babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics

Topic Closed  Topic Closed


  
Search | FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » the best of babble   » Antiglobalization protesters = mass murdering terrorists

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Antiglobalization protesters = mass murdering terrorists
rasmus
malcontent
Babbler # 621

posted 22 September 2001 07:52 PM      Profile for rasmus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Makes me angry:

Terrorists Exploit Anti-globalization

From: Fortune favours the bold | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 22 September 2001 08:10 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Although most demonstrators have expressed shock and horror at the terrorist attacks, some readily admit they see the "logic" behind the attacks.

Well, you'd have to be an IDIOT not to see the logic behind targeting the World Trade Center - it doesn't follow that if you get the logic that you condone the action. Pretty dumb in my opinion.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
meades
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 625

posted 22 September 2001 08:18 PM      Profile for meades     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What a bunch of skapegoating, opertunistic, ass holes!

They've probably been out there looking for something to try and discredit us! Never mind the "evidence" they have is total BS, or like Michelle pointed out, nothing different from the rest of the public. Are we evil for being able to add two and two? give me a break! This kind of propaganda just pisses me off!


From: Sault Ste. Marie | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jared
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 803

posted 22 September 2001 08:23 PM      Profile for Jared     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
And while they are not deliberately setting out to slaughter thousands of innocent people, the protesters who want to prevent the holding of meetings like those of the IMF or the WTO are seeking to advance their political agenda through intimidation, which is a classic goal of terrorism

Oh yes. Trying to knock down a fence and killing thousands of innocents. That's the same thing.

quote:
Of course, non-violent demonstrators have a right to express their views in a democratic society. But when their aim is to shut down meetings of elected officials, and thus prevent the voices of the majority being heard, their actions become profoundly anti-democratic.

The MAJORITY? HA! I wasn't aware that the "majority" are government leaders or corporate board members, because they are the only ones who know what the hell is going on at these gatherings.

I don't think it's a case of "Terrorists Exploiting Anti-Globalization." On the contrary, it's "idiot right-wing writers exploiting terrorists" in trying feebly to find some causal link between mass-murder and anti-free market protest. Disgraceful.

[ September 22, 2001: Message edited by: Jared ]


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Pimji
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 228

posted 22 September 2001 09:04 PM      Profile for Pimji   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
McCarthyism anyone?
From: South of Ottawa | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1394

posted 22 September 2001 09:11 PM      Profile for Zatamon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
How could they object when Bush just announced the holy war against globalization (of terrorism) - that is exactly what anti IMF and WTA demonstrations are about. Anyone read Chomsky's Rogue States?

Zatamon


From: where hope for 'hope' is contemplated | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 22 September 2001 09:14 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The "leap of logic" that we are condemning has been utilized by people here on babble (the more right-wing members, generally), so it's not far-fetched to assume that people may actually "link" in their minds the leftist, anti-globalization protestors who tend to target the USA, and anti-American terrorist movements.

Although the link is invalid since the organizing philosophies of both movements are fundamentally different and in many ways contradictory, the unfortunate coincidence of aims is enough to confuse those of little intellect (such as, oh say, David Frum. )

[ September 22, 2001: Message edited by: DrConway ]


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 22 September 2001 09:23 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Democratic accountability THIS, Mr. Reginald Dale.

It's a classic rhetorical smear tactic -- the disingenous denial. "I'm not saying you're like Hitler, but..."

A slightly more sophisticated version of the same came courtesy of Peter "fer us or agin us" Beinart in The New Republic -- just two days after the catastrophe:

Sidelines

The ashes weren't even cold, literally. On the day shame was handed out, he must have been off trying to privatize the angels' work.

The tag line to Beinart's column on TNR's home page was "the anti-globalization movement's lowest moment yet."

This passage is typical:

quote:
The anti-globalization movement is, in part, a movement motivated by hatred of the inequalities between rich and poor. And it is, in part, a movement motivated by hatred of the United States. Now, after what has happened this week, it must choose.

We'll see much more of the same, I expect. This was, among other things, a gift for the forces of backlash.

Edited to add: Just noticed this additional piece on the TNR website, Jonathan Cohn's prediction -- written with evident relish -- that this will split the American portion of the anti-globalization movement:

Left Back

Best I-haven't-had-an-original-insight-since -1971 passage:

quote:
The hard hats and the hippies are on opposite sides of the barricades once again.

Sometimes TNR is better than Report on Business for finding out what the buggers are thinking.

What really gravels my ass is that Cohn just might be right.

[ September 22, 2001: Message edited by: 'lance ]


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1394

posted 22 September 2001 09:23 PM      Profile for Zatamon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Voltaire is usually credited with being the genius of the "Age of Reason".

I believe he said: "I hate what you are saying more than I can express, but I would die to defend your right to say it" (I am not sure of the exact wording, but the meaning is clear).

Where are the giants of reason and morality now? John Ralston Saul chose his title well for his book: "Voltaire's Bastards".

Zatamon


From: where hope for 'hope' is contemplated | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1394

posted 22 September 2001 09:48 PM      Profile for Zatamon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
P.S. The exact quote is:

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

(it is not fair to mangle Voltaire, so I looked it up).


From: where hope for 'hope' is contemplated | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 22 September 2001 10:23 PM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I remember arguing endlessly on these threads regarding how antiglobalists differentiate themselves from terrorists. I was told repeatedly that antiglobalists do not consider violence against property to be violence only if it is against people. By that logic. All the antiglobalist people would condone the destruction of the world trade center and the economic fallout as long as no lives were lost.
From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
GulfAlien
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1259

posted 22 September 2001 10:46 PM      Profile for GulfAlien   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I would caution that it is very important to distinguish between legitimate, non-violent protest and violent protest.

I find the secrecy surrounding the WTO, World Bank, IMF, various inter-governmental agreements, even the UN, disconcerting and often very un-democratic.

As a Canadian, I have been appalled by the excessive use of force to curb legitimate, non-violent protestors here in Vancouver and more recently in Quebec City.

But, I am also very concerned that many people of these same convictions are becoming apologists for the violent protestors.

There was another thread on these boards about being an "ewok", and other planning for disruptive, violent protest for the upcoming talks in Alberta.

I believe I will be sick to my stomach if I violent protests manifest themselves by people believing it is ok to attack authority with force and destroy property simply to get their point across.

I think that there are people in the non-violent protest camp who are secretly supportive of those who cross the line into violence and destruction. I urge commentators to be very clear that they are against violent protest in any form.

Once that is established the equation "antiglobalization protesters = mass murdering terrorists" does not add up. But if it is not .. then what do you stand for?


From: Vancouver | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1394

posted 22 September 2001 10:48 PM      Profile for Zatamon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It is irrelevant what any group believes in as long as they respect and obey the laws (see above quote from Voltaire).

Violence of any kind never resolves anything (other than death and destruction) - the only hope for any movement to succeed is to convince the masses that they are right.

This is the most difficult task on Earth to accomplish. As Lenin said "it is easier to build three factories than to change the minds of three people" (Look at e.g. the arguments we have had about assassination).

Zatamon


From: where hope for 'hope' is contemplated | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
meades
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 625

posted 22 September 2001 11:00 PM      Profile for meades     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Markbo: How nice that you paint us all with the same brush. Maybe you have been listening to our arguments about equality?

I don't condone violence. Against property, or especially people. However I think violence against people is light years worse than violence against property.

Also, as we have seen in Québec and Vancouver, if the police attack a large group of angry people, you shouldn't expect that angry group of people to simply say "oh, they don't like us? Okay, gang, let's pack up our stuff and move to a more suitable place!"

Also, I have no problem with general disruption.

Would we be more succesful if we followed the doctrine of "non-violent non-co-operation"? Probably. Does that represent the reality of the protests? no. Will it ever? I hope so, but I'm not holding my breath.

Does violence against property make us even comparable to terrorists? HELL NO!

Comparing us to terrorists is just the right wing making excuses for them to ignore us, and sorry attempts at preventing the public from hearing our message.

[ September 22, 2001: Message edited by: meades ]


From: Sault Ste. Marie | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1394

posted 22 September 2001 11:06 PM      Profile for Zatamon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
meades, your heart is at the right place. But don't give up on "non-violent non-co-operation" just yet. It worked for Ghandi (it would not have worked under Hitler or Stalin, but we are not there yet).

Cheer up!

Zatamon


From: where hope for 'hope' is contemplated | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 22 September 2001 11:30 PM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Meades, I am not painting all antiglobalization people with the same brush.

THere are advocates on these very threads of Violence against property. Obviously they are only one segment of the antiglobalization protesters. They argued that if property was destroyed and not hurt that it was not violence.

When the guy was shot in italy as he attacked men in a jeep. Everybody said that the Italian police had overreacted. That it was only property he was out to destroy.

I think some antiglobalists who advocate violence against property need to give their heads another shake. They better understand that violence by protesters in any form may be tolerated by the public less than before.


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Pimji
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 228

posted 22 September 2001 11:40 PM      Profile for Pimji   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Please Markbo let up. Imagine how you would feel a person calls Mike Harris a fascist. It really diminishes the argument on either side and is counterproductive to make a point.
From: South of Ottawa | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
krishna
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1242

posted 23 September 2001 03:46 AM      Profile for krishna   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Nonviolent noncooperation did work under Hitler. In many many instances, "ordinary citizens" hid people from those who would have sent them to the slave/death camps. The whole Norwegian government refused to cooperate with the imposed regime.

Btw, India did not regain its independence from Britain solely thru the nonviolent actions organized or approved by Gandhi. There were other actions, including violent ones, but i suppose it's off topic to try disentangling them and analysing relative effectiveness.


From: Ottawa and Rideau rivers area | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
meades
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 625

posted 23 September 2001 04:01 AM      Profile for meades     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You're right. There was a lot of violence. Though, to add credit to ghandi, he did fast (sp?) several times to stop the violence. Public opinion in Britain played a big role, and British massacres of peaceful protestors did have a role to play in placing public opinion into the hands of the Indian National Congress.
From: Sault Ste. Marie | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
rasmus
malcontent
Babbler # 621

posted 23 September 2001 04:27 AM      Profile for rasmus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Then there is the variation, "I agree with everything you say, but I'll fight to the death against your right to say it."
From: Fortune favours the bold | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
rasmus
malcontent
Babbler # 621

posted 23 September 2001 04:28 AM      Profile for rasmus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oh PS Krishna I have ranted elsewhere about credulous Westerners' mythologizing of Gandhi, who is not, truth be told, my personal favourite.

But yes, you are right, a shockingly small degree of nonviolent resistance in places like Denmark and Belgium was enough to save many Jews from the camps. Shocking because of how little it occurred elsewhere.


From: Fortune favours the bold | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
rasmus
malcontent
Babbler # 621

posted 23 September 2001 04:30 AM      Profile for rasmus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Third post, sorry, no, the Norwegian government enthusiastically cooperated, hence the word "quisling" which comes from the name of the Norwegian PM of the time. Those who did not cooperate with deportations were the Danes. In other ways the Belgians, the Bulgarians, the Italians, and after initial cooperation, the Vichy French.
From: Fortune favours the bold | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1394

posted 23 September 2001 09:08 AM      Profile for Zatamon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
When I said "non-violent non-cooperation" wouldn't have worked under Hitler or Stalin, I meant the kind of public, defiant, organized resistance Ghandi led in India. If you tried that in Germany under Hitler or in SU under Stalin, you would have been murdered.
From: where hope for 'hope' is contemplated | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1394

posted 23 September 2001 09:25 AM      Profile for Zatamon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Then there is the variation, "I agree with everything you say, but I'll fight to the death against your right to say it."

Excellent variation - it could be used as definition for cynicism.


From: where hope for 'hope' is contemplated | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Pimji
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 228

posted 23 September 2001 09:33 AM      Profile for Pimji   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Gandhi's goal was ultimatly a non-violent society. The mass demonstrations and of non coperation do have a cost. It is form of action that is taken by participation of citizen.
I believe what we have here in North America really revolves soley around money. We pay someone else to do the work of conflict resolution for us then we go back to our daily lives watching the events unfold on tv. Any new ideas or methodology is quickly quashed by those who maintain an interest in the status quo as they march forward with their agenda even at the expense and risk to thier own citizens and organizations.
The mass demonstrations really need to steer clear of any type of violence at all cost. Disagreeing is very easy but actually taking action such as volunteering to work for an NGO, fundraising, even as little as writting a letter to an MP is a lot less fun than going to a march or for that matter going to jail in a protest using non cooperation.

From: South of Ottawa | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 23 September 2001 10:02 AM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Please Markbo let up. Imagine how you would feel a person calls Mike Harris a fascist.

Thats not what I'm saying, I have respect for the majority of antiglobalization protesters.

Its just that I think its more important now than ever to condemn violence against property and stop trying to justify it.

I say this because I think the condemnation of violence against property will further the cause and message of antiglobalization protesters. Not because I want to hurt their cause.

Antiglobalization protesters have a lot of important legitimate gripes. Their message is important, whether I agree with it or not. I'm trying to warn that if they use violence against property to get that message out, Few members of the public will care about the differences of where their violence is directed.

[ September 23, 2001: Message edited by: Markbo ]


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 23 September 2001 12:11 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Markbo, to paraphrase, you either believe in democracy or you believe in a police state.

The article that began this thread, the previous Calgary Sun editorials, and perhaps the other link in this thread (which I didn't bother to read) attempt to draw a straight line between anti-globalization protests and the sort of terror we witnessed in New York. Do you really believe there is a link?

The single most common and discernible demand of the anti-globalization protestors is the democratization and inclusion of environmental, labour and human rights issues within the various institutions conducting negotiations and within the agreements themselves.

The big lie with regard to the WTO, IMF and other international bodies is that they are democratically representiative and the protestors are not. Protestors are ordinary people. The term democracy is derived from the Greek word demos meaning people.

Which member of the WTO or IMF ruling bodies did you vote for?

The editorialists that attempt to smear anti-globalization protestors with the tragedy of New York, are, in themselves, terrorists. They may not be dropping bombs but the goal is the same. To silence those who would dissent and to obtain what is not attainable through traditional means of democracy and debate but through the creation of fear and loathing.

In China, last week, a labour organizer was jailed for complaining about prison conditions. What irony, eh? The Chinese government does not attempt to keep such information from the public. Because the knowledge of his imprisonment strikes fear into the hearts of others who might also want to publically complain. In the same week, it was announced that the way had been cleared for China's entry into the WTO. Human rights violations, notwithstanding.

Even those who attend Summit demos and do engage in acts of violence cannot be likened to those who engage in terrorism. Why? Because they are there, neither anonymous nor hidden. They place their bodies on the line and often wind up in police custody and not without a beating. They do not hide silently in the shadows and strike when least expected. They are out front, loud and perfectly visible. There is a huge difference.

And Markbo, finally, even you, who might disagree with the aims of the anti-globalization protests, must speak out when editorialists attempt to paint us as terrorists. Because it is not just our liberities and freedoms that are at risk if they are successful. It is the freedoms and liberties of all. Again, you either are with democracy, or against it.

[ September 23, 2001: Message edited by: WingNut ]


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Pimji
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 228

posted 23 September 2001 01:05 PM      Profile for Pimji   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I'm trying to warn that if they use violence against property to get that message out, Few members of the public will care about the differences of where their violence is directed.

Whew! We are on the same page!


From: South of Ottawa | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
freedom2002
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1309

posted 23 September 2001 01:40 PM      Profile for freedom2002     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
yeah , yeah. it all starts with jay walking and the next thing you know , it's murder , rape and pillage , or so they ( the establishment would have us believe.
i'm against violent protest , because the actions of the few frighten the public at large , make them angry , and drown out the message of the MUCH larger group , always assuming that allowing peaceful protest , and giving the protesters a pat on the head and a patronizing " thank you so very much for your input " while claiming such things are a necessary part of a democratic society doesn't serve the purpose of plcating the protesters and making the public laugh.
as you may have guessed , i am not an advocate of event oriented activism.

From: calgary , alberta , canada | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 23 September 2001 01:52 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Third post, sorry, no, the Norwegian government enthusiastically cooperated, hence the word "quisling" which comes from the name of the Norwegian PM of the time.

Just a quibble... Vidkun Quisling, prior to the war, was the leader of the microscopic National Union (fascist) party. When the Germans invaded he proclaimed himself Prime Minister, and was eventually so installed, puppet-like, by the Nazis.

But according to this site, this only stimulated the resistance movement, and therefore

quote:
the occupying power quickly realized that -- for the time being -- Quisling did not serve their interests and they chose to base their administration of the country on a certain degree of give-and-take with the existing civilian authorities.

From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
rasmus
malcontent
Babbler # 621

posted 23 September 2001 02:04 PM      Profile for rasmus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Quibbling over Quisling? I am instructed.
From: Fortune favours the bold | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 23 September 2001 02:19 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Classic postcard (1920s?): Bookish young gentleman sitting under tree with voluptuous young lady who evidently isn't thinking of books at the moment.

He: Do you like Kipling?

She: I don't know, you naughty boy, I've never Kippled!


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 23 September 2001 02:22 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Great minds, 'lance. You beat me. I hate people with cable.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 23 September 2001 02:24 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And so begins the greatsocietal division of the early 21st century: The cabled and the cabled-nots.
From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Doug
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 44

posted 23 September 2001 02:26 PM      Profile for Doug   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
That reminds me of a line from the Clue movie. "Do you like Kipling, Miss Scarlett?" "Sure...I'll eat anything."
From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
rasmus
malcontent
Babbler # 621

posted 23 September 2001 02:29 PM      Profile for rasmus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I've heard that Kipling joke three times in the last week.

Actually, I am reading "Kim" now, so it's not so surprising.


From: Fortune favours the bold | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 23 September 2001 02:33 PM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
And Markbo, finally, even you, who might disagree with the aims of the anti-globalization protests, must speak out when editorialists attempt to paint us as terrorists. Because it is not just our liberities and freedoms that are at risk if they are successful. It is the freedoms and liberties of all. Again, you either are with democracy, or against it.

I make a commitment to you right now that I will speak out when peaceful protesters are painted as terrorists. But I will still condemn violence even if it is only directed at property. I believe in your freedom to protest as much as I believe in my freedom to own property.

What I am also saying is that I will never defend the use of violence against property as a legitimate form of protest. Violence against others property has nothing to do with democracy, it never has and it never will. I believe an even greater majority of people will refuse to accept this peversion of protest than before.

March on, Protest on, If you couln't speak your mind, who would I argue with, I probably would have to go, get a life.

[ September 23, 2001: Message edited by: Markbo ]


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 23 September 2001 02:36 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Cable schmable. Phone line, 56K.

Peanuts cartoon which I remember from maybe age 8: Linus is supposed to go to camp, and doesn't want to. Hides in Snoopy's doghouse. Lucy's on the hunt, asks Snoopy where Linus is. Snoopy points downward with his ear. Lucy drags Linus out while he shakes his fist at Snoopy and hollers "Squealer! Traitor! Quisling!"

I asked my dad what that meant. He smiled fondly (of me that is) and we looked it up in my new History of the World for Young Readers.

I was almost as saddened by Charlie Shultz's death as by Ernie Coombs'.


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 23 September 2001 02:42 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
What I am also saying is that I will never defend the use of violence against property as a legitimate form of protest. Violence against others property has nothing to do with democracy, it never has and it never will. I believe an even greater majority of people will refuse to accept this peversion of protest than before.

Fair enough. But do you believe that there's no moral difference between violence against persons and violence against property?

Or, for that matter, that for protesters to accept violence against property is for them to start down a slippery slope?

I think what I most object to in the articles I've cited is the view, or even worse the insinuation, that active protest is a continuum, with vandalism toward one end and terrorism toward the other.


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Trespasser
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1204

posted 23 September 2001 03:22 PM      Profile for Trespasser   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Also, some of the folks: stop lumping together meaningless acts of violence that follow almost every type of massive gathering (and the "anti-glob." demonstrations are not immune) and direct action, which is a fantastic new way of expressing political dissent. "New", meaning developed during the last decade or so. Direct action was born as an expression of disappointment with working for change both through electoral politics and through non-electoral mass political organizing such as the labour movement and the big NGOs and universities that succumb to spirit of corporatization. DiY (Do it yourself), or DA, is practiced by individuals, or small groups of people, who realized that they have no other resources but themselves, their own bodies, as a tool for voicing political grievances and fighting against injustice. The method encompasses "tree hangers"; some forms of hacktivism; individuals who enter corporate headquarters, grab as many files as possible and throw them out of the window; individuals who show up nude to the media-covered receptions just so they could protest against a particular practice associated with the crowd; people who tore down pieces of fence in Quebec City (but not those who threw rocks at the police), and many many other acts of protest. (I am sure that most Babblers know more about this than I do, I am relying here on George McKay's 1998 book DiY Culture: Party and Protest in Nineties Britain.)

Violence is almost never the point with DA: the point is to reclaim a space, a right, to break a rule that is perceived as discriminatory, do a small media spectacle so the message could get through to other individuals with no political resources. Some property is sometimes damaged, more often law is broken, but DA-ers know very well that they will be the ones to pay the highest price for the action (as it often ends with arrests). What moves them is the question What can I (this helpless, poor individual) do to change things, and not How much property will I be able to damage, or How many people will I be able to hurt, as ignorant commentators of "anti-glob." protests tend to think.

Probably the most tragic example of DiY protest would be Jan Palach in Communist Czechoslovakia, but that's a different story.

[ September 23, 2001: Message edited by: Trespasser ]


From: maritimes | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 23 September 2001 03:40 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Excellent post, Trespasser. Very instructive.

What did Jan Palach do? I don't doubt it's germane to this discussion.


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Trespasser
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1204

posted 23 September 2001 04:07 PM      Profile for Trespasser   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
He went to a busy square (I believe it was in Prague) in the middle of the day and set himself ablaze. It was a solitary and desperate protest against Communism, the act of ultimate helplessness. There's a small memorial in that square today, where people still lay flowers or just slow their pace and reminisce...

(It must have been a real PR blow to the regime that did not allow any form of political protest whatsoever.)


From: maritimes | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 23 September 2001 04:25 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Good God.

But as soon as I read this I remembered a man named Norman Morrison, an American Quaker. In 1965, to protest the Vietnam War, he burned himself to death on the steps of the Pentagon.

He was immediately regarded a national hero in North Vietnam, but I doubt there's a memorial plaque at the Pentagon.


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 23 September 2001 04:25 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Pimji is right to mention the word McCarthyism as a predecessor to what is now beginning to occur in the media. Take, for example, Rosie DiManno of the Toronto Star:


"It turns my stomach that some Canadians have no stomach at all for the self-sacrifice that Americans accept without question, in their defence of righteous principles. It chills my blood, listening to the litany of grievances from America-haters who are busily rationalizing the hateful attacks of fanatics, exculpating the actions of evil-doers as if there were some logic to it, if we'd only stop to connect the geopolitical dots.

This is the posturing of apologists and fifth columnists."

A "fifth columnist" is a SABOTEUR, someone who deliberately causes physical damage to the war effort. (Stalin used the term "wreckers"). An "apologist" is someone who tries to justify the acts of an opponent.

The essence of McCarthyism was to pillory people who opposed or disagreed with US foreign policy as a disloyal fifth column. The media were central to McCarthy's effort, and happily played along.

Anyone who then suggested that Chinese peasants might have reason to rebel against Chiang Kai Shek got the full McCarthy treatment. Dimanno doesn't like the suggestion that "there might be some logic to it", and claims that finding a logic involves justification.

Then, too, Dimanno intimates that while these fifth columnists are "disproportionately" represented in the media, of course the great silent majority of Canadians know better, that is, agree with her.

And they always will, unless people continue to think about not only what happened, but why.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 23 September 2001 04:31 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Then, too, Dimanno intimates that while these fifth columnists are "disproportionately" represented in the media, of course the great silent majority of Canadians know better, that is, agree with her.

Does the CBC, particularly, get fingered as a nest of fifth columnists?

These people always manage to invoke the great silent majority. The question of how, if the majority is silent, the pundit understands its thinking is usually passed over in, well, silence. See The Baffler, No. 13 especially.

I'm interested in Jonathan Cohn's New Republic prediction that in the aftermath of New York/Washington, the anti-globalization movement will split. Perhaps we're seeing signs of this in Hargrove's call to cancel Qatar protests, and the CAW flying squads avoiding OCAP.

In 1990-91 I was president of my Steelworkers local at the University of Victoria. Our membership consisted of about 20 full-time workers, of which I was one, and around 110 part-timers, all students.

Some of the students, particularly, wanted the local to take a position against Canadian involvement, as did I. I didn't take a poll or anything, but after a few vocal opponents said the union should come out for Canadian involvement, I scrapped the idea of bringing it up at a general meeting. We were a brand-new and shaky local, and my spider-sense told me such a split would weaken us.

[ September 23, 2001: Message edited by: 'lance ]


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
agent007
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1189

posted 23 September 2001 04:40 PM      Profile for agent007     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
And they always will, unless people continue to think about not only what happened, but why.

We all know what happened. But where do we find the answer to "Why?"


From: Niagara Falls ON | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 23 September 2001 04:50 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It may be impossible for us ever truly to understand why. But surely a first step would be to answer the question "who?"

If any evidence has been produced implicating a specific person or group other than the plotters directly involved, I have yet to hear of it. Can anyone help me out?

[ September 23, 2001: Message edited by: 'lance ]


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
agent007
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1189

posted 23 September 2001 05:44 PM      Profile for agent007     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Who? 'lance, they are working on it.
And please note that the only persons waging war are the journalists, tripping over themselves in the race to beat the competition.
America has NOT yet fired a shot or launched a missile, but hey, reading the 'papers and watching TV would surely make us believe otherwise.

[ September 23, 2001: Message edited by: relogged ]


From: Niagara Falls ON | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 23 September 2001 05:53 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
On both issues, I prefer to watch and wait.

I do think it may be a mistake for the US to prepare for a war, in the military sense. The attacks were acts of "horrendous criminality," as a caller is saying even now on "Cross-Country Checkup," but not acts of war.

[ September 23, 2001: Message edited by: 'lance ]


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
GulfAlien
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1259

posted 23 September 2001 06:13 PM      Profile for GulfAlien   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Without question, the articles referred to in this thread where authors infer that the equation "antiglobalization protesters = mass murdering terrorists" may be valid, are needlessly provacative and extreme in their inference.

However, they do highlight that it IS important to distinguish what is acceptable and what is not acceptable in terms of expressing political and ideological viewpoints.

In my mind the "direct action" activities described above are acceptable. Launching projectiles at or charging at and threatening police at public events is not acceptable. Maintaining physical presence in large numbers in near proximity to meetings, etc to peacefully and non-violently voice protest is acceptable. Destroying or defacing public or private property because they are symbols is not acceptable.

It should not be assumed that unacceptable behaviour will happen during protest eveents by protestors. Of course, if it does happen, the reaction by authority should also not assume that unacceptable behaviour are inherent to protest.

The onus is on the protestors to ensure that the "integrity" of their protest. This means resolutely and clearly opposing violence against person and property. I believe it irresponsible and hypocritical to silently support unacceptable behaviour or to condone unacceptable behaviour as acts of people "without other recourse".


From: Vancouver | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Pimji
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 228

posted 23 September 2001 08:43 PM      Profile for Pimji   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Righto.
From: South of Ottawa | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 23 September 2001 11:43 PM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Fair enough. But do you believe that there's no moral difference between violence against persons and violence against property?

Or, for that matter, that for protesters to accept violence against property is for them to start down a slippery slope?


Actually you said it quite clearly 'lance
Theres a difference that the people you want to hear you won't make. Also there is more possibility of people getting injured like when fences are stormed.

The slippery slope is arguable since there has been no limit set by protesters on how much property can be damaged before they cross some imaginary line.

quote:
I think what I most object to in the articles I've cited is the view, or even worse the insinuation, that active protest is a continuum, with vandalism toward one end and terrorism toward the other.

no vandalism is not on the other end of terrorism it is on the same end just way before it as it is meant to intimidate people to act a certain way.

Gulf Alien the problem is, is that direct action is defined by the voice of the day. Sometimes it means the things you said. Sometimes it means storming a perimeter fence that is guarded by police following orders. Sometimes it means intimidating police by cutting them off from things like washrooms in Seattle.

Who knows what it will mean tomorrow. If it would be defined more clearly, maybe you would get more support.


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
JCL
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1387

posted 23 September 2001 11:52 PM      Profile for JCL     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Interesting thread. Alrighty, just reading the article that triggered the responses and then I'll make my comments.

*reads article*

Okay, I pretty much more or less agree 100% to the article "Terrorists Exploit Anti-Globilizationists." And that's just my view.

Now my comments to the article.

quote:
Such a friendly, Maoist-style environment for violent acts is being fostered, wittingly or unwittingly, by many of the anti-globalization demonstrators who now plague international meetings. If that is not their intention, they should stop and think through the consequences of their actions before wrecking another city center.

I totally agree with that. Why is one form of protesting is acceptable while another is not? If anti-globilizationists get antsy and start burning garbage cans, tearing down fences, throwing objects is seen as "making their voices heard" whilst if it was a noisy group of anti-abortionists protest and blockade an abortion clinic are seen as menace to society?

quote:
The demonstrators, of course, are not in the business of mass murder or the use of hijacked passenger aircraft as flying bombs. Many are well-meaning social activists who believe in the sanctity of human life.

This I agree with as well. I know a few people who are social activists and their intentions are well-meaning. Just because one activist would think of throwing molotov cocktails at police is justified, I know it doesn't reflect the mindset of the groups involved.

quote:

But many anti-globalization activists, like the terrorists, have made clear they see capitalist icons like the New York World Trade Center, and the World Trade Organization in Geneva, as symbols of oppressive American domination of the world economy.

I agree with this as well. And I'm going to be blunt here, if only the WTC was attacked and nothing else, I would have immediately thought about the anti-globilizations zealots. But the attack on the Pentagon ruled that out.

quote:
Although most demonstrators have expressed shock and horror at the terrorist attacks, some readily admit they see the "logic" behind the attacks. Even if their tactics are different in scale and in nature, there is a not entirely coincidental synergy between the actions of the terrorists and the aims of the anti-globalization forces - particularly the most violent and anarchistic among them.

*applauding here*

There was one thing I didn't understand at Quebec City last spring. I was wondering why were the psychos attacking the media trucks and vehicles? Don't they need the media to get their message out? Or were they just a bunch of dumb f*cks who just wanted to take out their anti-social destructive behavior on private and public property and really don't give a rat's ass about the social cause behind it.

quote:

The terrorists have in fact achieved some of the anti-globalization protesters' dearest objectives. Following the attacks on New York and Washington, the annual meetings of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank in Washington later this month have been canceled.

Imagine the travelling expenses that were saved now because of this. More weed for the like minded gang.

quote:

And while they are not deliberately setting out to slaughter thousands of innocent people, the protesters who want to prevent the holding of meetings like those of the IMF or the WTO are seeking to advance their political agenda through intimidation, which is a classic goal of terrorism

Yep. Intimidate those whose views that aren't in agreement. A tactic the left uses all the time. Such as labeling. Such words invented like "uncaring", "selfish", and my favourite "homophobia." I'm surprised Winnipeg's mayor-elect didn't use this slogan to get more votes. He could've had his campaign slogan go like this "A vote against me is a vote for homophobia." Thankfully he was smart enough not to do that. But then again, if he lost, he'd have dragged the recount until July 2006.

quote:
Those demonstrators who insist they want to protest peacefully must bear some indirect responsibility. Many actually say that while they themselves are not violent they sympathize with others who are. And even if they don't say that, their massive presence, and the media coverage it attracts, in itself helps to encourage the violent elements.

I have no problem with those who attend these protests. As long as they do it peacefully, they're not hurting anybody. But as they say, usually a mob mentality spreads like wildfire when a few people get out of hand. For those who are part or lead activist groups and post on this message board, why don't you publically denounce those groups who use violence? They discredit your cause and hurt your efforts to make your voices heard. They're a public relations liability.

quote:

Of course, non-violent demonstrators have a right to express their views in a democratic society. But when their aim is to shut down meetings of elected officials, and thus prevent the voices of the majority being heard, their actions become profoundly anti-democratic.

Yep. Talk about not practising what they preach. Or are those people just a bunch of band wagon riders?

quote:

The lack of democratic accountability of so many of the demonstrators, even as they claim to represent the poor and the oppressed, is one of the main reasons why their conduct is so objectionable.

How about instead of financing lots of money just to feel good about yourselves by going to demonstrations, why not donate that money to the food banks to help solve your community social needs first before taking on the international scene?

quote:

Both terrorists and many demonstrators believe that the end justifies the means, a path that history has shown to lead to doom and destruction.

I totally agree. And they claim the right has an evil agenda to destroy us all.
A propaganda lie of unimaginable proportions.
They forget that the free world was based on the right wing principles and basically swiped it to guise it as the left's core beliefs.

quote:

We should not have needed this ghastly terrorist attack to teach us to be tougher in standing up for democracy, whenever and by whomever it comes under attack.

I think future protests at the G-8 and wherever, they'll be major crackdowns by the authorities and government because how do we know at the next protest, some whacko will make a home made bomb and start some serious shit? A loss of our civil liberties? Nope. Only lose it if one breaks the law.

Markbo - I'm really starting to enjoy reading your posts. I agree with you in most part about the difference between anti-globilizationists and terrorists. But there are always a few idiots who smear their cause when they're also at the protest and on the same side.

GulfAlien - Vancouver & Quebec City was not "excessive force." The Chinese sending in tanks into Tianamen Square in 1989 was excessive. As for the rest of your comments, as for protesting peacefully, I respect that in people, if I agree with the cause or not.

I know one friend of mine in Alberta who is left wing, she has said to me that globilization will happen so she'd rather stick to things she knows she can make a difference.

For those who oppose globilization, I honestly do not believe it will be stopped. As for your concern for environment, health, education and so forth, I'm sure they'll work it all in there before proceeding.


From: Winnipeg. 35 days to Christmas yet no snow here. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 24 September 2001 12:02 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I agree with this as well. And I'm going to be blunt here, if only the WTC was attacked and nothing else, I would have immediately thought about the anti-globilizations zealots. But the attack on the Pentagon ruled that out.

The anti-globalization movement doesn't have the hierarchy, money, or coordination necessary to accomplish that.

I grant the Black Bloc might very well have the muscle-power and coordination, but from what the feds are finding out, the hijackings were partly inside jobs, and that's where money comes in - to bribe security guards to look the other way, et cetera.

I think you're trolling.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 24 September 2001 12:05 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Thank you, thank you, thank you, JCL for recognizing our right to protest. How decent and kind of you.

This might come as a surprise but we need neither your permission nor your support.

Should you agree, which you apparently do, with the fascists that would attempt to associate anti-globalists with the monsters who would murder, then I must only think of your comments in a like manner.

Because clearly there is a direct link between conservatives and those on the right who support such undemocratic and unelected organizations as the WTO and IMF with the fascists of 1940's Germany and Italy and with there more modern descendants in Afghanistan and China.

The first task of any good fascist is to spread fear through the Big Lie and to the generate the implication that any dissenting thought is the thought of the enemy. You are clearly a good student. The next step is the murder of opponents. That is how your fascism works.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 24 September 2001 12:05 AM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The anti-globalization movement doesn't have the hierarchy, money, or coordination necessary to accomplish that

But if they did.....

What are you trying to say here


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 24 September 2001 12:10 AM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You know what kills me Wingnut (Figuratively speaking that is). Everytime globalization involves Unelected bodies like the U.N. or a world court, Kyoto treaties or ARms treaties, its HELLO GLOBALIZATION. When it involves unelected bodies like the WTO or IMF its GOODBYE GLOBALIZATION

I think the left and the right both like globalization when it suits them and they both are against it when it doesn't.

Easy on the fascist implications boys.

quote:
spread fear through the Big Lie and to the generate the implication that any dissenting thought is the thought of the enemy.

What is the Big Lie anyhow. and are you saying that because JCL's comments are dissenting from the majority here that he is the enemy and you are also a good student of Facism?


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 24 September 2001 12:16 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, there's "good globalization" which involves the use of supranational bodies to buttress national sovereignty and to limit arms races, environmental damage, and so on.

"Bad globalization" involves the erosion of national sovereignty and the willingness to ignore or weaken environmental protections and to further distance governments from the populace by rendering them powerless to conduct their traditional function, which is to regulate society by taking into account ALL interest groups - workers, environmentalists, businesses, feminists, and so on - rather than turning a blind eye and a deaf ear to all concerns except those expressed by large businesses or well-off individuals.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 24 September 2001 12:18 AM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Darn it, if someone only explained that too me earlier.

quote:
"Bad globalization" involves the erosion of national sovereignty

So that means the U.N. and the World court?

quote:
which involves the use of supranational bodies to buttress national sovereignty and to limit arms races

So that means increasing economic ties with Trade agreements which lowers the reasons to have arms races. That means Having organizations like the IMF try (albeit poorly) to turn around a countries economy so they don't make war in a desperate attempt to control their neighbors resources.

Its all so confusing

[ September 24, 2001: Message edited by: Markbo ]


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 24 September 2001 12:24 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Incidentally, the one thing missing that the UN could definitely use is the same thing that Canada and the USA have to make their governments work - a clearly defined constitutional enumeration of powers. What powers do national governments have and what powers does the supranational body have? Once that is made clear, there can be no more carping about national sovereignty since there will be no erosion.

The World Court would not seriously interfere with national sovereignty in any case, since it is my understanding that domestic laws could still be used to conduct trials.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 24 September 2001 12:25 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The anti-globalization movement doesn't have the hierarchy, money, or coordination necessary to accomplish that

But if they did.....


I'm just stating a fact.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 24 September 2001 12:35 AM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Incidentally, the one thing missing that the UN could definitely use is the same thing that Canada and the USA have to make their governments work - a clearly defined constitutional enumeration of powers. What powers do national governments have and what powers does the supranational body have? Once that is made clear, there can be no more carping about national sovereignty since there will be no erosion.

We can actually fully agree on something. I salute you as I could not have said it clearer. That distinction once it is made should be voted on in a referendum.

quote:
The World Court would not seriously interfere with national sovereignty in any case, since it is my understanding that domestic laws could still be used to conduct trials.

"But the prosecutor's discretion without accountability is precisely one o fthe flaws of the International Criminal Court (ICC). Definitions of the relevant crimes are vague and highly susceptible to politicized application. Defendants will not denjoy due process as understood in the United States. Any signatory state has the right to trigger an investigation. As the experience of the American special prosecutor shows, such a procedure is likely to develop its own momentum (Kenneth Star anyone) without time limits and can turn into an instrument of political warfare.
The independent prosecutor of the ICC has the power to issue indictments, subject only to review by a panel of three judges. According to the Rome statute, the U.N. security council has the right to quash any indictment. But since revoking an indictment is subject ot the veto of any permanent member, and since the prosecutor is unlikely to issue an indictment without the backing of at least one permanent member, he or she has virtually unlimited discretion in practice. Another provision permits the country whose citizen is accused to take over the investigation and trial. But the ICC retains the ultimate authority on whether that function has been adequately exercised and if it finds it has not, the ICC can reassert jurisdiction."

Thats one way of looking at the Problems of the ICC


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 24 September 2001 01:26 AM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The central point of the proposed World Court is that it would only have jurisdiction where the national government having jurisdiction failed to prosecute.

Of course it involves an infringement of sovereignty; each and every treaty does that. But unless we want a world in which
war crimes may go unpunished simply because the perpetrator is too important, we should be willing to give that bit of sovereignty up. If Canadians commit war crimes, I hope they are prosecuted here; if we don't do it, I hope there is a world body to take on the task.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 24 September 2001 02:26 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Markbo, buddy,

I didn't say the U.N. is any more democratic. I believe it could be. As for treaties, I support any treaty that is openly debated, negotiated and ratified by the signing nations. I oppose any treaty negotiated in secret, that has secret tribunals, and that has ramifications for every person under it.


quote:
Easy on the fascist implications boys.

I appreciate your views Markbo, as I have stated before on another thread. However, these are scary times. And I will not accept being lumped, because of my political beliefs, in with people who have commited an act of atrocity against fellow human beings.

Such an accusation, and any sympathy with such an accustaion, is not going to be tolerated or shrugged off as someone's opinion by me. It is an attack upon my freedoms. Think about it Markbo, if such thoughts were to gain currency, how many people, such as myself, will find themselves in detention to be interrogated and to give up names. How many of those people will be people you actually care about?

Far fetched? Maybe. But our friends to the south have just opened the Homeland Defense office. What is their job? Reeks of McCartyism to me.

Anyone who would use threats by implication or attempt to smear me with the brush of terrorism because of what I believe or the way I vote, is in my mind not worthy of respect and is on the edge, if not immersed in, fascism.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 24 September 2001 11:09 AM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Wingnut, my friend, I don't think any reasonable person would want to limit your right to protest. I don't think that was the point of any post.

This is more of a warning that smashing things to protest will be seen by the masses as a form of terrorism. People are going to want law, order and the feeling of security more than they have in the past. I think that protesters should heed that warning. The world has now changed and some protesters need to change too if they want their message heard and not confused.

quote:

Far fetched? Maybe. But our friends to the south have just opened the Homeland Defense office. What is their job? Reeks of McCartyism to me.

I doubt it, Britian has has a department like that for years and have remained democratic. Its just a long overdue department that lets a bunch of organizations share info and work together that should have been sharing that info and working together all along.

Everybody should have the freedom of expression. WHat a FEW protesters realize that they do not have the right to force people to listen who don't want to.


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 24 September 2001 11:17 AM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think the point was clear and unanswered, that there is no way to control prosecutorial conduct and that it can be hijacked by special interest groups that shift focus away from more important issues, just like the U.N. conference on Racism.

quote:
Of course it involves an infringement of sovereignty; each and every treaty does that.

Were you talking about the ICC or was that a reference to the WTO and IMF (please note sarcasm)

trying to make an argument that there is good infringement on sovereignty and bad infringement on sovereignty is like talking out of both sides of your mouth.

I think I made my point. BOTH the left and the right argue FOR AND AGAINST limitations on national sovereignty when it suits them.
I think that the real antiglobalists protests are ones where an elected body like the U.S. congress withholds funds from an unelected body to protest. Your protests have nothing on them. They withheld like a billion dollars.

Toast to the right wingers who protest the U.N.: the "real" anti globalists.

Toast to the true PRO globalization forces: the people who want a International Criminal court.


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
NDB
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1234

posted 24 September 2001 01:04 PM      Profile for NDB     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
A few comments on the posts I've been skimming through as quickly as possible.

- a substantial difference between the "un-democratic" UN and those trade related others is the authority that has been divested to bodies like the WTO, GATS, NAFTA to enforce their rules. For example, the UN does not have human rights tribunals with the authority to extract payments from signatory nations for human rights abuses. Trade groups have been given this power and nations comply with it.

- I think there is an irony that while on the one hand in the last week(+) there has been a lot of rhetoric about separating terrorists from the Islamic world it does not seem to be done with such vigor when discussing trade protesters. Despite a few disclaimers in the posts here, the language is very general about America hating-property smashing-molotov coktail tossing-protesters. If we acknowledge it is minority that acts voilently at protests then don't bother to say, "I support the peaceful protesters . . ." limit your language to the people you have a problem with.

- Something that I think is incidious about the article that started this thread is that I see a dark period ahead for anyone of a dissenting opinion. I think this article attempts to blanketly shame people who will likely dissent and pit those who will likely agree against them. Dissent means: to withhold assent, to hold a differing opinion, and frankly I think it's the true cornerstone of democracy.

What's the right to vote mean if you always have to vote for the ruling group?

What's the point of free speech if you always have to agree?

I have noticed a disturbing number of articles popping up in the media (and some thinly veiled posts here on Babble) suggesting that people who disagree with: our government, the US government, the proposed response to 9.11, the reasoning behind the attack, are subversive, threatening, no better than the terrorists, and should be silenced. I would put to this group that this is an inherently dangerous trend. Markbo you've said previously that you enjoy these exchanges. JCL seems to enjoy working out his thoughts here. And this website is "supposed" to be a place where you folks are the minority. It is imperative that as those of us on Babble who are "left-wing" open our minds to your thoughts, the Right and forums for us to openly debate official propositions in the coming days be defended. Anyone who thinks people who disagree with the US state sponsored propositions should be silenced needs to check their head. Disagree with the dissenters and actively debate them if you feel the impulse, but don't let anyone shut them up or lock them up for their opinions and ideas. We might even learn something from each other and actually make better decisions. I think these are the most important debates I've seen in my lifetime (25 years) and I'll be damned if I'm going to be shut up or let others (who I may or may not agree with) suffer that fate either. I'm not trying to point out people like Markbo or JCL as perpetrators of this attitude just to say that there has to be room for people who disagree "out there" as there is "in here."

[Edited for spacing and clarity]

[ September 24, 2001: Message edited by: NDB ]


From: Ottawa | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 24 September 2001 01:41 PM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hey, if anybody ever tries to take away your right to protest. The only reason why I wouldn't stand next to you is that I would be racing to the Front of the protest line.

However it is my right to protest your means of protest. I don't accept violence against property as a legitmate form of protest. I do not accept the beleif of some protesters that their right to protest supercedes others freedoms.


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
NDB
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1234

posted 24 September 2001 02:35 PM      Profile for NDB     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Markbo - I understood that it would not likely be you pushing to silence dissenters. Don't take this the wrong way, but you just seem too enamoured of debate and seem to think too much to allow the debate to stop.

And as for my personal feeling about protest, I'm actually in the same camp with regard to violence. I happen to think that violence begets violence whether in international relations or protests. I think I see a pattern developing that each successive protest that turns out bloody (for one reason or another) ratchets up the tension and propects for violence at the next one.

The grand point for me is that forces are marsheling behind the current situation to mask an attempt to put down dissent in general. I feel that articles like the one that led off this thread, or one which appeared in the Ottawa Citizen called "How an act of terrorism changed the face of dissent," (sorry no URL off their new terrible website) don't elevate the debate surrounding these issues, but undermine the security of the right to dissent by generalizing about dissenters and/ or legitimizing intolerance toward them.

Markbo - going back to your post, you shouldn't have to listen if you don't want, but I shouldn't have to hide out to try to catch your ear.


From: Ottawa | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
wagepeace
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 114

posted 24 September 2001 02:42 PM      Profile for wagepeace     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Okay, I am putting some protective gear on now, okay, here I go - ahem...

Uhhh,

I don't believe that anti-globalization protesterizers are mass murdering terrorists. However, terrorist organizations condone violence to further their aim (though, in most cases, they kill people - anti-globalization protesterizers have not condemned the use of violence to further their aims.

They contrast each other and yet it is compelling to see that violence is acceptable to both?

Okay, go ahead now ....


From: In a fog and on anti-psychotics | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
NDB
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1234

posted 24 September 2001 02:51 PM      Profile for NDB     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think that many anti-globalization protesters have condemned violence at their protests.

I think that sound bite ususally just gets edited out when they also condemn violence by those representing law and order.

Note - you don't see any sort of suspicious connection between horrible terrorist violence and horrible military violence?


From: Ottawa | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
wagepeace
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 114

posted 24 September 2001 03:05 PM      Profile for wagepeace     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Ahhh, nice try grasshopper.

Military violence as put it is usually done in concert with a mandate from government to carry out a military operation.

Ahhh, that is the case with a democracy anyway.

Ahhhh, often terrorist organizations receive assistance from despotic governments.


From: In a fog and on anti-psychotics | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
NDB
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1234

posted 24 September 2001 03:14 PM      Profile for NDB     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Ahhh, but some democratic governments undertake military actions through covert operations that do not ever pass under the noses of elected representatives under the mantra of "national security."

Whoa, I just came to after blacking out and this was written on the screen . . .


From: Ottawa | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 24 September 2001 03:25 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
They contrast each other and yet it is compelling to see that violence is acceptable to both?

And violence is equally acceptable to the state. But let's contrast. Protestors bang their heads over violence. The gnash their teeth and often apologise for those among them who resort to violence. They have stood in the paths of those who have attempted to commit violence. And beseeched others to stop.

Terrorists and the state, however, justify violence. Never apoligise for it and use it against the innocent as easily as against the guilty without any sense or twinge of conscience. So really wagewar, using your sense of logic, terrorists and government have much in common. Protestors are the only ones who stand out as having a moral fiber.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
wagepeace
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 114

posted 24 September 2001 03:42 PM      Profile for wagepeace     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Wingnut wrote:

quote:
And violence is equally acceptable to the state. But let's contrast. Protestors bang their heads over violence. The gnash their teeth and often apologise for those among them who resort to violence. They have stood in the paths of those who have attempted to commit violence. And beseeched others to stop.

I'm sorry, but I am pretty sure that anti-globalization activist Maude Barlow REFUSED to denouce violent protesters in Quebec.

Hmmmmmmm .....


From: In a fog and on anti-psychotics | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 24 September 2001 03:45 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And I seem to recall that both the police and government refused to denounce violence against peaceful protestors. As well, following the ACAP report, the government and RCMP did not apologize but instead questioned the findings.

Hmmmm.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
wagepeace
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 114

posted 24 September 2001 03:48 PM      Profile for wagepeace     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Wingnut wrote:

quote:
. Protestors bang their heads over violence. The gnash their teeth and often apologise for those among them who resort to violence. They have stood in the paths of those who have attempted to commit violence. And beseeched others to stop

So, um, exactly where does Maude Barlow's refusal to denounce violence in Quebec fit in here?

Hmmmmm ....

You see, the police responded to the violent protesters. They don't have to apologize for doing the job they were sent to Quebec for.

If you throw things at the fuzz, expect to get buzzed!

Nuff said.


From: In a fog and on anti-psychotics | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
NDB
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1234

posted 24 September 2001 04:09 PM      Profile for NDB     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Who threw what at whom in Vancouver?

Maude Barlow refuses to apologize, fine. Did others?

How many times have you seen police or the state organize a peace rally?


From: Ottawa | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
wagepeace
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 114

posted 24 September 2001 04:18 PM      Profile for wagepeace     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well Maude does speak on behalf of many in the movement. One would say that she has moral authority
From: In a fog and on anti-psychotics | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 24 September 2001 04:32 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Actually you said it quite clearly 'lance Theres a difference that the people you want to hear you won't make. Also there is more possibility of people getting injured like when fences are stormed.

Bah. You've barely answered the question before you've lashed back with an invidious slander. And why make assumptions about who I'm speaking to?

And speak plainly: if people tear down fences and get injured, it's because the police injure them. Who would pull down a lousy chain link fence and then be such a fool as to attack a riot cop? The fence is symbolic. The wisdom of doing this is another issue.


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 24 September 2001 04:34 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
You see, the police responded to the violent protesters. They don't have to apologize for doing the job they were sent to Quebec for.

Really?

Funny. I know of three women who had tear gas canisters fired directly at them. Two were middle-aged women and one was a senior. None of them were wearing black, bandanas, had thrown anything, or had ever committed a violent act in their lives. Yet, the police attacked. Just doing their job.

There were numerous reports of medics being attacked while attending to the injured. The police were just doing their job.

I seen a young couple racing as fast as tehy could with a baby in a stroller after being gassed. The police were doing their job.

Some job.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
wagepeace
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 114

posted 24 September 2001 04:35 PM      Profile for wagepeace     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oh for crying out loud. Were they in the area of rioting? YES!
From: In a fog and on anti-psychotics | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 24 September 2001 04:47 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Actually yes and NO!

The women were in fact near the fence in the early morning. There was no protests taking place. They just wanted to see it for themselves.

The medics were, obvioulsy, near the fence.

The running couple with the stroller were nearby.

But from your logic, even if all were near the fence, police should "target" by "aiming" at protestors who are peaceful? Again, PEACEFUL!

That is illegal. Yet it is exactly what they were doing. Not one cop charged. Gee, what a surprise. Why don't you join the next protest as an observer wagepeace? Or maybe you prefer the comfort of your armchair?


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Doug
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 44

posted 24 September 2001 04:50 PM      Profile for Doug   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Not necessarily. The police in Quebec did fire gas into areas that were designated by organizers for low-risk forms of protest.
From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
JCL
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1387

posted 24 September 2001 06:30 PM      Profile for JCL     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
DrConway - Well, I do concur with you that anti-globilizationists didn't have the money, hierachy or co-ordination to do what they did. However, theoretically, it could've been done but instead of killing the pilots, they'd have them fly to a specific part and then kill them. By the way, to those reading this, I'm not making a conspiracy theory out of this.

As for trolling, no.

Wignut - Take a pill. I never said you need MY permission or whatever to protest. Go protest all you want. As for support, well, with your attitude like that, maybe you don't need all the support you can get, regardless of the varying degrees. Okay. Have fun with it with one less person sympathetic to a few, but not all of the anti-globilizationists issues.

quote:

Because clearly there is a direct link between conservatives and those on the right who support such undemocratic and unelected organizations as the WTO and IMF with the fascists of 1940's Germany and Italy and with there more modern descendants in Afghanistan and China.

A direct link? Between conservatives and the undemocratic & unelected organizations as the WTO & IMF? Well, wanna talk undemocratic elections? Look at the Soviet Union, the once flagship of socialist ideology. Joe Stalin starved 30 million Ukrainians in the 1930s. Many people killed in the Red Oktober/Russian Revolution. Some sworn pacifists. Some of those innocent pacifists were my relatives. Talk about anti-democratic. They used military force to gain power, not the voting process in the free world. As for the IMF, I think that organization has got to go after doing some reading on it. By the way, the people who appointed the IMF & WTO, were from our own governments. We elect government officials to act on our behalf. And to say conservatives are fascists. If it was the case, and since the free world ideology of freedom for every man, woman and child regardless of race, religion or culture can be traced back to the conservatives, we're quite "oppressive" when we can speak our mind on a issue or vote or whatever.

quote:

The first task of any good fascist is to spread fear through the Big Lie and to the generate the implication that any dissenting thought is the thought of the enemy. You are clearly a good student. The next step is the murder of opponents. That is how your fascism works.

Like Joseph Stalin did and, hey, did ya know a communist in one of those break away nations that used to be a Soviet province, their leader has shut down all the papers, radio and tv stations and has had 15 political opponents killed? That's how yours works as well. Deal with it.


From: Winnipeg. 35 days to Christmas yet no snow here. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 24 September 2001 06:47 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Soviet province, their leader has shut down all the papers, radio and tv stations and has had 15 political opponents killed? That's how yours works as well. (italics added.)

That might be how your way works but it is not mine.

I have no more support for communism than I do facism. For the people in either society, they are the same.

quote:
DrConway - Well, I do concur with you that anti-globilizationists didn't have the money, hierachy or co-ordination to do what they did. However, theoretically, it could've been done

By using your leap in logic I can equally conclude you "could" be an axe murderer. Anyone persons missing in Winnipeg? Should we call the police?


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 24 September 2001 07:03 PM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I was only kidding about the "but if they did..."

Not to digress but I heard a cool rebuttal resembling yours Wingnut. Some lady was arguing on the radio about how bad it was to train kids how to use guns with a army colonel. She said that they were being equipped to use guns and that would lead them to become murderers.

The colonel replied "you are equipped to be a prostitute lady but that doesn't mean you will become one"

Whether you agree with the issue or not it was a cool rebuttal.

Sorry about changing subjects. Back to the thread.

I just hope protesters realize that the public needs law, order and security right now and will not look favorably on trashing offices, storming fences or smashing windows. If protesters do not to be wrongly compared to terrorists then they have to continue using peaceful means and disassociate themselves from those who want violence.

The upside is that I believe the public is in more of a listening mood so that they will pay the price of having to listen to protesters to avoid violence.


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Liam McCarthy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 800

posted 24 September 2001 07:56 PM      Profile for Liam McCarthy   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I got "buzzed" and I was not throwing anything at the fuzz, neither was anyone in my vicinity. Cops and protesters (particularly protesters) are not a monolith. Sometimes protesters ask for it, sometimes cops are only to willing to give it and sometimes protesters get it without asking for it first. Sorry wagepeace, the world is a little bit greyer than you think.

As for this topic, I think that it is silly to draw a parrallel between anti globalization protesters and "terrorists".
Anti globalization protesters collectively share a disdain for actions that cause widespread human suffering. In particular they deplore acts of violence that incur large civilian casualities. Whether it be killing civilians through bombing raids to secure oil supply (Gulf War) or destruction of large office buildings as a symbolic attack against the wealth of the United States (WTC attack). Ironically, in this case, it is easier to draw commonality between the attacker (?) and the agrieved party (the US). They have both shown a willingness to use military or covert actions regardless of whether or not a large number of civilian casualties will be incurred by said actions.

By the way, what exactly is terrorism anyway? If it is extra-parliamentary military action that targets a state or a population, wasn't the United States founded through terrorism? Great, now I have a bad Alanis Morrisette song going through my head.

disclaimer: I am not trying to minimize the tragedy of september 11 through placing it in historical context.


From: Windsor, Ont. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
GulfAlien
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1259

posted 25 September 2001 12:45 AM      Profile for GulfAlien   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Regardless of how vast and how grey the distance between Antiglobalization protesters and mass murdering terrorists, there must be a line, which if crossed, puts one on the other side.

I think that the line is obvious. By charging the police, destroying a fence or by throwing a rock at McDonalds and, even indirectly, cause injury or death to others, I believe you have as little disregard for the security and safety of life as does the worst terrorist because you will have crossed the line.

Those who claim to be civilized must not move an inch in the direction of the heinous, violent and destructive behaviour that happened in the US two weeks ago. I will be appalled, I am certain, when I next hear of antiglobilization protestors, or GMO protestors rioting, breaking storefront glass, throwing rocks at police lines.

To all those who will behave thus ... what do you stand for?


From: Vancouver | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 25 September 2001 02:25 AM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Liam, glad to see you here

quote:
Anti globalization protesters collectively share a disdain for actions that cause widespread human suffering. In particular they deplore acts of violence that incur large civilian casualities

You failed to mention acts of violence against property. WHere do anti globalization protesters draw the line. How much property can be damaged before the anti globalization protesters will condemn the actions?

2nd question. I am against the U.N. policies on a lot of issues as well as being against the International Criminal Court in its present form. Does that make me an anti globalization protester?


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
wagepeace
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 114

posted 25 September 2001 05:21 AM      Profile for wagepeace     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'm going to have fun with this.

Wingnut wrote:

quote:
Actually yes and NO!
The women were in fact near the fence in the early morning. There was no protests taking place. They just wanted to see it for themselves.

See, now that's just funny. Two women, presumably intellegent ones at that decide to go near the fence where they already know that there has been violence, they know that it is a flashpoint and they get gassed by the cops.

I'm sorry, but "duh"...

quote:
The medics were, obvioulsy, near the fence.

The running couple with the stroller were nearby.


I don't know of any reports of medics who were gassed in Quebec. I will have to research that one further and I will e-mail the union in Quebec City to find out. Now, the couple with the baby in the stroller - call me crazy, but as a father of three kids, I wouldn't bring my children within a Dartmouth mile of an area where there have been violent clashes with police. Again, "duh"...

quote:
But from your logic, even if all were near the fence, police should "target" by "aiming" at protestors who are peaceful? Again, PEACEFUL!

And apparently from your logic, its okay to walk up to an area where there have been violent clashes with police and expect not to be gassed? Are you certain that you are from the planet earth because earthlings as a habit try to avoid areas of violent clashes with police when out on their morning constitutional.

quote:
That is illegal. Yet it is exactly what they were doing. Not one cop charged. Gee, what a surprise. Why don't you join the next protest as an observer wagepeace? Or maybe you prefer the comfort of your armchair?

Well it might interest you to know that I have been to a few protests both as security and a protester flatnuts, I mean wingnut. But I'll tell you what, I'll sit in my lazy boy next year during the Kannanaskis Summit and look for the guy who is walking his dog in an area that is a flashpoint for violence with the police. When I see that guy I'll simply have to say, "what a wingnut".

[ September 25, 2001: Message edited by: wagepeace ]


From: In a fog and on anti-psychotics | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 25 September 2001 08:05 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
And apparently from your logic, its okay to walk up to an area where there have been violent clashes with police and expect not to be gassed?


Yes, stupid. Because it is the law.
Peaceful, law abiding citizens do not and ought not expect to be assaulted by police. It is simple. And any cop who does assault a peaceful, law abiding citizen ought to be facing the same charges with the same consequences as any person charged with assaulting police. You may have trouble wrapping your little mind around the concept, but a cop who assaults law abiding, peaceful citizens is nothing more than a criminal.
No different than any protestor who throws a rock at police. No differnet than any biker acting as security for the Rolling Stones. Simply, a criminal. If you can defend cops who attack peaceful citizens than shut up when others defend violent protestors. Otherwise you are merely a hypocrite.

[ September 25, 2001: Message edited by: WingNut ]


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
wagepeace
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 114

posted 25 September 2001 08:31 AM      Profile for wagepeace     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Wingnut wrote:

quote:
Yes, stupid. Because it is the law.
Peaceful, law abiding citizens do not and ought not expect to be assaulted by police.

I'm sorry, uh, peaceful? I had better take a closer look at the video from quebec because I'm pretty sure that the people at the fence were trying to tear down the fence and throwing shit at the fuzz - throw stuff at the fuzz, expect to get buzzed: this is a pretty basic concept - hmmmm, perhaps pictures would help you understand better.

quote:
It is simple. And any cop who does assault a peaceful, law abiding citizen ought to be facing the same charges with the same consequences as any person charged with assaulting police. You may have trouble wrapping your little mind around the concept, but a cop who assaults law abiding, peaceful citizens is nothing more than a criminal.

Read above.

quote:
No different than any protestor who throws a rock at police. No differnet than any biker acting as security for the Rolling Stones. Simply, a criminal. If you can defend cops who attack peaceful citizens than shut up when others defend violent protestors. Otherwise you are merely a hypocrite.

Okay, okay one more time. If the shit is hitting the fan in a violent clash with the cops, uh, well, maybe if you don't feel like getting yourself gassed, pepper sprayed or clobbered, you won't be there: this is a fairly simple concept wingnut.

Maybe a chalk drawing would help??


From: In a fog and on anti-psychotics | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 25 September 2001 08:36 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Again, maybe you should attend these demos instead of relying on the glare of your television screen. It might give you another perspective on truth. The fence came down on Friday. The summit went through to Sunday. What happened during the times when the cameras were not focussed on the fence when it came down?

If you could display just a little more ignorance, I copuld start to feel sorry for you.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Liam McCarthy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 800

posted 25 September 2001 09:05 AM      Profile for Liam McCarthy   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Wagepeace, you really don't know of what you speak. The citizens of Quebec were appalled when they found out how indiscriminate tear gas really is. Many local residents were gassed while they remained in their homes (some elderly were hospitalized along with a police officer due to the effects of tear gas). The entire poor area of downtown Quebec City (lower Quebec)was coated with tear gas. I saw a local vendor who was approximately 6km away from the "action" choking from the effects. 'nuff said.


As for Markbo:
It's good to be back.

How much property can be damaged before the anti globalization protesters will condemn the actions?

I can't answer for everyone but if you are trying to get me to give a sense of what anarchists believe is acceptable property damage the proper question is what property as opposed to how much property. There is virtual unanimity that small business should not be targeted, some believe that banks and large corp's such as McDonald's ought to be targeted, and some fools believe that corporate or state media should be targeted. From what I can tell (from message boards on indymedia, personal conversations and such) both of the latter methods are being reconsidered due to heavy police infiltration.

2nd question. I am against the U.N. policies on a lot of issues as well as being against the International Criminal Court in its present form. Does that make me an anti globalization protester?

Yes Markbo, in a sense you are the anti globalization protester. That just goes to show what a silly label "anti globalization protester" really is. Indeed many people that are labeled anti globalization protesters are often the biggest proponents of effective world governance (e.g. me). to quote Madonna "life is a mystery."


From: Windsor, Ont. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
wagepeace
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 114

posted 25 September 2001 09:08 AM      Profile for wagepeace     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Wingnut:

If you would have read my earlier responses to your post, you will note that I have attended protests of this ilk both as a security person and one who is protesting - in other words, "I've looked at life from both sides now ...."

Clearly this is something you haven't done, soooooo ....

Why don't you get a job as a security person and see what it is like to have a brick land on your head because some moron didn't like the oppressive symbolism of a chain link fence.

Do that, then come back and talk to me.

Liam wrote:

quote:

Wagepeace, you really don't know of what you speak. The citizens of Quebec were appalled when they found out how indiscriminate tear gas really is. Many local residents were gassed while they remained in their homes (some elderly were hospitalized along with a police officer due to the effects of tear gas). The entire poor area of downtown Quebec City (lower Quebec)was coated with tear gas. I saw a local vendor who was approximately 6km away from the "action" choking from the effects. 'nuff said.

Well, yes Liam I actually do for the reasons I have mentioned earlier. Let's be clear about a few things:

a)World leaders came to Quebec
b)World leaders need security
c)Past protests at ecomomic summits were violent
d)Organizers expected violence
e)World leaders need security
f)Fence was erected
g)Protesters didn't like the fence
h)Protesters initiated violence by trying to breach the fence
i)Police responded with tear gas
j)Gas is indiscriminate - it goes where the wind tells it to go

As I see it, had the protesters NOT tried to breach the fence, there would have been no gas. Here is a good example of why I know this to be true:

a) The protest march in Quebec was peaceful and they protesters didn't try to tear down the fence
b) They didn't get gassed as a result

Sooooooo,

If you don't want to get gassed, clubbed, pepper sprayed etc at protest events, DO NOT ADVANCE ON THE POLICE, DO NOT TRY TO BREACH SECURITY PERIMITERS, DO NOT THROW SHIT AT THE POLICE, DO NOT INITIATE ACTS OF VIOLENCE!!!

Anti-globalization people lost a lot of public support in Canada because of the actions of a few morons in Quebec. That leaders such as Maude Barlow refused to denounce the violence speaks very clearly to the fact that in some way, violence is condoned by the anti-globalization movement.

If it isn't condoned, then the movement would ENSURE that it's protests are peaceful.

Nuff said.

[ September 25, 2001: Message edited by: wagepeace ]


From: In a fog and on anti-psychotics | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 25 September 2001 03:28 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Misnomers Against Literalists protests do not count.
From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
clockwork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 690

posted 25 September 2001 04:07 PM      Profile for clockwork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Just a note about the gassing: I got gassed in a restaurant about 6 or 7 blocks away from the fence.
The police were using a tear gassing strategy too. They’d gas the place, take over the street then retreat, letting the protesters back. Then they’d gas us again, take over the street, then lets us come back. Also, the justification for a tear gas volley was far from clear. Dancing in the street, gassed. A water bottle thrown, gassed (yeah, throwing the water bottle is stupid, but that happens at concerts too).

A “violent clash” with police it was not. Not to say there was no provocation, but once the fence came down, it was pretty tame… at least during the day.


From: Pokaroo! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 25 September 2001 04:09 PM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Gotta say Liam, those are very good answers. Gotta like it when someone says something that makes sense.

I also think its good to acknowledge that direct action in the form of violence against property needs to be rethought.

On the other side I think that the gov't should also rethink how much access it grants to protestors to end some of their frustration and feeling they are not heard.

I just don't think they should confuse not getting their way with not being heard.


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
JCL
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1387

posted 26 September 2001 02:52 AM      Profile for JCL     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Wingnut, I was watching CNN on the first day of the Quebec City shindig. I'm sure seeing protestors shaking at the fence to attempt to tear it down was "peaceful." It's like saying catching a robber kicking your door in to your place to "use your bathroom."
From: Winnipeg. 35 days to Christmas yet no snow here. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 26 September 2001 08:43 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The citizens of Canada are "robbers" when they expect to walk freely in the streets of their own cities?
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
big snake sale
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1447

posted 26 September 2001 09:11 AM      Profile for big snake sale     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think what JCL is saying is essentially that if people are trying to tear down a fence in Quebec are to be considered to be "peacefully protesting", then a robber can say that he broke into your house "to use the bathroom".

So I guess that I have to ask if you think that trying to get through the fence was a peaceful form of protest.

Because if you think that it was, then perhaps we should call all of those tear gas cannisters that were flying around "love bombs".


From: The secret world of Pierre Berton's Brain | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 26 September 2001 09:35 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
There are some who say that when your govenrment puts up a fence to keep you out (or in) while they determine your fate, you have not only a right but a duty to tear down that fence. As was the Berlin wall.

But of course the right, being both conformist and authoritarian wouldn't ever consider that. They would rather be the lap dogs of any new dictator than demand their rights and freedoms.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
big snake sale
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1447

posted 26 September 2001 09:47 AM      Profile for big snake sale     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Now Wingnut, I respect your passion for this issue, but Canadians have a very low tolerance for hooliganism.

If you are suggesting that the existence of the fence was an oppressive symbol, I would suggest to you that most Canadians would disagree.

Everyone has a right to individual security, including world leaders. The owner of the facility has a right to erect a fence to protect his/her property.

You seem to be advocating that it is everyone's duty to tear the fence down? Comparing the fence with the Berlin wall? That's just silly - heck, that is a really stupid comparion.

The Berlin wall was erected on the order of as wagepeace so aptly puts it in his earlier post: a despotic regime.

I would agree that a despotic regime should be toppled and in that case I would support your cause. The fence in Quebec was erected on Canadian soil in a democratic country with a somewhat reasonable record of protecting human rights.

In view of this, your analogy is really inappropriate.

[ September 26, 2001: Message edited by: big snake sale ]


From: The secret world of Pierre Berton's Brain | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 26 September 2001 09:48 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The guys who put up that fence work for me. They keep forgetting that. It bothers me.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 26 September 2001 09:51 AM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
There are some who say that when your govenrment puts up a fence to keep you out (or in) while they determine your fate, you have not only a right but a duty to tear down that fence. As was the Berlin wall.
But of course the right, being both conformist and authoritarian wouldn't ever consider that. They would rather be the lap dogs of any new dictator than demand their rights and freedoms.

Thats one way of looking at it (the wrong way) here's another:

There are some who say that when unelected special interest groups try to prevent the free assembly of the heads of democratically elected governments that the freedom of assembly of those elected officials should be protected from those who would deny it to them.

But of course the left, being both hypocrites and anarchists wouldn't ever consider that. They would rather demand their rights and freedoms saying that they supercede the rights and freedoms of others.

[ September 26, 2001: Message edited by: Markbo ]


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
big snake sale
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1447

posted 26 September 2001 09:51 AM      Profile for big snake sale     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
If the anti-globalization movement can guarantee that there will be no violence, I am confident that there will be no fences in the future.

I guess the question I have to ask is: will the anti-globalization movement take steps to ensure that it's protests are going to henceforth be peaceful?

I wait with bated breath.


From: The secret world of Pierre Berton's Brain | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 26 September 2001 10:00 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The Berlin wall was erected on the order of as wagepeace so aptly puts it in his earlier post: a despotic regime.

Define a despotic regime? Because it seems to me that telling the citizens of a country that their fates are to be negotiated and decided in secret without thier input, is rather despotic.

quote:
I would agree that a despotic regime should be toppled and in that case I would support your cause.

No you don't. You agree that a despotic regime is one that disagrees with you. I say a despotic regime is any that seeks to silence its citizens and force upon them that which they have not consented to. And they cannot have consented to a secret agreement.

quote:

The fence in Quebec was erected on Canadian soil in a democratic country with a somewhat reasonable record of protecting human rights.

Bullshit. Democratic countries are open and transparent. Agreementsand laws are open for debate and consideration. They consult the citizens and they tolerate dissent and protest even when it might be embarasing. Twice now this government has attacked peaceful protestors to prevent them from being seen. Your sense of democracy maybe. Not mine.

You people might prefer corporate rule where laws are dictated by Coca-Cola anbd Monsanto and elected politicians merely rubber-stamp their dictates. I prefer not to. Skdadl says the people who built that fence work for her. I appreciate her sentiments but, in fact, they work for huge corporations who work only for themselves.

Take a look at the Quebec City demo. That IS what democracy looks like. Messy, loud and inclusive. Look behind the fence where the very wealthy meet in secret surrounded by heavily armed police. That is what a dictatorship looks like. And you, wagepeace and all the other rabble will be on this side of the fence in such a state. With us. Comforted?


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
big snake sale
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1447

posted 26 September 2001 10:09 AM      Profile for big snake sale     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Then I would strongly urge you to leave this human rights violating country we call Canada and relocate to a more democratic and freedom loving countries like Angola, or perhaps Sudan? Maybe China? Hmmmm, how about Sierra Leone? Or maybe Indonesia? Perhaps you could claim refugee status in Iraq or maybe Syria?

Hmmmm, how about Liberia?

Or maybe the following countries would have you:

AFGHANISTAN, ALGERIA, ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA, ARMENIA, BAHAMAS, BAHRAIN, BANGLADESH, BARBADOS, BELARUS, BELIZE, BENIN, BOTSWANA, BURUNDI, CAMEROON, CHAD, CHINA, COMOROS, CONGO (Democratic Republic), CUBA, DOMINICA, EGYPT, EQUATORIAL GUINEA, ERITREA, ETHIOPIA, GABON, GHANA, GUATEMALA, GUINEA, GUYANA, INDIA, INDONESIA, IRAN, IRAQ, JAMAICA, JAPAN, JORDAN, KAZAKSTAN, KENYA, KUWAIT, KYRGYZSTAN, LAOS, LEBANON, LESOTHO, LIBERIA, LIBYA, MALAWI, MALAYSIA, MAURITANIA, MONGOLIA, MOROCCO, MYANMAR, NIGERIA, NORTH KOREA, OMAN, PAKISTAN, PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY, PHILIPPINES, QATAR, RUSSIAN FEDERATION, RWANDA, SAINT CHRISTOPHER & NEVIS, SAINT LUCIA, SAINT VINCENT & GRENADINES, SAUDI ARABIA, SINGAPORE, SOMALIA, SWAZILAND, TAIWAN, TAJIKISTAN, TANZANIA, THAILAND, TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO, TUNISIA, UGANDA, UNITED ARAB EMIRATES, UZBEKISTAN, VIET NAM, YEMEN, YUGOSLAVIA (Federal Republic), ZAMBIA, ZIMBABWE ....

You are so oppressed here in Canada Wingnut - I weep for your pain.

[ September 26, 2001: Message edited by: big snake sale ]


From: The secret world of Pierre Berton's Brain | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 26 September 2001 10:21 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Weeping for my pain? Thank you. Why not weep for the pain of the people in those countries you mentioned. Because if we do not question and demand our govenrment remain open and free and respect our rights, we can join that list of countries without ever leaving home.

But of course you are fine with that. Any police statre is fine with you as long as you can get you sweatshop manufactured brand names, right?

Oh, by the way, you don't like China? That is too bad. Thier entry into the WTO has just been cleared. The WTO is another body that meets in secret, conducts secret hearings, releases secret decisions, and has secret tribunals. China must feel right at home.

It is funny to me how people can be so upset by democracy whilke cheering the loss of it.

I do love my country. Far more than you ever could. I want to protect and preserve it. you and your kind want to sell it out to the highest bidder.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
big snake sale
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1447

posted 26 September 2001 10:28 AM      Profile for big snake sale     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Wow, I thought that I was on the left and now I am on the right?

Ya need some therapy wingnut - ya gotta get your noodle in order because you were asserting earlier that the fence in Quebec as akin to the Berlin Wall, maybe I didn't read you correctly, I mean, it was your analogy, right?

Wow, you really are a presuming sort of person aren't you? You presume that I am on the right, even though I work on the left?

Wow .... you're like, Kreskin, right?


From: The secret world of Pierre Berton's Brain | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
N.R.KISSED
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1258

posted 26 September 2001 11:50 AM      Profile for N.R.KISSED     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Is this low-brow sarcasm really necessary?
Wingnut brings up some valid points why don't you attempt to address them ,without being insulting.

as for Canadians being tolerant of hooliganism, some seem quite tolerant when the hooligans are the police. Instead of incessant moaning about some punk rock kids throwing a few rocks; what about some legitimagte out-rage around the death of Dudley George. State sanctioned murder is that despotic enough for you.
I would also like to bring your attention to Otto Vass who was beaten to death by four Toronto policemen.
Funny but I have yet to hear anything from Otto's elected representitives.


From: Republic of Parkdale | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
big snake sale
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1447

posted 26 September 2001 12:01 PM      Profile for big snake sale     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Wingnut has perched himself high above the rabble by his proclamation that he is far more patriotic than I am - such grandiose and presumptuous statements beg to be ridiculed. He asserts that I am right-wing, that I support selling out Canada to the highest bidder, etc, etc and so on.

I find it interesting, N.R. Kissed, that you perceive my ridicule of his comments to be insulting and yet you make no mention of his vitriolic suggestions and assertions about my beliefs and politics.

I guess that saying something like

quote:
But of course you are fine with that. Any police state is fine with you as long as you can get you sweatshop manufactured brand names, right?

or

quote:
I do love my country. Far more than you ever could. I want to protect and preserve it. you and your kind want to sell it out to the highest bidder.

are not insults but actually gestures of sublime regard for my perspective, right?


From: The secret world of Pierre Berton's Brain | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Victor Von Mediaboy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 554

posted 26 September 2001 12:08 PM      Profile for Victor Von Mediaboy   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Why do we care so much what anonymous, internet cyber-entities think of us? Why bother wasting emotional resources with on-line mud-slinging?
From: A thread has merit only if I post to it. So sayeth VVMB! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 26 September 2001 02:55 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Wingnut has perched himself high above the rabble by his proclamation that he is far more patriotic than I am - such grandiose and presumptuous statements beg to be ridiculed. He asserts that I am right-wing, that I support selling out Canada to the highest bidder, etc, etc and so on.

Actually, snake, I was responding, appropriately, to your simple minded "Canada, love it or leave it," argument. Vitriolic insults at their finest. And not even any requirement to be imaginative.

Further, as for your politics, if the shoe fits ...

[ September 26, 2001: Message edited by: WingNut ]


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
judym
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 29

posted 26 September 2001 06:48 PM      Profile for judym   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hey, folks, this thread is getting somewhat long. A happy reminder: try not to get into personal sniping. Kneel Before Mr. Mediaboy on that one!
From: earth | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Open Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca