Protests in a democracy do not need to turn into bloody battles - The example of "Occupy Frankfurt"

By Patrick

The Occupy-movement has moved out of the headlines these days, which they "occupied" several month ago in the wake of their extensive protests, mainly in the USA. At these protests, we witnessed a lot of vicious police actions which predominantly happened in several US-cities, as well as in other countries. We saw clip after clip of shockingly brutal, unnecessary, unwarranted police actions at OWS-protests (see for example this shocking compilation of incidents here), and it was incredibly depressing to realize that this is apparently what "democracy now looks like" in parts of the Western world. It was simply unbelievable what we saw during these OWS-protests.

If peaceful protests are being violently crushed in such a way on a routine basis, then there is not much which distinguishes the Western world from autocratic regimes. The disregard that members of the police showed for free speech in particular is still hard to believe. It is a sad state of affairs if for example the police actions against demonstraters in Russia are quite hard to distinguish from the police actions against the Occupy movement, with Russia being a country which currently could be called at least "partly-autocratic."

So this is a hot, controversial topic, and while it's not my goal to "lecture" anyone, I also don't want to miss the opportunity to show that it "doesn't necessarily have to be like that." I am very concerned about the state of democracy in the Western world, and in the US in particular, and as far as brutal police actions are concerned, I believe that a general agressive attitude, most likely combined with massive prejudices against protesters and a growing militarization of the police are to blame. In addition it is apparent to me, from what I have seen in countless video clips, that the level of training of the police forces seems to be very poor. "Beat them, crush them, punish them" appears far too often to be the preferred method of "problem solving" by cops when they are being put into difficult situations, like (left-wing) mass protests. This is not the type of behaviour which should be acceptable in modern democracies.

I am not saying that everything is perfect over here in Europe. Over the years, we have had a fair share of violent police actions on numerous occasions, in many countries. Just recently, in September 2010, a disastrous police action took place in Stuttgart, Germany, when foolish conservative politicians ordered the police to forcefully clear a piece of land full of protesters, many of them teenagers, with one pensioner getting permantly blinded after he got hit in the face by a stream from a police water cannon. The protests were directed against the construcation of a new main train station in Stuttgart, as the project is hideously "over-engineered", far too expensive and also very damaging to the environment.

Back to Occupy: My point is that, right now, there are profound differences of how the Occupy-movement is being treated in Germany by the authorities, compared to what we have seen for example in the USA. This, I believe, is noteworthy. Granted, the Occupy-movement in Germany is rather small, which is not surprising as the economic pressures in Germany are not very significant right now. Unemployment is on a 20-year low, and in contrast to some of the Southern European countries, Germany's economic growth is going strong.

However, that doesn't mean that German Occupy-movement has been invisible. After protests in October 2011, a large permanent OWS-camp developed right in front of the European Central Bank (ECB) in the center of Frankfurt, the city which is the German "banking capital", with the headquarters of many of the largest German banks in walking distance from the ECB.

There the camp still remains, and right from the start the behaviour of the occupants of this camp has been described as "examplary" by the local authorities, who in turn quickly legalized the camp, with no final "end date" determined yet. So far, it has been a very peaceful "co-existence" between the protesters and the surrounding banks and businesses.

But Occupy-Frankfurt came into the headlines today: A larger coalition of mainly far left-wing groups had the idea to stage a "four-day event" in the center of Frankfurt, where the headquarters of Germany's biggest banks as well as the ECB are located, effectively trying to shut down business in the city center from today till Saturday, May 19 - called "Blockupy", the "European days of action". Interestingly, Occupy Frankfurt, the camp itself, does not seem to play a significant part in all this, despite the "Occupy" label, as established far left-wing groups seem to be the main organizers.

The local authorities did not agree with a chaotic shutdown of the city which was supposed to last for several days, and therefore partially banned the planned proceedings, in a very controversial decision which nevertheless has now mainly been confirmed by the courts. It also did not help the organizers that just several weeks ago, on March 31 this year, an anti-capitalist demonstration which included a larger militant "black block" group in Frankfurt got violent and gave the authorities reason to believe that there could be even more violence during the "Blockupy" events (see also the slideshow on this page). In order to learn more about the mindset of the militants, watch this video in which the "black block" people explain how they view themselves and how they justify their actions. They basically regard their militant actions as "theatre" in order to get larger exposure for their cause - but completely ignore that fact that mindless violence only helps to discredit any legitimate cause, as it gives the "other side" the chance to lump the peaceful protesters together with the idiotic actions of the militants (see here for a particularly nasty example of the actions of the "black block" during the OWS-protest in Oakland).

Some pictures from March 31, 2012 in Frankfurt:

 

 

From news reports, we know that the occupant of the Frankfurt camp were deeply unhappy with the violence during the protests on March 31, and strongly condemned it. This is interesting, as the people in the camp were apparently irritated that their peaceful cause was somehow "co-opted" by militant protesters. They stressed afterwards that peacefulness is the main element of their political philosophy.

Part of this (partial) ban concerning the "Blockupy" protests from May 16 to May 19 is the provision that the occupants of the Frankfurt camp are obliged to leave the camp for the next days and can only return after "Blockupy", due to security reasons. So the police went into action today and removed the occupants - temporarily. The occupants of the camp were not happy, of course, but I still found it interesting to see that even such a hostile police action did not result in ugly scenes, as both sides showed a large amount of respect, civility and tolerance towards each other - virtues which sadly have been missing in so many OWS-police actions we have seen in the past. Today, the police in Frankfurt could have used a heavy-handed approach, but they chose a different path and promised the occupants right from the start that there will be no charges if they let themselves get carried away by the police peacefully. As it turns out, there were only relatively minor disturbances, for example when quite a lot of paint was used by the protesters, but the policemen and policewomen were rather unfazed and consequently started to wear protective "white overalls."

Below is an excellent clip from an Italian website which shows precisely what went on today during this police action in Frankfurt:

Here are some pictures from the Occupy Frankfurt facebook page regarding the events from today - click on pictures to enlarge:

More very good pictures of the police action against Occupy Frankfurt from yesterday can be found at this website from Seattle.


Here are some of my own pictures I took today (I wasn't there when the occupants were removed, but I was there before and afterwards) - click to enlarge:

Some shopowners as well as some banks are boarding up their windows, as violence is expected to take place during the next days:

Some of the streets surrounding the ECB have already been closed by the police:

During the next days, about 30.000 people are expected to turn up for the protests in Frankfurt, and the police expect about 2.000 militant protesters to take part. Let's hope that ugly scenes can be avoided. In any case, it's refreshing to see that the occupants of the Frankfurt OWS-camp as well as the police today displayed civility and reason. Bloody battles help nobody - and intelligent police forces and intelligent politicians will try to avoid them, whenever possible. Let's hope that wisdom will prevail.

+++

UPDATE:

I would like to point out that the Occupy-movement in the USA and the militant anarchist were also at odds with each other - as shown in the following clips during the Occupy Oakland protests, and there were certainly many more examples:

Zucotti Park/Liberty Plaza Open Again To the Public After NYCLU Complaint

By Kathleen

Occupy Wall Street protesters returned to Zuccotti Park Tuesday when the barricades were removed

Last night following a letter of complaint delivered to New York Department of Buildings barricades were removed from Zucotti Park by officers of the NYPD and Brookdale security staff and the park/plaza area is once again open to the public.

The letter is very detailed:

HAND DELIVERED AND SENT VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL


January 9, 2012


Commissioner Robert LiMandri
Department of Buildings
280 Broadway, 7th floor
New York, NY 10007
Re: Violations at 1 Liberty Plaza


Dear Commissioner LiMandri:


The New York Civil Liberties Union, the Center for Constitutional Rights, and the National
Lawyers Guild’s New York City chapter write regarding the ongoing violations of city law at 1
Liberty Plaza (165 Broadway), owned and managed by Brookfield Office Properties. Since
November 15, 2011, metal barricades have encircled the perimeter of Liberty Plaza.  In
addition, members of the public are subject to ad hoc, arbitrary and inconsistent rules and
conditions restricting their use of the park.  These practices have substantially modified Liberty
Plaza, making it a wholly inhospitable space for the public.  Putting aside for the moment the
serious constitutional concerns raised by these practices, it is abundantly clear that such
restrictions are in direct conflict with zoning laws, Brookfield’s legal obligations under a 1968
special zoning permit, and longstanding City policy. These restrictions significantly interfere
with the public’s use of Liberty Plaza on an ongoing and daily basis, and should be ended
immediately.

A. Laws governing Liberty Plaza require unobstructed public access and prior approval of

design modifications.

By the terms of a March 20, 1968 special zoning permit, the owner of 1 Liberty Plaza gained
valuable zoning concessions in exchange for constructing and maintaining what is now Liberty
Plaza as a “permanent open park” for the “public benefit.” 1 Under City zoning laws, Liberty Plaza is defined as a “public plaza,” and one over five hundred privately owned public spaces (“POPS”) in New York City. 2 Under these laws, at least 50% of the sidewalk frontage of a public plaza must be free of obstruction, and circulation paths must connect to each of the street
1
City of New York Special Zoning Permit, CP-20222, No. 4, p.215 (March 20, 1968).
2
NYC Zoning Resolution § 12-10.

Page 2 of 4

frontages. 3 In addition, any proposed modifications to public plaza’s design must first go
through an approval process before those changes can be made. 4 Furthermore, an owner’s ability to restrict the public’s use of a public plaza is constrained by zoning laws and by City policy. An owner of a public plaza may not, of course, forbid conduct in public plazas that is otherwise protected by the constitution.  In addition, an owner “shall not prohibit behaviors that are consistent with the normal public use of a public plaza.” 5 Any other restrictions an owner seeks to impose on the public’s ability to use or access a public plaza must be “reasonable,” pursuant to long established City policy. 6 Finally, any prohibition on conduct in a public plaza must be clearly posted in writing.7

B. Blocking Access to Nearly All of Liberty Plaza Violates City Zoning Law and Brookfield’s

Legal Obligations.

For nearly two months public ingress and egress to Liberty Plaza has been blocked by metal
barricades encircling the public plaza. The public is only able to enter and exit Liberty Plaza at
two gaps, and at these points members of the public have been subject to searches of their
personal belongings by security personnel.8


As noted above, to ensure the public’s ability to freely enter and exit public plazas, zoning law
requires that at least 50% of Liberty Park’s frontage be unobstructed, and also mandates
unrestricted access to and from circulation paths. The metal barricades encircling Liberty Plaza
enclose far more than 50% of the frontage and block access to major nearby walkways, in
violation of zoning laws.


In addition, a barricaded encirclement patrolled by security personnel seriously interferes with
the public’s use and enjoyment of Liberty Plaza, in violation of Brookfield’s legal obligation to
maintain the space as a permanent open park.  Any member of the public would be reluctant or
unwilling to enter an area closed in by metal barricades with only two exits. This modification
presents even more serious safety concerns when large numbers of people are attempting to
enter or exit the park through two narrow gaps in the barricades. The barricades have all but
ended Liberty Plaza’s role as a functioning public plaza.


3
NYC Zoning Resolution §§ 37-721; 37-723; 37-726.
4
NYC Zoning Resolution §§ 37-62 et. seq; 37-78; 74-91.
5
NYC Zoning Resolution § 37-752.
6
The New York City Department of City Planning, Jerold S. Kayden, and the Municipal Art Society of New York,
Privately Owned Public Space: The New York City Experience (John Wiley & Sons, 2000), p.38 (“The Department of
City Planning has taken the position that an owner may prescribe ‘reasonable’ rules of conduct”).
7
NYC Zoning Resolution § 37-73 et. seq.
8
Security personnel at Zuccotti Park at various times have included NYPD officers, off-duty NYPD officers employed
by Brookfield, and private security staff employed by Brookfield, who often act in concert with, take direction
from, and rely upon, NYPD officers.

Page 3 of 4

Finally, the barricades constitute a major design modification to Liberty Plaza—and as their
presence at the park approaches two months, a seemingly permanent one—that circumvented
the approval process required before the design of a public plaza can be altered. The
barricades should be removed immediately.

C. Constantly-Changing Unwritten Rules Unreasonably Restrict the Public’s Use of Liberty

Plaza in Violation of City Law.

Brookfield has purported to adopt written “rules of conduct” governing Liberty Plaza.  The
manner in which these rules were adopted raise serious constitutional concerns, as do the rules
themselves.9 Even assuming these regulations could be validly enforced, however, security
personnel go far beyond these written rules by selectively enforcing ever-shifting and unwritten
ad hoc prohibitions. These unjustifiable restrictions are a serious, ongoing and daily
infringement on use of the public plaza.


At the heart of these restrictions is the assertion of security personnel that certain items are
prohibited in the park. The written “rules of conduct” do not, of course, prohibit any particular
item from entering Liberty Plaza. Instead, consistent with zoning laws, the written rules forbid
only conduct. These rules do not, and could not, entitle security personnel to turn an individual
away from a public plaza simply because he or she has a personal item that security personnel
speculate might be potentially used to engage in prohibited conduct sometime in the future.


Nevertheless, security personnel have declared that certain personal possessions are prohibited
in Liberty Plaza. The unwritten list of prohibited items varies daily and is wildly inconsistent.
Individuals have been refused entry for possessing food, musical instruments, yoga mats,
cardboard signs, shawls, blankets, “prohibited containers,” chairs, bags of varying sizes, and
numerous other personal items. To effectuate the enforcement of the unwritten list of
“prohibited items,” security personnel have stopped individuals attempting to enter Liberty
Plaza and forced them to submit to a search of their personal belongings.  Individuals who
refused to permit their personal belongings to be searched have been prohibited from entering
the public plaza.


Almost all the items that have been prohibited in Liberty Plaza—signs, bags, containers, food,
musical instruments, etc.—have also been allowed to enter the park at other times.  Who is
searched and what is prohibited is arbitrary and inconsistent.  It varies by the day, the type of
activity in the park at the time, the attire of the person attempting to enter, and the caprice of
security personnel.


The inconsistent and selective enforcement of unwritten and constantly changing rules, and
preemptive searches of individuals attempting to enter the park, violates the terms of the
special zoning permit which obligates Brookfield to maintain Liberty Plaza as a permanent open
park for the public benefit. These practices also violate zoning laws by prohibiting behavior that


9
In addition, as written and posted by Brookfield, the rules appear to violate City zoning laws governing the
manner and form for “prohibition signs”. See N.Y. Zoning Resolution §§ 37-747; 37-751; 37-752.

Page 4 of 4

is normally permitted in public plazas. Finally, selectively enforcing unwritten rules is patently
unreasonable, and therefore violates longstanding New York City policy constraining the type of
regulations on conduct an owner may adopt in a public plaza.

***

Metal barricades, preemptive searches, and selectively enforcing ever-changing unwritten rules
have become established features of Liberty Plaza.  These practices infringe on clearly
established constitutional rights, and they also violate zoning laws, Brookfield’s legal obligations
under the 1968 special zoning permit, and City policy. As the Mayor has noted with regard to
Liberty Plaza, “we must never be afraid to insist on compliance with our laws.”10 These
practices violate city law and should be ended immediately, restoring Liberty Plaza to its place
as a permanent open park that is open and accessible to all members of the public on an equal
basis.


We request a prompt final determination from the Department of Buildings 11 and/or any other
appropriate New York City agency, in writing, with regard to this complaint.


Sincerely,


Taylor Pendergrass
Senior Staff Attorney
New York Civil Liberties Union


Baher Amzy
Legal Director
Center for Constitutional Rights


Gideon Orion Oliver
President
National Lawyers Guild, New York City Chapter


10
Statement of Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg on Clearing and Re-Opening of Zuccotti Park (Nov. 15, 2011).
11
NYC Charter § 643 (Department of Buildings “shall administer and enforce” zoning laws); NYC Zoning Resolution
§ 71-00 (same); NYC Zoning Resolution § 37-78(d) (an owners’ failure to comply with requirements applicable to
public plazas “shall constitute a violation” of zoning laws and Department of Buildings may enforce the violation by
revocation of building permit, revocation of certificate of occupancy, or any “other applicable remedies”).


++++


The letter makes it clear that the park is one of several hundred "bonus parks" created in a compromise deal between developers and the city council. The parks were created as a place of respite for city pedestrians. The more plaza/park place provided the higher the skyscraper could rise.

By allowing the barricades to remain in place the letter points out that the city was effectively breaking its own laws.

According to CBCNews a representative from the NYPD insists that they have been talking with Brookfield Office Properties since last week about taking down the barriers. It would seem that the letter from the NYCLU had the desired effect which pushed Brookfield and the NYPD in the right direction, although it is unlikely that tents will be seen in Zuccotti Park again.

Recent photo of Occupy Frankfurt taken in January which occupies a public park with permission from the city.They are camped outside the European Bank Headquarters.Photo curtesy of Frankfurt Occupy Facebook.

Tim Pool, who now has his own ustream channel, reported that it is the first time in months that he has seen the Park completely open. He remained filming and reporting for several hours and his coverage is in marked contrast to the mainstream media reports which all seem to echo the same refrain "They're back". Of course anyone following the Occupy Movement knows that "they" never went away and have continued their protests despite lack of mainstream coverage.

The Occupy Movement is not going any where any time soon.