Btw, in the APEC conference in Canada, it was determined that the 'violence' originated with the RCMP. The police need to see some violence in order to attack the protesters. The police are not above creating that violence in order to justify the attack on the hippy scum.

The RCMP also illegally detained protesters before the protest (protective custody).

Makes one embarrassed about one's country.

True, White Rabbit. And agents provocateurs have in fact been used all over the world and throughout history.

Agent provocateur - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tethys

__________________
-- Harry S. Truman

I don't think he's far off the mark - the protests have been ongoing for quite some time, but can you cite any demonstrable effect?

Matt

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum

The Bali bombings took the lives of 202 people, including many locals and people from many lands. The number of Australians killed was 88. I’m not minimising the tragedy, but at least get your facts straight, please.

And Americano never suggested that your scenario was improbable.

More later…

Tethys

__________________
-- Harry S. Truman

I’m working progressively through the points JB has made because they raise many issues.

I am working on a response to this point in his post, Matt. I will make a few quick comments for now, then, but I really need to get my thoughts together to answer more fully.

I have participated in street marches for many years, so this question is very close to my heart.

You will understand that deep down it’s hard for me to think that all these marches have been ineffectual.

JB’s use of the word was confusing in the context of the question he asked in his post #20: “Do people actually think the reason for the heightened security is to keep the ineffectual protestors out?”

Whether one believes street marches are effectual or ineffectual, the issue in terms of the debate over heightened security for APEC should surely be about whether it was aimed at peaceful protesters or violent ones.

Therefore, in that respect, his point would have been clearer if he had said “peaceful”.

The debate over the effectiveness of street marches is a separate question. I will answer that later. I have mixed views on the question, but I think I could cite some demonstrable effect.

However, I will add here that effectual or ineffectual, street marches are part of freedom of speech and freedom of assembly, and this for me is an important part of this discussion.

So I think there are at least three basic factors here that have got jumbled up:

1) the right to protest (including street protest);
2) violent versus non-violent protest
3) the effectiveness of street protests

Tethys

__________________
-- Harry S. Truman

Did you see Insight last night Tethys? It was about fear - and I found I was in full agreement with both experts who talked about APEC security measures being more about creating the image of security rather than providing actual security - and in some ways being counterproductive due to the CREATION of fear that comes from such measures.

The argument was that reliance on intelligence, and other measures, rather than 'show' of security is more effective - but the system in Sydney was in response to what Americans expect.

The fact the Chaser guys got as far as they did indicates that there was a serious problem with the type of security offered, even though it caused major disruption.

As one person pointed out - if security of world leaders was really the issue, then holding APEC at a more remote location would have been a far more cost effective way to provide security - and lets face it - there are plenty of very nice places in Australia where it could have been held without all the kerfuffle.

Yes, Daisy, I saw the Insight Insight program called “Fear Factor”, and I too thought the points made were excellent.

I really believe that much better security would have come out of people being made to feel that they “owned” the event. Get people to be part of it, rather than telling them to stay away and alienating them in other ways.

I also agree that it would have been more sensible on many levels to hold APEC at a more remote location in Australia. One of the offshore resort islands would have been good from the point of view of being surrounded by a natural barrier – much nicer even for our guests to be circled by a ring of pacific ocean water than a ring of steel, I would think.

And did you watch the Chasers ABC TV: The Chaser's War on Everything tonight?

They screened the stunt bizzo. $160 million in security and they got to the front of President Bush’s hotel.

Tethys

__________________
-- Harry S. Truman

Indeed - and please understand that while we might have some differences in our approach to policy with regard to Iraq, I am also disquieted by the lack of interest our "representative governments" take in the will of the people.

Matt

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum

Yes, Matt, I know (from previous posts you have made on that issue).

And I feel the same.

I think it is important to examine what is the best way to make our voices heard.

I guess the reality is that there are other forces than "the will of the people" that drive the policies and actions of our representative governments.

I just think it is important not to lose hope in our ability to bring about change.

And yes, it's not so much about what differences people may have over Iraq or whatever issue.

It's late here and once again I really need to turn in. I'll come back to this discussion tomorrow night with some more thoughts about the question.

Good night one and all.

Tethys

__________________
-- Harry S. Truman

LOL Tethys - you beat me to it - I was about to post the Chaser stunt.

Well worth a look for anyone who things big production security is the way to go.

Priceless!

That's it...I'm off to bed for real now. Nighty night.

Tethys

__________________
-- Harry S. Truman

Why bringing US NGOs in Europe under strict control?

Hey there! I think there is not a single American who is still unaware that US special services are overtightening control over US non-governmental organizations, especially those ones that operate in Eurrope. In this respect I began to wonder, how many people there might be who want to know the point of this overtightening. Are there any? Or am I the only one here that curious? Ok, first I will give you my ideas, and then I will be glad to hear some of yours.
I'm sure that our secret services aim to use these NGOs in order to carry on surveillance and subversive activities in Europe against opponent states, Germany in the first place. It is clear that in this context American NGOs in Europe will be first of all relying on our dependants like Poland, states of the Baltic region and France of course. This being so, I'm sure French administration will turn a blind eye to subversive actions of American NGOs in trade for a promise of the White House to forgo stirring up Moslem riots throughout the country. As for Poland, I'm sure this petty countryside will be converted into a training ground used to coach "agents of US impact" on the territory of European states opposed to the United States. Speaking about Baltic region, our NGOs will run countenance of local neo-Nazi organizations and use them as a source of free cannon fodder if necessary.
How do you like my viewpoint? C'mon give me your ideas!

Evidence from the Vietnam war era in the USA suggests that the very existence of the protests against the war had the effect of prolonging the war. Apparently, many people hated the protesters more than they hated the war and supported the war as a way to annoy the protesters.

That's why there was (and still is) very few substantive public protests in the USA against the Iraq war - lesson learned - the American public doesn't seem to like protesters.

US protests against the Vietnam folly turned out Johnson and damaged Nixon's image; he was elected on a primary campaign plank of the US getting out of Vietnam. The US was sick of Vietnam.

Henry Ryan Butterfield, a writer for the History News Service

~Memories of the Vietnam War of the 1960s and 1970s hover over our occupation of Iraq like sullen ghosts, calling out warnings to American policy makers.

President Bush obviously hears them, and he is determined that Iraq will not scar him as Vietnam did Presidents Johnson and Nixon. Above all, he doesn't want this crisis to turn him out of the White House as the Vietnam crisis turned out Johnson.~

I disagree. The ability for American protest against the Iraq war has been dramatically curtailed by geographical removal of protesters from any federal facility or official under threat of arrest. One is not likely to experience a Quaker burning himself to death under the office window of the US defense secretary (McNamara) ever again any more than than protests of any type being staged in the proximity of any federal official. A US public park full of
protesters surrounded by armed police far from the public appearance of any federal official is no longer considered newsworthy as it upsets corporate advertiser customers sitting on their shoddy financed furniture in their financed crackerbox home stuffing their overweight bodies with advertiser products. They desire spectator sports, reality shows, other mindless entertainment and to be told by their government through a talking head in under 30-seconds that conditions in Iraq are improving due to government efforts.

After listening to years of those government lies, a majority of the apathetic US public are still against US involvement in Iraq and feel their leadership is doing a crummy job, with or without protests.

But my reason for choosing the word ineffectual was to downplay the significance of this idea that the Australian govt is trying to suppress dissent.

It's a security issue.

If someone has a problem with APEC then surely they could do better than stand on the street waving a sign or practice civil disobedience.

If Sydney residents have a problem with the heightened security because it interfers with their daily lives, then they have no practical choice but to just wait it out. It is temporary, after all.

If people have a problem with GW Bush's midadventure in Iraq, I just do not think the APEC summit is the right venue to express it. Like do they think that he doesn't know?


He implied that security was only for President Bush. But let's agree that is one of the reasons. And so what if it is?

So is the President of the United States no longer supposed to attend these International conferences to promote cooperation and economic prosperity between nations, because somebody wants to assasinate him? Is that the world we want to live in? That's living in fear.

And if he did not, then some people would bitch and moan about the arrogant attitude of the US President who thinks he is too important to attend a conference with Australians and Asians.

You know that would happen.

Well obviously these things can no longer be held in flagship cities anymore for these logistical problems. But it has been the usual tradition to hold such events in major cities.

To quote from the APEC website: "Hosting APEC provided Australia with a valuable opportunity to showcase our business, society and culture to influential constituencies within the region and the wider international community.

During the planning and conduct of the meetings efforts were made to display Australian industry, products and services to best advantage and to maximise possible benefits for the country. "

APEC Australia 2007


Like they are going to showcase Australian industry and business in some island resort?

And the reason this is all a problem, is not GW Bush or Global Trade, the reason is because some people are going to try and destroy property and/or kill somebody or many people to get their point across.


Now were these activities planned by someone in the Australian govt, as is usually the case?

Or do you think Bush, who (according to his haters) never wants to see the world outside the US, is suddenly interested in seeing the sights of Sydney?

I would be interested in knowing what these recreational activities are.

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