“Strategic incapacitation” is a modern policing strategy used to control and neutralize protests, particularly those by activist groups challenging state or corporate power. It emerged as an approach in North America after the 1999 WTO protests in Seattle demonstrated flaws in earlier models1. Use accelerated significantly following the September 11, 2001 attacks, which heightened national security concerns around public gatherings.
Protest policing has shifted through phases:
- Escalated force (pre-1970s): Overt repression with direct confrontation, arrests, and violence to suppress dissent.
- Negotiated management (1970s–1990s): Cooperation with protest organizers, designated protest zones, and permits to minimize conflict while allowing expression.
- Strategic incapacitation (post-1999/2001 onward): A proactive, preemptive model focused on preventing protests from becoming effective or disruptive in the first place, rather than reacting to them2.
Strategic incapacitation views potential disruption as a security threat, and is unconcerned with free assembly.
Key Elements of Strategic Incapacitation
Scholars like Patrick F. Gillham, John Noakes, and others (e.g., in analyses of Occupy Wall Street, G7 summits, and global justice movements) identified core tactics3:
- Surveillance and intelligence gathering — Extensive monitoring of activist groups, social media, communications, and movements to assess “risks” and identify potential “disruptive” individuals or leaders in advance.
- Preemptive arrests and selective disruption — Arresting key organizers, legal observers, or participants before or early in events on minor or pre-textual charges (e.g., obstruction, even when peaceful). This removes leadership and supports, thereby creating a “chilling effect” on participation.
- Spatial control and containment — Creating “no-protest zones,” hard perimeters (fencing, blockades), kettling (surrounding and trapping crowds), or designated “free speech zones” far from targets. This isolates protesters, prevents marches from reaching symbolic sites, and limits visibility/media impact.
- Use of “less-lethal weapons” and mass arrests — Deploying pepper spray, rubber bullets, flash-bangs, or chemical agents to disperse or incapacitate groups temporarily. Mass arrests (often with charges later dropped) impose “process as punishment”: detention, bail conditions, court dates, and resource drain without convictions.
- Risk management and framing — Protesters (especially from racialized, Indigenous, or anti-colonial movements) are framed as threats via threat assessments, justifying heavy resource deployment4. This often aligns with settler colonial or national security logics, targeting groups opposing pipelines, colonialism, or imperialism.
The goal is not necessarily conviction but deterrence: making activism costly in time, money, physical/mental health, and legal risk, thus discouraging sustained participation without outright banning protests.
In a nutshell: the process is the punishment.
See our Instagram post for more.
- Patrick F. Gillham, “Securitizing America: Strategic Incapacitation and the Policing of Protest Since the 11 September 2001 Terrorist Attacks,” Sociology Compass 5, no. 7 (July 2011): 636–652, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9020.2011.00394.x. ↩︎
- Patrick F. Gillham, “Securitizing America: Strategic Incapacitation and the Policing of Protest Since the 11 September 2001 Terrorist Attacks,” Sociology Compass 5, no. 7 (July 2011): 636–652, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9020.2011.00394.x. ↩︎
- John A. Noakes and Patrick F. Gillham, “Aspects of the ‘New Penology’ in the Police Response to Major Political Protests in the United States, 1999–2000,” in The Policing of Transnational Protest, ed. Donatella della Porta, Abby Peterson, and Herbert Reiter (Aldershot, UK: Ashgate, 2006), 97–115. ↩︎
- Andrew Crosby and Kevin Walby, “Strategic Incapacitation, Scaled Up: National Security Influence on Protest Policing for the 2018 Quebec G7 Summit,” Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space 41, no. 7 (2023): 1243–1262, https://doi.org/10.1177/23996544231151676. ↩︎