(THIS ARTICLE IS MACHINE TRANSLATED by Google from Norwegian)
Anyone who has been tried in court for something that could lead to a prison sentence can tell you that being found out is like walking out of a lion's gap. Even if you go out of court
the room and into the same imperfect world that you have been strolling through while out on bail, it feels ecstatic. Winter solstice was ecstatic for the first six "#J20" who were accused of protesting the inauguration of the president nearly a year ago: not guilty on all counts. There are even 180 defendants again.
Awesome actor. The trial has been covered in admirable detail by the recently established news collective Unicorn Riot; it has been clearly announced in some media, a podcast here and there as well as a hard hitting essay by Sam Adler-Bell. That said, this trial has so far been dramatically underreported. It has no extraordinary news value that people objected to this or any other presidential inauguration, and while the intensity of the J20 demonstrations may have been a prelude to the increased drama of street politics that marked a year of neo-fascist emergence, the inaugural actions were no worse than one could wait. The riots were truly sad compared to, for example, the unrest associated with pension reform in Argentina. Nor was the police response, if ever so disgusting, outside the norms of today's police work. It included the cheerful and arbitrary use of chemical (and other) weapons, hard-handed cleansing in the streets and gathering of protesters in groups, as well as extended custody; that's just what the snout does. The extraordinary element has been the judiciary's ambitions: The charges against more than 200 persons should scare everyone. It is these issues that should have been regularly covered by national media.
In short: The U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia argued the type of affiliation that we have long been assured of being excluded by law: that anyone who at any time took part in the march was involved or, hell, only was nearby, carrying full blame for each of the few shattered windows and objects thrown. This was coupled with an icy view of intent: Anyone who showed up in an "anti-capitalist, anti-fascist" march planned destruction and looting simply by taking a stroll under such a slogan. Even worse if you left home with first aid equipment, or knew the word "kettle" [gathering protesters in tight groups to have better control of them, overs. note], or was dressed in black. The prosecutor acknowledged that none of the six defendants could be linked to any case of property damage or any other crime, except through the double new argument about affiliation and intent. They stood by the indictment anyway, and worked hard to get the defendants convicted. The jury was asked to plead guilty on the basis of five counts of criminal mischief plus the offense of participating in riots and the offense of conspiracy to riot (an additional charge of encouraging riots was waived by the otherwise credible judge). I suspect "riots" will become a key concept within the judiciary in the time to come.
The prosecutor acknowledged that none of the six defendants could be linked to vandalism or other crime, but stood by the indictment anyway.
Minimal defense. "Without contradictions there will be no progress," William Blake wrote. Nevertheless, the Government Attorney's Office (District Attorney) has had a project to re-sign the legal map so that "contradiction" becomes an area for criminals. Such a prosecution strategy openly restructures public policy. If such an approach were to be valid, one could arrest and convict anyone attending, for example, an Occupy camp or what was going to be the next. A Fuck The Police march, a Black Lives Matter demonstration, or the people who showed up to stop the neo-Nazis in Charlottesville. One immediately sees that the state's attitude would effectively force all citizens to join the current and divine social order, whatever it may be, or else they could be appealed to all the alleged crimes committed by anyone with dissenting opinions. This is how a world of status quo is drawn, not something anti. Political scientists can lead their angry debates about whether we have ended up in fascism or not, but whether to appear publicly as an anti-fascist or anti-capitalist first faction- basis for prosecution, I really believe we are a few panel debates beyond questions and answers.
The details of the prosecution's case, which included not only the innovative argumentation, but also the open racism and sympathy for "all-right" that permeated the police force, can be found in statements by Unicorn Riot and It's Going Down. The defense was minimal, certainly because one cannot constantly turn to the jury and mutter "this is idiotic". When it came to the piece, the jury agreed. As one juror summarized: "Fortunately, the prosecution acknowledged that they did not know that any of the defendants had committed violence or vandalism." And added, "Before the defense made a sound, it was clear to me that we would eventually come to no one's fault ».
Anyone who at any time took part in the march in question, or was only nearby, was at fault for every broken window.
Social banalities done to law. However, to expect juries to do the right thing is a losing strategy in general. They are part of the lion. It is worth noting at least two things. First, these lawsuits will continue for the next ten months. Each one must be fought again; some will raise more doubt; juries will be different; the defense still needs your support. Please help. If you plan to buy my book, make a donation instead and send me an email. We will find out.
Secondly, as absurd as it may seem – this episode of accusatory exaggeration should not be read away, even if the first acquittals are a fact. The obscene mistake has a moment of truth in it. The overreaction is actually well known. It structurally coincides with the hysteria about "antifa", which has spread in recent years. The ridiculous allegations about the level of violence, the fantastic danger they pose to public order, the delusion that a couple of episodes of vandalism are in fact mass crimes that cling to everyone in black clothes, obvious conspirators… you can see where this leads. The ghost that was aroused by the US Attorney's Office in the J20 trials is evoked again and again, not only by the president and a handful of fools with fascist welds, but also by the New York Times and a number of other downtown and even left-wing Media. And behind this lies something even bigger: the criminalization of the Movement for Black Lives – signed with the unspeakable premise that blackness in itself is a kind of violence against the state, that leaving your house as black is a form of political intent. These ideas permeate our culture. We should not be surprised to see that legislation is pushing to express social banalities and prejudices. Now is the time for all our opposition; we should prepare to fight.
