Peaceful Protests

[ChrisF202]

After 1989 the Chinese created the People's Armed Police specifically to deal with "The Square" type incidents so that they would not have to use the PLA except for extreme emergencies so its unlikely it could happen unless a full scale revolution broke out.

BTW: what is the difference between the People's Police and the People's Armed Police? PP = regular cops and PAP = paramilitary? Do PP also carry firearms?

[Tarek Morgen]

The Chinese People’s Armed Police Force (abbreviation: PAP) is a paramilitary police force primarily responsible for law enforcement and internal security within the People’s Republic of China (PRC). In time of war, the PAP could also be used as light infantry to support the regular ground forces. According to the constitution of the PRC, the PAP is one the three integral elements of the Chinese armed forces, along with the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and the militia and reverse forces. The China’s National Defence White Paper published in 2006 claimed that the total strength of the PAP was 660,000 people, much less than the previously estimated figure of over 1 million.

taken from:

Introduction to the People's Armed Police Force - SinoDefence.com

[Feanor]

If the order is legal and the situation warrants it, yeah, it's more than ok. It's required.

I cannot agree with you. Using violence against an unarmed peaceful protest is never right, and often simply causes escalation. I know cops are going to try and break up the protest, i'm going to bring my chain, and wear gloves so I can use it. And if anything, atleast one of the bastards goes to the hospital with me.

[Officer of Engineers]

Is your protest legal? If yes, then there should be no problem. If not, why the hell should you block traffic and not be subject to arrest?

[Feanor]

So if the protest was legal, and your commander gave you the order to use any non-lethal force necessary to disperse the protest, you would do it?

[Officer of Engineers]

Again, is the order legal? If the protest is legal and the protesters are doing things within the law, then the order will be illegal to disperse them. If you have all the permits and everything is in order (you're not doing human sacrifices), then we cannot and will not interfere.

About the only thing I can think of is that there is some safety concerns. If there is a fire down the road, then I don't care what your permits say, you're not going to block the fire engines.

[Gun Grape]

I cannot agree with you. Using violence against an unarmed peaceful protest is never right, and often simply causes escalation. I know cops are going to try and break up the protest, i'm going to bring my chain, and wear gloves so I can use it. And if anything, atleast one of the bastards goes to the hospital with me.

During the 1980s the "problem" came up with peaceful protestors trying to interfear with the transfer of special weapons. Blocking gates, routes and even railroad tracks.

Those people often got beat, some were run over by convoy vehicles and at least one was run over by a train.

Was it justified? Yes

In fact, Deadly force was authorized and could have been legally applied.

There are times that concerns of national security or safety overide any "Unarmed, defenceless" objections.

[Feanor]

Again, is the order legal? If the protest is legal and the protesters are doing things within the law, then the order will be illegal to disperse them. If you have all the permits and everything is in order (you're not doing human sacrifices), then we cannot and will not interfere.

About the only thing I can think of is that there is some safety concerns. If there is a fire down the road, then I don't care what your permits say, you're not going to block the fire engines.

You are fortunate to live in a country of law colonel.

[Alex_Ivanov]

Well, to start with, I don't actually believe in democracy as power of people, or crowd in other words. I don't believe crowd is capable of wise decisions. Peaceful protest can do a lot of harm to state and society itself, and the tragedy is - protesters do not in most cases understand it. Crowd is often manipulated staying unaware of it.

Almost every revolution started with peaceful protests, for example all Russian revolutions in 20th century. And they brought nothing but devastation. Sometimes it's better to disperse protesters in the very beginning, in spite of it being "undemocratic", than to endure consequences of crowd's rule.

[Aniki]

After 1989 the Chinese created the People's Armed Police specifically to deal with "The Square" type incidents so that they would not have to use the PLA except for extreme emergencies so its unlikely it could happen unless a full scale revolution broke out.

BTW: what is the difference between the People's Police and the People's Armed Police? PP = regular cops and PAP = paramilitary? Do PP also carry firearms?

from simple foreigner knowledge, not necessary 100% accurate.

the chinese police forces can roughly be classified into 4 groups, the armed police, traffic police, people's police and 'city management corps'. not really sure about which department is controlling who, but thats the basic idea.

all except the PAP usually dont carry firearms. PAP was explained from the above article from sinodefence. the city management corps take care of illegal peddlers, illegal trash dumping, squatters etc. they are unarmed all the time, goes around in minivans and trucks, confiscating weighing machines, veggies and fruits sold by country folks, or tearing down illegal residence(squatters). sometime ago some tearing down operations resulted in squatters killed when bricks and tiles tumbling down on them, so these operations are being regulated.

the traffic police managed traffic conditions, as the name implies. since chinese commoners had a natural fear for cops, so most of the time when the TP is around, instead of relieving traffic jams they worsened the situation. chinese drivers tends to slow down when there is a cop around, they feared getting a court summon from 'wrong actions'. in the end the jam worsen. most chinese TP like to copy Hollywood style and wear a pair of big sunglasses. they dun carry arms too.

the people's police or civil police is your friendly neighborhood police. they dont usually carry firearms but are sometimes armed with batons or stun gun. most PA departments dun issue firearms to avoid the complicated arms management pocedures. anyway chinese are not allow to own firearms so there is usually no need for firearms. sometimes police chiefs tends to show off their pistols and resulted in fatal accidents. one police chief shot a relative's daughter as he fire off shots after attending a family funeral.

there are other types of paramilitary organisations like bank truck escorts(security). they are mostly ex-military personel and they carry shotguns. recently there was a case of a civilian being shot by security personel in a bank and so their organisation was being reviewed too.

all of the above, they behave better in big cities, but can sometimes collaborate with crooks in rural areas.

[Aniki]

So you guys are all saying it's ok to beat the crap out of a peaceful protest? Mow it down with watercannons, and rifle butts, as long as lethal force isn't used?

it may not always be OK, but they can happen, and some of us may just happen to be at either end of it. if u cannot satisfy everyone, its probably better to choose the lesser evil.

the ideal situation is not always the same as reality. and anyway in a perfect situation, these peaceful demos shouldnt even happen in the first place.

[Feanor]

Well, to start with, I don't actually believe in democracy as power of people, or crowd in other words. I don't believe crowd is capable of wise decisions. Peaceful protest can do a lot of harm to state and society itself, and the tragedy is - protesters do not in most cases understand it. Crowd is often manipulated staying unaware of it.

Almost every revolution started with peaceful protests, for example all Russian revolutions in 20th century. And they brought nothing but devastation. Sometimes it's better to disperse protesters in the very beginning, in spite of it being "undemocratic", than to endure consequences of crowd's rule.

I can, to an extent, agree with that. A crowd is always stupid, cowardly, and treacherous, regardless of the value of the individuals making up the crowd. But one must ask to what extent? Practically every single major anti-government protest or march in Russia ends up beaten by the cops and omon. Where does the limit stand?

[Feanor]

it may not always be OK, but they can happen, and some of us may just happen to be at either end of it. if u cannot satisfy everyone, its probably better to choose the lesser evil.

the ideal situation is not always the same as reality. and anyway in a perfect situation, these peaceful demos shouldnt even happen in the first place.

Really? So ideally people should never protest the governments actions publicly? What form of government are you defending?

[Alex_Ivanov]

Practically every single major anti-government protest or march in Russia ends up beaten by the cops and omon. Where does the limit stand?

Depends on situation. In Russia protests are unnecessary now. Our problems can't be solved by protests, only by hard working. Russia need 20-30 calm years now, not another destabilization.

[Feanor]

Depends on situation. In Russia protests are unnecessary now. Our problems can't be solved by protests, only by hard working. Russia need 20-30 calm years now, not another destabilization.

Are you denying the Russian constitution? Are you saying that the right to protest should be denied to the people? Saying that protests aren't needed is only your opinion. Given that Russia is (in theory) a democracy, there should be room for different opinions, and as clear evidence that those opinions are there, you have the Russian Constitution.

''Article 31.
Citizens of the Russian Federation shall have the right to gather peacefully, without weapons, and to hold meetings, rallies, demonstrations, marches and pickets.'' - chapter 2 The Russian Constitution

So whether you think they are necessary or not is irrelevant. If Russia is a country of law, then Putin is under a direct obligation to enforce the Constitution, which clearly and expressly permits protest.