Letters to the Editor, November 11, 2014
Your reporter was stating the obvious in saying "many protesters have no plans to turn themselves in" ("Autonomy for city 'will not strike at sovereignty'", November 1).
With protesters covering their faces to prevent identification, refusing to give their names and actively resisting lawful attempts by police and by plaintiffs to enforce temporary injunctions to clear the barricades, it is clear that the rules of engagement outlined by Occupy Central organisers for protesters to abide by non-violent protest means and the rule of law has not been complied with, especially by hard-core protesters.
If the protesters had abided by the rules of engagement, they would not have covered their faces and resisted attempts to clear the occupied areas. If arrested, they would have been willing to be carried away, marched off to holding areas for subsequent processing, charging and then later turned up in court to receive judgment and sentencing.
To show respect for the rule of law, they would have allowed bailiffs to clear the barricades without protest and would have attempted to reinstate the barricades afterwards.
But no, with feelings running high, the protesters felt they had suffered too much, after spending weeks out on the streets, to see the protest end so soon and so easily.
So resist they did, screaming and kicking. In this regard, the leaders of the Occupy Central movement and student bodies can hardly be held up as examples to follow.