香港獨立媒體 - Comments for "七一皇后：從密雲到太空漫遊"

認識議員角色的限制

雖然我在電郵裡說了，不必過份苛責"交易"，但我認為，小樺的文章值得討論，可惜，她還是決定刪去，我還是希望小樺能把文章貼出來。

我以為，社會運動的參與者需要根據自己的經驗、價值、策略等，作出自己的決定。

長毛的分析或張超雄與警察的斡旋（兩人的角色有點不同，有時間再細說），不能取代了本土行動自身的決定，他們的擔憂（我會稱為過份擔憂），有時會不自覺地使運動跟從常規進行．例如，以想像中的「媒體接受程度」來衡量行動，以想像中的「市民」來衡量公眾反應，但是，社會運動偏偏就是要挑戰主導的常規，開拓新的可能，包括市民的意識及行動，甚至包括媒體認識。

例如，本土行動本來就是要讓市民重奪公共空間，在可能的情形及形勢下，大家想要達成這個目的，當然是希望市民入內欣賞煙花，而不接受警方對空間的無理規管。

所以，的確沒有必要過份苛責長毛或張超雄，他們也算是對運動的支持，但是，要批判地認識他們角色的限制，以及他們在街頭政治中的造成的政治效果。

有關長毛同張超雄

長毛只係用經驗講估計，講法合理。長毛認為示威者不徹離，市民會誤會示威者霸著碼頭看煙花，有損爭取保留碼頭運動的形象。假若要留守碼頭而又不被人誤會，他認為示威者要主動拉開鐵馬，以示邀請市民入內，但他懷疑在場示威者不敵差佬，而一般香港人不會跨過差佬防線，只會旁觀示威者與差佬的衝突。他認為結果會是，沒有市民會進入碼頭，媒體會描黑示威者霸著碼頭看煙花。

只是當晚差佬沒有強硬干涉市民進入碼頭，才會有市民進入碼頭睇煙花的情況。冇人知差佬會點反應，由始至終，大家只係博一博。

其實自己朋友裏面，都有人認同長毛嘅估計。

張超雄是低調的中間人，他只是轉達訊息。講到佢好似帶咗毒蘋果嚟俾大家，有欠公道。

絕不妥協

不拆不遷不告別！！

「熊貓治港」

（剛才貼文貼不到，再試一次。）

我拍了照呢。=)

獨立媒體~好多野睇！

P.S.不足之處是幾乎每篇都有一些錯別字，如梁文道最新那篇的「魔抓」。

管理空間的運用

無論警察,發展商,物業管理者,小販管理隊,衞生督察,都在不同領域上監控,管理,調節公共空間/或公共/私人空間之間的用途,以營造某種氣氛,鼓吹某種發展,規範某種示威活動,建立某種國家主權. 當中城市中的人民,社區裏的街坊,商場裏的shoppers,公園裏的用家,只能遵守規則, 不能出現違規,"亂"的情況, 這種無邊,流動的干預,一是做就服從權威的局面, 一是出現反撲抗衡的局面, 出現無數短暫的即食文化, 獨欠整體公民的成長, 不能接受透為有爭議的相片,內容,和批評;又欠文化事業的累積, 難將某些學術的東西普及化, 所有香港的journal's longeveity 十分短, 變成沒有"市場"的東西.
...
找到一篇abstracts:
Punishing Protest: Government Tactics That Suppress Free Speech
Heidi Elizabeth Boghosian (National Lawyers Guild)
Abstracts:

This paper examines a hierarchy of government threats to the exercise of political speech including applying the label "terrorist" to certain activists, creating legislation targeting specific groups, aggressive and unconstitutional police tactics that intimidate individuals from expressing unpopular views of the government. On the lowest rung are police officers arresting demonstrators without probable cause, committing perjury and altering evidence that would otherwise exculpate them revealing patterns of gross police misconduct. The next tier in the hierarchy consists of local and state governments that pass legislation punishing certain offenses more severely if committed for political reasons. Many cities and states are also relaxing decades-old restrictions on police spying to use the tactics to persecute political dissidents. Higher up is the Justice Department's application of the designation of "terrorist" to peaceful activists, consequently levying excessive charges, issuing grand juries, and intimidating to turn state's evidence. Moving up the ladder, Guild members have assembled data on the targeting of individuals based on political affiliation, in part by entering data into the FBI's Violent Gang and Terrorist Organization File (VGTOF) due to political activity or connections to politically-active organizations. The highest level in the hierarchy of threats to the First Amendment is the President of the United States. Authorization of warrant-less spying on Americans stands as the supreme example government disregard for First and Fourth Amendment, the rule of law, and contravenes the Foreign Intelligence Security Act. This report compiles examples of multi-level government infractions and presents a snapshot of the Bush Administration's agenda to criminalize dissent.

Another one:Politics of Police at the 2004 Republican National Conventional Protests
Alex, Vitale
Abstracts:
With the increase in large contentious demonstrations in the last decade has come a variety of new efforts to explain the interactions of police and protestors. The “blue” approach claims that understanding the views and internal procedures of the police must be given primacy. The police have a high degree of bureaucratic autonomy in advanced democracies and make their own determinations about the nature of the threat posed by protest events. The “black” approach argues that the role of the state in repressing political threats is central to understanding these confrontations. Even in democratic settings, political leaders can exert considerable pressure on police in high stakes situations and in fact often have a shared outlook on political protest activity. Based on an analysis of how the New York Police Department (NYPD) handled six demonstrations at the 2004 Republican National Convention (RNC). I argue that while each protest was dealt with in a unique way, a general pattern emerged in which the police used either the “soft hat” command and control model or the “hard hat” Miami model. The choice of which approach to use was based on three primary factors: 1) the posture that demonstrators took towards the police, 2) the internal organizational styles of policing used by the NYPD, and 3) the political environment in which the protest occurred. Building on Bourdieu’s concepts of “field” and “habitus” I argue that this three part framework shows that both internal dynamics within police departments as well as external political factors need to be considered. As a result, complaints by social movements and civil libertarians about repressive policing must target both the police and political officials.