstrations that were attacked were all young, and that those demonstrations included people dressed in clothing and carrying banners that indicated support for anarchist ideals, while the Boston gathering included a mixture of generations and clothing styles. My friends in the Boston IWW branch noticed a distinct absence of the "black bloc" which has been prominent in previous peace marches there.
Do the police have orders to scare the wits out of emotionally vulnerable young people and get them to conform and support only "moderate" causes in the future? It would be reasonable to assume that anyone my age who participates in a demonstration is not going to be scared into staying away, but that young people are more susceptible to intimidation. Is it some kind of demographic trend that fewer Boston young people are acting black-blockish; are teenagers just no longer seeing the point in that style of confrontation and thirty-somethings mellowing politically? (if so, why are teenagers in Rochester still doing it?) Is it a conscious decision on the part of some youthful social justice groups to stay out of coalitions with moderates because they blunt the effectiveness of radical causes? Or is it the result of effective police intimidation in the past?