Canadian Police demonstrate the proper handling of rabble

[Zoid]

Originally posted by Tingkai
I find it funny that some people are complaining about the protesters being ignorant when these people don't know what the protesters are complaining about.

It is not about being against globalization
The majority of the protesters recognize that globalization is a fact of life. What they are concerned about is who gets to set international rules for trade. There are some people who want to stop international trade, but these people are in the minority.

It's about democracy at the international level
Why should the unelected IMF and World Bank have the power to tell a country what it should or shouldn't do. If we are opposed to the policies of the IMF and the World Bank, should we not have some way of voicing our concerns. At the moment, there are no checks or balances on the power of the IMF and World Bank.

The IMF and the World Bank make mistakes
The IMF's approach to Asian economic crisis in 1997 was extremely flawed. This is an opinion held by many respected economists. And yet there is no way to stop the IMF from inflicting its dangerous policies.

The WTO and IMF ignore environmental concerns
IIRC, the United States government created laws designed to protect sea turtles. These laws were considered reasonable and the laws were created by the elected representatives of the people. Yet, the unelected WTO was able to force the US to dismantle these laws.

The Seattle riots worked
As a result of the riots, local politicians woke up to the fact that people were dissatisfied with the current international system for setting trade rules. Poverty, environmental issues, labour issues are now being more fully discussed at the international level thanks to the protesters.

Bureaucrats want the public to remain stupid
Bureaucrats working at the international level would prefer that the public ignore what they do. It makes their life easier. So naturally they portray the protesters as being just a bunch of rowdy ignorant kids.

Excellent points

Asher et al read THIS article or

THIS article from the Toronto Star, or

THIS article

I also found THIS suprisingly candid report from the Canadian Security- Intelligence Service interesting.

[Flubber]

Thanks Kamrat X-- good links

Its the first time I had seen those particular articles but one did sort of confirm one of my points. The protests groups are trying to move to smaller more quantifiable objectives since to simply rail against " globalization" or " corporate power" provided no framework for concrete change. Right now if a governemnet went to each of the protest groups and asked for concrete and achievable actions they wanted, many groups would be hard-pressed to provide any form of workable action plan to achieve their high-sounding principle on any international stage

I am glad to see that the problem of violence is being addressed. I think violence is a too easy way to get the attention some of these groups seek. Unfortunately though, the very violence that garners the attention also delegitimizes the cause of those that are violent in the minds of many.

[Tingkai]

Great links Kamrat X.

The second link, World Inc. under siege, makes an important point:

"And that's another challenge anti-globalization protesters face: Many members of the public can't grasp the abstract, socio-economic principles upon which the movement is based. So critics start dismissing groups as "militant radicals," "Yuppie freaks," "Hippie wannabes," "flat-Earth advocates," "neo-Marxists," "neo-Luddites" and "anti-capitalist pipe dreamers."

"Even the term "anti-globalization movement" is misleading. There is no formal structure, no hierarchy. No one leader. No one platform. For some, there isn't even an "anti" - they believe it's not a question of "if we globalize," but how.

"There are, instead, widely different groups, with widely different agendas. And these groups will only get bigger and more effective, professor Deibert says. It's a trend.

"Citizens are side-stepping traditional structures of political participation and becoming active participants, as opposed to spectators in the game of world politics."

[Flubber]

Interesting that just this morning I was emailed a notice as to our buildings security procedures. Our building is in " Code yellow" for a week meaning no one gets in without a pass . There will be guards at all the doors and 2 guards outside to warn of any approaching protestors. As well I found this paragraph interesting . . .

"Various G8 experts have informed us that how we dress for work can make us targets for protestors. It has been recommended that casual dress, i.e. Stampede apparel, could make you less of a target. Historically, protestors try to make examples of anyone in business attire. Therefore, we recommend that you may want to consider and investigate your options with respect to this matter."


I don't know if its bull but at least at a local level they are essentially telling people that just wearing a suit could make you a target.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Flubber
I don't know if its bull but at least at a local level they are essentially telling people that just wearing a suit could make you a target.

Kamrat, how often to those great heroes to the cause Black Bloc make an appearence at these protests?

[Zoid]

Originally posted by DinoDoc




Kamrat, how often to those great heroes to the cause Black Bloc make an appearence at these protests?

I´m not quite sure what you mean. But the "Black Bloc" makes an appearance, in one form or another, at every protest AFAIK.

If you´re referring to the attacks on business people as a political strategy I think it´s appaling. Not to mention incredibly stupid

We complain that the police attack us based on how we dress. Then we do the same thing ourselves...

Edit: Grammatical error

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Flubber
I don't know if its bull but at least at a local level they are essentially telling people that just wearing a suit could make you a target.

During the Gulf War, we had a planned act of disobedience. Jan 17, 1991, we were gonna surround the Federal building and sit down and link arms. The Police sent memos to all of the businesses in the Loop saying that the police expected us to be violent, and that it would a be a good idea to close for the day (A Thurday, IIRC).

One of the cops tactics is to get rid of witnesses. The police were fairly gentle with us, though. No one get beat up, I only got my thumb injured by being rammed with a police horse. One old man did try to take a swing at police, but the crowd pulled him back before he swung.

Personally, I've never understood closing for a demo, especially if you sell food and drinks. You've got tens of thousnads of hungry and thirsty people right there. The real problem, though, was that people would solidarize with us, and waved to us from their offices and cars.

DD, check any standard history of the anti-war movement. IIRC, the turning point for the Administration was 1969, when business leaders decided the war was hurting the economy. When Nixon invaded Cambodea in 1970 is when the majority of the public turned against the war, as he had just expanded it.

[Zoid]

Originally posted by Tingkai
Great links Kamrat X.

The second link, World Inc. under siege, makes an important point:

"And that's another challenge anti-globalization protesters face: Many members of the public can't grasp the abstract, socio-economic principles upon which the movement is based. So critics start dismissing groups as "militant radicals," "Yuppie freaks," "Hippie wannabes," "flat-Earth advocates," "neo-Marxists," "neo-Luddites" and "anti-capitalist pipe dreamers."

"Even the term "anti-globalization movement" is misleading. There is no formal structure, no hierarchy. No one leader. No one platform. For some, there isn't even an "anti" - they believe it's not a question of "if we globalize," but how.

"There are, instead, widely different groups, with widely different agendas. And these groups will only get bigger and more effective, professor Deibert says. It's a trend.

"Citizens are side-stepping traditional structures of political participation and becoming active participants, as opposed to spectators in the game of world politics."

One could only hope that more people would take the time and effort to to be able to think outside the box. We who see the greater structure have a responsibility here. The responsibility to try to make these principles accessible to the general public. If they still dismiss us then, at least it´s a "educated" dismissal...

Flubber: I think it´s good that the struggle gets diversified, "broken down" into managable pieces if you want. Cause then we´ll have to actually put forth our alternative and see if it holds water. If we really want the world to change we must get down to earth instead of raving about the benefits of this or that theory.
Participation instead of justification...

[Sprayber]

Protesting has turned into the only true international sporting event.

Does anyone here have aspirations to turn pro?

[Zoid]

Originally posted by Sprayber
Protesting has turned into the only true international sporting event.

Does anyone here have aspirations to turn pro?

Nope, haven´t got the money. Only upper middle class kids can afford to travel to Australia to protest