|
200,000 anti-corporate globalization
activists rally in France
Compiled by Shane Perlowin
Aug. 13 (AGR)— Over 200,000 people streamed
to an anti-corporate globalization rally in southern France Aug. 9 and
10, called to oppose upcoming crucial trade talks in Mexico. French
police turned back many activists citing searing temperatures from the
current European heat wave as the reason.
The three-day Larzac 2003 festival, held one month before the scheduled
WTO ministerial in Cancun, included speeches, debates, street theater
and film shows, as well as a rock concert featuring French singer Manu
Chao and British group Asian Dub Foundation. It is a symbolic place
for the French Left, because it was here in the 1970s that intellectuals
joined with local farmers to resist government attempts to turn the
area into an army shooting range.
Braving the heatwave, at least 30,000 people converged on a rocky plateau
in southern France on Friday for a three-day protest against the World
Trade Organization. The protesters, many carrying coolers or wearing
wide-brimmed hats, came together in the rural Aveyron region to criticize
the trade body. They say the WTO enriches developed countries at the
expense of the environment and poorer nations.
French farmer and activist Jose Bové, fresh out of jail for uprooting
genetically modified crops, and still serving time doing community service,
gave the keynote address, declaring that the month of September will
“not be hot, it will burn.”
He was referring to the WTO talks scheduled from Sept. 10 to Sept. 14
in Cancun, Mexico, a crucial staging point in negotiations on a global
trade treaty to be completed by the end of next year.
Organizers from a coalition of anti-globalization groups say their aim
is to draw attention to the dangers to democracy posed by the WTO, trade
liberalization and multinational corporations.
Activists of DAL, a radical housing and employment rights group, tore
down the stand of France’s Socialist Party, sparking off tension
between the party’s workers and more militant socialist groups.
“The Socialist Party has nothing to do here, it has adopted the
politics of the right,” claimed Jean-Claude Meunier, a DAL leader.
The rally also had a domestic French theme, with organizers trying to
keep up the momentum of the pre-summer protests over pension reform
and education. For the alternative left in France — an increasingly
powerful section of opinion which is taking advantage of the political
eclipse of the socialists and the communists — the struggle in
France is part of the same worldwide fight against creeping liberalization.
A government spokesman tried to play down the significance of the event.
“By stirring up the concerns felt by a number of professions, the
minority extreme-left activists have only one real goal: to paralyze
French society,” he said.
But many of those there insisted that they were not extremist activists,
just moderates infuriated by the direction taken by the center-right
administration during its first year in power, and spurred to take action
for the first time in their lives.
Thousands of people squeezed into huge tents to listen to debates over
new government reforms proposed for the education system, the perils
of privatizing France’s public services and the menace posed by
genetically modified crops.
The organizational forces behind the strikes and demonstrations, which
have united teachers, train drivers, postmen, students, health workers
and actors since the spring, were present. Unions and campaign groups
were recruiting supporters and planning further action for the autumn
in protest against the government’s plans to extend its implementation
of pension reforms to other areas of social security.
Rightwing commentators and organizers alike referred to the gathering
as a “summer-school in anti-establishment activity.”
The tone of the occasion was serious; philosophers and union leaders
were greeted on stage with the kind of ecstatic excitement reserved
elsewhere for pop stars and footballers. Much discussion revolved around
the menace to diversity in the food world as rules of global commerce
empower giant multinationals to crush the small farmers who produce
the hundreds of varieties of French wine and cheese.
Sources: Agence France Presse, Associated
Press, BBC, Belfast Telegraph, Guardian/UK, Gulf Daily News, New York
Times, Reuters
Detroit killer cop found guilty in
wrongful death civil suit
By Abayomi Azikiwe
Detroit, Michigan, Aug. 5— In a landmark civil
case, Detroit’s most notorious cop, Eugene Brown, was found guilty
by a jury in the wrongful death of Lamar Wayne Grable, 20, who was gunned
down on Sept. 21, 1996.
A jury of four blacks and four whites deliberated for less than two
hours in order to render a guilty verdict on the counts of assault and
battery and gross negligence. A judgment of $4 million was awarded by
the jury. The case lasted for nearly two weeks and was heard by Wayne
County Circuit Court Judge Isidore Torres. The plantiff, Arnetta Grable,
the mother of Lamar Wayne Grable, brought the lawsuit in 1999 and was
represented at trial by Attys. David Robinson and Mellisa El of Detroit.
Eugene Brown was represented by a city attorney.
Probably one of the most widely known cases involving police misconduct,
Arnetta Grable v. Eugene Brown, has come to symbolize all that is wrong
with the Detroit police department. During the course of four years,
Brown killed three people in Detroit and wounded at least one other.
He has been involved in numerous altercations with other citizens and
even one off-duty police officer over the last several years. In 1999,
Brown was removed from active patrol duty by former police chief Benny
Napoleon, but still remains on the payroll of the Detroit Police Department.
Case was a long time coming to court
Arnetta Grable was determined to bring the civil case to trial despite
repeated attempts by the city of Detroit to settle out of court with
a monetary award. “I am not concerned about the money, I want the
truth to come out about what happened to my son,” Grable said on
several occasions to the media and the general public. “I promised
my son the night he was killed that I would not rest until I brought
the people responsible to justice,” Grable said.
Grable spoke widely about the death of her son at the hands of Eugene
Brown and became a principle organizer in the Detroit Coalition Against
Police Brutality and spokesperson for the National October 22 Coalition
Against Brutality.
Testimony reveals cold-blooded execution
Lamar Wayne Grable was a twenty-year-old community activists on Detroit’s
east side and had become fairly well known in the city for his work
with young people seeking to establish their own businesses. He had
come to the attention of several city leaders for his volunteer work.
On the night of Sept. 21, 1996, Lamar Wayne Grable was returning from
a party held at a neighborhood church when he was chased and gunned
down by Eugene Brown. Grable was shot eight times, twice in the back
at point blank range while he lay mortally wounded in a vacant lot near
his home on Field street near Kercheval in Detroit. Brown and his partner
at the time, Vicki Yost, claim they saw a man with a gun crossing East
Grand Blvd. They said that when he was asked to halt, he ran into an
alley. Brown says he exited the vehicle on foot to pursue the alleged
armed man, who they claimed was Lamar Wayne Grable.
Yet the description that Brown provided of Lamar Wayne Grable did not
fit his profile. Grable was wearing a brown work jacket when he was
killed, whereas Brown testified that the man he saw with the weapon
was wearing a “blue jean jacket and pants.” Consequently it
appears as if the individual they described was not Lamar Wayne Grable.
Around the same time on that evening, Grable was walking home with a
relative and when they departed, he was chased down in the vacant lot
near his home and shot to death by Brown. Brown claims that Grable fired
two shots which struck him in the abdomen. This version of events could
not be substantiated in court testimony. No medical records of Brown’s
were presented during the trial. A bullet-proof vest was presented as
evidence in court that Brown had indeed been shot. However, an expert
ballistics witness for the plantiffs, Dr. John G. Peters, testified
that the two ballistics marks on the bullet-proof vest were inconsistent
with the version of events described in Brown’s testimony. Dr.
Peters, who conducts seminars and other training exercises for police
departments across the country, testified that Brown’s approach
to the situation that he had described was a total violation of training
practices for law-enforcement officers.
“Mr. Brown should not have exited the vehicle alone in pursuit
of the person whom they said had a gun. We are no longer in the days
of the Lone Ranger. There were other options available: they could have
called for back up. They could have called in the canine units or a
helicopter, because what Officer Brown did was in violation of standard
police practice as well as the policy of the city of Detroit, “
Dr. Peters testified.
Peters’ opinion was the shooting was totally unjustified and that
the excuse given for the pursuit was that the suspect could have escaped.
However, it was never proven that Lamar Wayne Grable ever possessed
a weapon that evening. A .38 caliber hand gun was allegedly found next
to his body. However, Dr. Peters testified that the number of bullets
in the chamber of the weapon which was presented at trial as evidence,
did not match the story presented by Brown or his partner Vicki Yost.
Dr. Peters said during his testimony that “if Lamar Wayne Grable
had been able to escape from Officer Brown he probably would have been
alive today.”
It was suggested during the testimony of Dr. Peters that the .38 caliber
may have been “a throw down”, a weapon dropped at the scene
of police shootings to justify the actions of the law-enforcement officers
in cases of excessive force.
The manner in which Lamar Wayne Grable was killed suggested to Dr. Peters
that it was an execution carried out to “teach someone a lesson.”
Nonetheless, even if it was a case of mistaken identity the use of a
firearm and the repeated shooting of Grable was totally unjustified.
Arnetta Grable announced to the media after the verdict that the judgment
would be utilized to establish a trust fund in honor of her son. This
fund would assist young people in the city of Detroit who are attempting
to establish independent community businesses.
“I feel that the lost to our family and Lamar’s only child
deserves compensation.
Other actions pending against Brown
Another civil suit will be brought against Eugene Brown very soon by
one other family which suffered a lost of their love one at the hands
of this Detroit police officer. However, Brown remained steadfast that
he has done nothing wrong and that he “was just doing his job.”
In addition, the efforts by the city to suppress the finding of Deputy
Chief Walter Shoulders investigation into the killings carried out by
Eugene Brown, will be challenged in circuit court on August 12 in the
courtroom of Judge Baxter. This report purportedly carries damaging
evidence against Brown that would warrant criminal charges. Brown has
been cleared by the internal affairs department of the Detroit Police
Department and the Wayne County Prosecutors Office involving the three
killings and other altercations with citizens in Detroit.
Meanwhile, Brown has been denied a promotion to Sergeant and subsequently
filed suit against the city. A legal ruling last year squashed his claim,
saying that he had no legal right to a promotion.
At present the Detroit Police Department is under the direction of two
federal consent decrees which are supposedly designed to reform the
city’s law-enforcement agency. Yet the consent decrees are providing
no relief to victims of police brutality. The federal monitor appointed
to oversee the implementation of the consent decrees did not even send
a representative to observe the Grable v. Brown trial, a landmark case
in the history of police brutality in Detroit and nationally.
Source: Pan-African News Wire
Women in Black found
‘guilty’ in district court
By Shane Perlowin
Asheville, North Carolina, Aug. 6 (AGR)— Ten
Asheville women from Women in Black (WIB) found themselves in court
on Aug. 6 faced with charges of trespassing. WIB is an international
peace network that started in Israel in 1988 by women protesting against
Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. They wear black
as a symbol of sorrow for all victims of war, for the destruction of
people, nature, and the fabric of life.
The women were arrested on Mar. 28, 2003 in front of the Vance Monument
in Pack Square for standing vigil in the public park after the city
had closed it off with barricades to prevent Ashevillians from expressing
their dissent over the US invasion of Iraq. WIB had held their vigil
in front of Vance Monument every Friday for 18 months prior to their
arrests.
After a protracted wait through melodramatic trials, idle paper shuffling,
whispers between court bureaucrats, and aggravated “hush ups”
from bailiffs, the trial, which was set for 9:30am, began at 4:45pm.
WIB collectively pled “not guilty” to their charges and took
issue with the city’s action of closing the park in the first place.
They were defended by attorney Jim Siemens, who passionately and articulately
brought issues of constitutional rights and moral responsibility to
the otherwise banal and mechanized proceedings.
Asheville Police Dept. (APD) Lt. Jon Kirkpatrick was the first witness
called to the stand. Kirkpatrick testified that the decision to close
the park was made by City Mgr. Jim Westbrook upon the recommendation
of APD Chief of Police Will Annarino. Kirkpatrick described the WIB
vigil, “They were dressed in black inside the barricades and were
not talking at all.”
Kirkpatrick explained how he had warned each of the women to leave the
park or they would face arrest.
“Nobody said anything,” he said. The ten who refused to leave
were “escorted to the paddy wagon, searched, handcuffed, and taken
into custody.”
Upon cross-examination by Siemens, many interesting revelations came
to the fore.
Kirkpatrick admitted that the park was public property and that the
city is merely the park’s “steward.” The city’s
responsibility is to “maintain the park, cut the grass; the park’s
owners are the citizens of Asheville.”
Siemens asked, “Did the citizens of Asheville vote to close the
public park?”
Kirkpatrick maintained that the park was closed for “safety concerns.”
Annarino and Westbrook were apparently concerned that people with signs
would distract motorists, that people with “opposing viewpoints”
might escalate from dialoging to exchanging blows, and that a car might
strike protesters.
Siemens asked if any violent confrontations occurred at Vance that prompted
the Chief of Police and the City Mgr. to believe that Asheville residents
could not conduct themselves in a civil manner, or whether it was merely
some “nebulous concern” that prompted the closure.
Kirkpatrick, who was seen pulling protesters from a sidewalk by their
hair on Walnut Street a week prior to the WIB arrests, said, “It
depends on your definition of violent. No blows were struck, if that’s
what you mean.”
Siemens pointed out that there were about 50 people in the park during
the WIB vigil. He noted it was odd to close the park for the stated
concern when Downtown After Five, a festival that occurs frequently
at the same location, draws about 5,000 beer-drinking people, not to
mention that the 375,000 people drinking in the street during the Bele
Chere Festival would certainly pose a similar “safety concern”
if that were truly the issue.
Kirkpatrick said that anti-war protesters were instructed to engage
in their “free speech activities” at Pritchard Park, and those
who supported the war were directed to City-County Plaza.
“An emotional subject like that can escalate,” so folks with
“two different philosophies” should be separated, he explained.
Another reason Kirkpatrick gave for the closing of Vance was that it
is a special safety concern because it is “bounded on all sides
by streets.”
Siemens deftly pointed out the obvious, that Pritchard Park is also
bounded on all sides by streets. It quickly became apparent that the
park’s closure was due to the anti-war views that were so visibly
being expressed there.
Siemens asked Kirkpatrick point blank, “Was the park closed because
of the war protests?”
There was a long pause and some head scratching before Kirkpatrick began
to stutter, then managed to get out, “I can’t say that that’s
true.” He reiterated his and the city’s concern for public
safety.
Next on the stand was WIB defendant Anne Craig. She explained how she
began participating in the vigils after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
Craig asserted that the US Constitution protects her right to stand
in a public square and express her feelings.
The District Attorney (DA) questioned Craig’s knowledge of her
rights and asked her where she came up with such stuff.
“I read the Bill of Rights,” Craig firmly responded, citing
the First Amendment’s guarantees to freedom of speech and assembly.
The DA said that protests “had exceeded the scope of civility”
and that the city’s response was a “content neutral decision
to close the park.” He said the issue was not about WIB and their
message but, again, “public safety” concerns shut down the
park.
At the end of the day Judge Pope handed down a “guilty” verdict.
In an unusual twist of convention, the DA pleaded with the judge to
give WIB a lenient sentence; he suggested a sentence of “time served.”
“These women are not criminals… We have rapists and murderers
to deal with,” he said.
Judge Pope, who lethargically sat in his chair all day, handed down
“guilty” verdict after “guilty” verdict all day,
barely said an audible word all day, leaned forward to explain to the
DA, Siemens, WIB, and a courtroom full of WIB supporters why he would
not, in the interest of “fairness” and “equality,”
go easy on the women: The last batch of “level one” anti-war
protesters who came through his courtroom were ordered to pay fines
and court costs. WIB would get the same “fair” and “equal”
treatment. The women were ordered to pay $50 in fines and $100 in court
costs.
WIB defendant Jodi Rhoden said after the trial: “I think that the
judge upheld the beliefs and the stance of his fellow men in power in
this county and in the city. Our actions were legal and we were acting
within our first amendment rights.” She added, “I choose to
stand with the WIB because I am not democratically represented in the
White House. The channels to address the war are broken and my only
choice was to stand in a public forum in my town, in my community, and
I was prevented from doing that.”
Siemens said afterwards, “The city made a poor decision to close
what has historically been a public forum when the APD has demonstrated
that it can handle crowds like the Belle Chere crowd of 375,000 people
reasonably well.”
WIB defendant Beth Trigg said: “Not surprisingly, the judge found
us guilty and we intend to appeal the case to Superior Court. We are
hoping that the conviction will be overturned and we have good indication
that it may be. We still maintain that we did not do anything wrong.
The people of Asheville own Pack Square and it’s not up to the
discretion of the City Manager or the police to close that space to
free speech.”
|
