Canadian Police demonstrate the proper handling of rabble

[Asher]

Originally posted by Seeker
Still no one has actually been able to say what the issues are and why the protestors are protesting....amazing.

Even the protestors don't know, that's what's funny.

All they know is they're going to meet en masse and protest how evil the G8 is.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Seeker
Still no one has actually been able to say what the issues are and why the protestors are protesting....amazing.

The problem is that the protestors come from a wide gamut of the political spectrum. There seem to be dozens of groups from a variety of countries and linked only by a common distrust of government . You do not hear a common message because there isn't one other than a dislike of "globalization". The theme is that decisions that effect people's lives are being made " in secret" and that this is bad.

Besides that there is a mish-mash of anarhists, marxists, environmentalists, malcontents, rabble-rousers, minority groups, anti-poverty groups and on and on and on. It seems that many groups that have a beef with their own government see the G-8 as a good time to express their discontent

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither
He won independence for India. India today is one of the more important democracies in the world. One day soon, it will be one of the more important economies of the world. I think he won.

India was goin to gain its independence with or without Gandhi. The British Empire was dissolving.

Look at the Israelis. They had nobody of such drive, wisdom or morality as Gandhi, but they won far more for themselves than he did.

[chequita guevara]

You know, if I took these posts thirty years back in time,they'd look exactly the same as people were saying about the anti-war protests. Those who think that "ciolence hurts the movement" weren't interested in the movement to begin with. If they were, they'd realize that the violence is overwheliming organized by the police against protesters (who are engaging in a civil liberty, the right to pretition the government for redress and peaceable public assembly), and that only an extremely inty handful of protesters start any violence on their own. One the cops initiate, however, many people will respond in kind. Self-defense is a right, regardless of what the capitalist media would have you believe.

[Asher]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
You know, if I took these posts thirty years back in time,they'd look exactly the same as people were saying about the anti-war protests.

They got out of the war because they were losing it, not because hippies disagreed with it.

[chequita guevara]

Hippies had very little to do with the anti-war movement. Hippies were too busy smoking dope and having love-ins. They might show up to a demonstration, but they didn't do any of the work. The real work of organizing the anti-war movement was done by vets coming back from Vietnam (the single largest contingent of the anti-war movement), socialists, communists, students, mothers, fathers, and the millions and millions of other Americans who opposed the war. The country risked becoming ungovernable if it continued the war. Just because we wasn't winning doesn't mean that we couldn't have stayed there another ten or twenty years. But then, we would have brought the government down.

But before the movement had a majority, all kinds of people sounded like the naysayers here.

[SnowFire]

Asher: to Kamrat X: You do realize nobody gives a sh*t about protests, right?

I don't know. I think these protesters are jerks, but it's a good sign. Think of it like a good capitalist: there are different prices people are willing to pay. Some people won't buy dog food at all, they don't need it. Some will only buy it if it's really cheap so they can resell it or give it to their neighbors. Some will buy at the standard price. And some are so lazy that they'll even buy it at a high price because they won't fix up the same thing from other ingridients that are cheaper. At each lower price level, you collect all the higher price levels too.

It's the same with protests. Some people require pretty much anything to protest. This is the best we can come up with today, so it gets protested. It shows that our democracy is healthy that these fringe protests still occur. Sure, they won't mean a darn thing. But if things ever got really bad or worse, then protests do mean things... look at third world nations, where protests can mean a lot more- half a capital city marching against the rulers can topple 'em pretty fast. Of course, you only get half the people in the city marching when things get really bad.

I say this as a person who would happily march in protests, if I felt that this country had something worth protesting at the moment. I mean really protesting, not just disagreeing with politely.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
But before the movement had a majority, all kinds of people sounded like the naysayers here.

Can you give me some info that the Vietnam anti-war movement had more than 50% support at any time in its history? I need it for an English paper.

[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.

[Asher]

Debunk time.

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.

The protesters don't even know what they're complaining about. We get the local newscasts, Tingkai, you do not. Some are anarchists, some are communists, some are anti-globalization, some are anti-capitalist, etc. It's a mishmash of different whackos.

*snipped the bunch of stuff totally unrelated to this thread, and wonders what Tingkai is smoking*

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.

Bull****. Give me links.

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.

It's not that hard to portray protesters as a bunch of rowdy ignorant kids, particularly when they are rowdy ignorant kids who are trashing a McDonalds for no particular reason.

Oh, and for future reference, beaurocrats != media.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Asher
*snipped the bunch of stuff totally unrelated to this thread*

Oh, and for future reference, beaurocrats != media.

Typical response of the close-minded. Ya tell them about the concerns people have and they just ignore it.

As for "beaurocrats != media", that makes a lot of sense.

[notyoueither]

For the most part the concern with the protesters is not their ideas Tingkai. It's the violence and some other actions they feel are justified when they protest.

[Flubber]

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.
.

Thats just it -- The protest movement at these summits is very diverse and this diversity is both a weakness and a strength. Unlike some protests in the past which have very simple messages :

-- don't log in this forest
don't build a mine here
End the war and bring our people home
Hold free elections

which were easier to rally around, these protests are about more complex issues and are more fragmented. I doubt you could find a simple message that was agreeable to most protesters that wasn't some platitude about an "open process" or " more accountability to the people".

Even if I hate our governement, its their job to spend our money and set policies and if that means they want to sometimes sit down in a room with other world leaders so be it. If ANYTHING is to be accomplished, it is impossible to provide a "place at the table" for every group that wants one. It is supposed to work that the leadeers work in the best interests of their citizens.


I also belive strongly in the right to political dissent and would trumpet the right of people to protest. But I see no reason why protesters see the need to tear down any security barricades. While police are rarely blameless in these incidents, there probably would be no incident in the first place if barricades were not torn down.


Tingkai

I have also been troubled by the power wielded by the World Bank and IMF but their legitimacy and authority comes from the fact that they are the institutions that provide the money to the troubled economies. You don't have to do anything they say if you don't want their money/ loan giurantees etc. The nations providing the cash gave them this authority and like it or not it is real. Perhaps a different set of entities would be better

In some ways it is similar to the bank telling me I won't qualify for a new mortgage unless I adjust my spending in certain ways. I can tell them to go to hell if I don't want their money

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by notyoueither
For the most part the concern with the protesters is not their ideas Tingkai. It's the violence and some other actions they feel are justified when they protest.

But maybe we should be paying attention to their ideas. Maybe they have a valid point.

I don't agree with the violence. The problem is that these people feel that the only way their voices can be heard is when they riot. Unfortunately, I think there might be some truth in this belief.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Flubber
If ANYTHING is to be accomplished, it is impossible to provide a "place at the table" for every group that wants one. It is supposed to work that the leadeers work in the best interests of their citizens.

I agree with your first point. We should rely on our politicians to act on our behalf. However to do that, they need to at least listen to the voters.

I could be wrong, but it seems the politicians do not allow people to voice their opinions about a country's stance on world trade, environment, etc.

If the government really wanted to prevent these protests then it should hold public hearings.

Originally posted by Flubber
The nations providing the cash gave them this authority and like it or not it is real. Perhaps a different set of entities would be better

That's true. IIRC, Malaysia turned down the IMF during the 97 economic crisis and went its own way.

At the same time, if Canadians are providing money to the IMF, shouldn't we have a say about how the money is spent? Doesn't this give us the right to tell the IMF it is doing a lousy job?

The IMF responded to the Asian economic crisis with the same prescriptions that it applied to the Mexican crisis, even though the causes of the problems were entirely different. The Mexican crisis was caused by excessive government foreign debt and overspending by the government. That wasn’t a problem in the Asian crisis.

IIRC, the IMF forced governments to jack up interest rates and to cut spending. That created major problems for companies that were already struggling to pay off foreign debts due to collapsing exchange rates. The government spending cuts reduced liquidity causing more economic problems.

Using your analogy, the protests could be seen as protests from minority stockholders in the bank. The only difference is that protesters don’t have a say in what happens to the bank stock they own.