Reply
Sat 31 May, 2003 10:50 am
Violence ahead of G-8 summit
Saturday, May 31, 2003 Posted: 11:59 AM EDT (1559 GMT)
Protesters earlier blocked roads in the center of nearby Lausanne.
EVIAN, France (CNN) -- Riot police clashed with anti-globalization protesters Saturday on the eve of the Group of Eight conference in the town of Annemasse, a community near the conference site set aside for demonstrators.
Some demonstrators threw stones to break up a meeting of France's Socialist Party, opposed by many of the protesters. They smashed windows and police fired tear gas at the crowd to disperse them. About 5,000 protesters are gathered in the town.
The summit of the world's top seven economies and Russia begins Sunday in Evian.
Most of the protesters, an ad-hoc collection of left-wing environmentalists and anarchists, have advocated peaceful demonstrations.
A huge demonstration is expected Sunday for the start of the meeting.
There are 10,000 security personnel to protect the meeting site from violent protests and terrorist attacks. There is a no-fly zone over Evian, and anti-aircraft missile batteries have been set up.
The G-8 includes the United States, France, Canada, Britain, Germany, Italy, Japan and Russia.
What if anything do these demonstrations achieve. Do they make any impression at all upon those meeting? Has it become something akin to Pavlov's dog. The response to a meeting of world leaders starts the juice flowing to protest and create a violent disturbance and damage. The protests it should be noted need not be related to the subject of the meeting.
This is just a less satisfying version of the orgy. Nothing more.
I knew the violent ones would get play over the peaceful ones, even though the peaceful ones are in the vast majority.
edgarblythe wrote:I knew the violent ones would get play over the peaceful ones, even though the peaceful ones are in the vast majority.
Perhaps the peaceful ones ought to have a chat with the violent ones, then. It isn't like this is an aberation; it has become the rule for these protests, and if you think the organizers don't know that and are powerless to change it, I think you are being naive.
From BBC-online:
Quote:
Huge protests which erupted into violence on the first day of the G8 meeting on Sunday were not repeated on Monday.
Perhaps the peaceful ones really had a chat with the violent ones - or are just back to work after having some "
fun" over the weekend.
I just pointed out how people are quick to paint everyone in a movement with one brush when they disagree with the movement.
If you shoot an anarchist, does that increase anarchy?
I noticed that you seem to have a strong distaste for protests in general au.
Disclaimer: I am a supporter of globalism and think these protests in particular are poorly conducted.
Craven
Not if they are peaceful and have a purpose. Most of the protests we see today have no cohesive theme. It seems that every radical group joins in and champions their cause. I think for the most part that turns people off.
As for having a strong distaste for protests my feelings related to protests that take a violent or disruptive tone have been expressed on a2k. I don't think I need go into that again.
I wonder how the people whose property was trashed feel about the demonstrators and their cause.
At this years "kids" parade in my hometown, we had a group from the local gay & lesbian square dancing company, as well as a group of rather exotic dancers in their rather revealing garb. There was also an anti-war group of marchers.
Does anyone really think this is appropriate? The parade was traditionally for children, marching with their sports teams, clubs, etc., for petesake. Free speech gone amuk?
I see no point in discussing this with someone who thinks as you do, au. You insist on making it like all the protestors are violent even when you know they are not. It reminds me of a person on a forum I used to visit who always laid into me for my actions toward Vietnam vets ( Because I protested the war it is automatic I spit on returning soldiers and in other ways abused them). Nothing I said to this person convinced him that I and many protestors did not abuse any of the vets at all. You can continue your diatribes without me.
au,
I happen to think that the majority of the anti-globalization demonstrations are stupid. Even the peaceful ones.
But this is a particular generalization that IMO is unhelpful.
The violent will always get the attention, and the only way for the peaceful protesters to stop them is with force. Which is, well, a paradox.
Edgar
Did you see the link posted by Walter?
{ Swiss shocked by laid back police. }
I never claimed that all the demonstrators were violent. However, IMO there is no justification for any violence during demonstrations
You don't say they are all violent, but you speak of them collectively when condemning the violence.
Craven: I don't necessarily agree with most of the demonstrators, but, I am simply speaking up for the right to peaceful assembly for whatever purpose.
edgarblythe wrote:You don't say they are all violent, but you speak of them collectively when condemning the violence.
Craven: I don't necessarily agree with most of the demonstrators, but, I am simply speaking up for the right to peaceful assembly for whatever purpose.
I don't see that as being at all incompatible with au's speaking out against
violent assembly for whatever purpose.
Edgar
I never meant to imply that all demonstrators were violent. In almost all demonstrations there is an element that is involved in the violent behavior.The actions of that element reflects upon the entire group. Peaceful demonstrations although I believe they are exercises in futility are a right however the violence that ensues is not and is unacceptable.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace