Not my scene, Trav. It's the cops who were in riot gear and riot mood.

Tethys

__________________
-- Harry S. Truman

Having our butt badly kicked in Iraq and experiencing liquidity failure in our financial markets doesn't promote the desired image of powerhouse or leader of the free world.

The US has experienced de facto martial law with political appearances for some time through the federally pressured process of protesters being allowed to gather only in specified areas far removed from the public appearance of federal officials where those protesters are under police control.

So let’s do a round-up…the discussion has turned to the “leader of the free world” status of the US President.

Adele Horin opened the article I cited in the OP with the words: “What an irony. When the leader of the free world comes to town, the first casualty is freedom”.

Moon says “It is no longer true” that the US President is the leader of the free world.

Rakkasan and Steve seem to disagree.

AdrienXII says only the Americans would refer to their leader as the leader of the free world.

Anselme comes in with a compromise of sorts…and Traveler sorts of agrees with it.

Now, I have to say that, when you think about it, the expression “leader of the free world” has shades of an oxymoron. At least in the context where that leader is not elected by the “world” he “leads”. And this would be true of whoever arrogates that role.

However, for the purpose of discussing the visit of President Bush in Sydney during the APEC Summit, let’s not take the title too literally.

Adele Horin speaks the truth when she points to the disconnect of the image of the US President as the bearer of freedom, counter posed with the reality on the ground whereby Sydneysiders had to endure some of the most humiliating curtailments of their freedom in Sydney’s history during his visit.

And let us be clear that the theatrics were there primarily due to his presence at the APEC Summit. President Hu Gintao, for example, milled around with ordinary Australians with little fuss.

Adele Horin put the feelings of many Australians in a nutshell when she wrote: ““Welcome, George Bush, to Australia, your steadfast ally in the mission to spread freedom to the darkest corners of the globe.”

This is what’s at issue. I think that to a point, a lot of people here wanted to hold on to the ideal that we were part of a grand plan to bring democracy to the oppressed. The way we were treated in Sydney during the APEC forum burst that bubble for many, many people.

Let’s look at a sample of views from ordinary Australians in today’s Sydney Morning Herald:

www.smh.com.au - Speak up now or lose this pristine jewel for generations to come

www.smh.com.au - Action like this makes us fear law and order

And such views appear daily in our newspapers.

For many years, I have taken part in marches for peace and social justice. I am near blind, and it has given me a sense of worth to be part of actions for causes outside of my disability. But I did not go to Saturday’s APEC rally, though in my heart I wanted to be there. I kept away because of fear that I may get knocked about by the police. I would not be able to get out of the way if police started to wield their batons or use the water canon.

And then in today’s Herald I read that Andrew Scipione, the new NSW Chief Commissioner, had said: "That's the way that we do business now."

www.smh.com.au - Action like this makes us fear law and order

No, that’s not on. I will not be intimidated by such rhetoric. Freedom calls. Next time I want to march for my beliefs, I will go.

And no, Trav, I won't go rioting and causing trouble. I disapprove of riotous behaviour, as I explained to you on that other thread.

Americano, just saw your post. For us, the kinds of measures enforced in Sydney during the APEC forum were beyond anything we had ever seen here.

Got to get some sleep…it’s very late here.

Good night…and good luck.

Tethys

__________________
-- Harry S. Truman

Bold The reaction to most all international appearances by Bush.

Do people actually think the reason for the heightened security is to keep the ineffectual protestors out?

The Australian govt does not want any terrorist bombs going off at an international conference on their soil and they certainly do not want any world leaders dying on their watch.


Hmm now I could have chosen to take the position that Australia is a neo-facist police state that oppresses their own citizenry's right to gather and voice opinions, like some Aussies would love to say about my country; but I chose not to focus only on the negative and instead to look at the bigger picture.

__________________
One day, I will sneak across the border into Canada and be an illegal alien. It will be fun.

So why inconvenience and insult Sydneysiders ? Why not a bush camp with easily-guarded terrain ? Are these supposed 'leaders of the free world' hiding behind civilians ?

Want to guess who the only target of that proposed scenario might be?

It's like you want to see it happen.

Want to guess how many innocent civillains could get killed in an assasination attempt?

__________________
One day, I will sneak across the border into Canada and be an illegal alien. It will be fun.

He did not say that, JB. And I think he would be well aware of the consequences it would have.

I will reply to your posts tomorrow. It's late here again, and time to say good night.

My thoughts are with all Americans today.

Tethys

__________________
-- Harry S. Truman

No, you suggested the terrorist scenario. I was pointing out that imposing security levels which dismiss civil rights were enacted solely due to worldwide unpopularity and presence of the standing US president. That the Australian government would succumb to those measures is IMO a disgrace and placing the presence of a foreign dignitary above the rights of Australian citizens a further disgrace, catering to US arrogance. If the US president insists on attendance at such a meeting with his current unpopularity poising danger to others, hold it in the middle of a desert somewhere without citizen attendance.

When the APEC summit was in Canada a few years back, my impression was that Canadian citizens were under seige from our own government security apparatus. Quite monsterous it was.

Are you saying that such a scenario is improbable? Did you forget the Bali terrorist bombing that killed 200 Aussies.

You are not employed with any of the Australian Government security agencies. So you are just speculating.

What about the WTO riots in Seattle? That was 1999 before big bad Bush made "conscientous" people so angry that they can not act civil.

So they have riots, assasinations and terrorist bombings to worry about. The Australian govt appreciates your concern. You are great help.

Bush insisted on attending? Lol... You have a false premise and a false argument.

The Australian Govt like most govts want to host such international conferences and events in their flagship cities as a sign of stature. prestige and goodwill among other positive things.

What's a disgrace is a bunch of so called "peace loving" hippies rioting and destroying other people's property, or some religous militant nut bombing a public place or some political whack job who thinks assasinating a leader is going to affect any positive change.

They are the reason for such heightened security. I am sure it is a total pain in the ass for the residents, and if I lived in Sydney I would be pissed. That's the world we live in.

__________________
One day, I will sneak across the border into Canada and be an illegal alien. It will be fun.

I’m going to answer the points in your posts progressively, JB, as they raise far too many issues to answer in one post.

I’ll deal here with your first question:

What I said in my OP was that it was “cited as one of the reasons”. That’s a fact. Here you are (emphasis added):

A week of meetings will culminate in the leaders' gathering involving Mr Howard, Mr Bush and 19 other world leaders, beginning on Saturday.[/quote]

Violent protesters blamed for APEC security | NEWS.com.au Business

John Howard and police officials conveyed this same line repeatedly in other comments on TV, radio and on YouTube in the lead-up to the APEC meeting.

So you can surely see that there was a clear message that indeed one of the reasons for the heightened security was to “keep the ineffectual protestors out”

I’ll comment on that “ineffectual” tag and also your other comments about the protesters later.

Tethys

__________________
-- Harry S. Truman

Obviously you are misunderstanding me.

According to the Australian sources that you are providing(thank you), Prime Minister Howard says that the heightened security is "...the fault of people who threaten violence as part of their protest."

How does violent protester equate to ineffectual protester? If that description offends you then I am sorry, but that is how I see them. Street protests are rather cliche.

And none of this proves Americano's assertion that the security is only to protect GW Bush who insisted on attending because he is so arrogant. Lol....

__________________
One day, I will sneak across the border into Canada and be an illegal alien. It will be fun.

A pardonable error. “How does violent protester equate to ineffectual protester?” you ask. Well, JB, I don’t equate violent protester to effectual protester.

Perhaps if you’d used the word “peaceful” instead of “innefectual”, you would have made yourself better understood.

And with due respect to your beliefs, though I disagree with you, no, the description does not offend me. I’ll discuss the question in more depth in another post.

Americano did not say that at all. He is quite right that the security was pumped up due to Bush’s presence, and he said:

Yes, President Bush was expected to attend the APEC Summit, but Americano’s point is that - with his current unpopularity posing danger to others - the least the Australian government should have done is to hold the Summit session of the APEC Forum away from a large metropolis like Sydney. For example, one of the island resorts off the coast.

Also, President Bush certainly insisted on spending two extra days in Sydney prior to the Summit, and much of that time was spent on recreational activities. This increased the risks and disruption associated with his presence.

More later...

Tethys

__________________
-- Harry S. Truman