French Protests Continue

[Cloudbringer]

Originally posted by Rokenn: Quote: Originally posted by Cloudbringer: With regard to TL's comments... would it have been any more 'right' or less so if those protestors who blocked traffic and kept him 'hostage' in the street , held a gun to his head and said "You will listen to us!"?

Cloudy that analogy is so over the top that it borders on being flame bait. An act of civil disobedience (stopping traffic) isn't even in the same county, let alone ballpark to holding a gun to someone's head.[/QUOTE]Ok,timeout... I not only am not 'flamebaiting' but since we have a new rule from the webmaster regarding zero tolerance for such things, you need to avoid throwing the term around unless you sincerely believe it and don't expect to start a flame war by doing it. I assure you, I had no such intentions with my post, so perhaps you read more into it than is there.

IMO if my movement is impeded and someone shoves a placard in my face or window, I am unable to avoid it and am thus forced to listen/deal with their statements. Same as if they physically restrained me (or scared me into inaction- with weapon or threat). If you wouldn't feel that way in a similar situation that's fine, but don't accuse me or anyone else of 'flamebaiting' for describing how a situation would effect them!

[pritchke]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Look, I am all for free speech and peaceful protest, but these Peace-Mongers paraded about Chicago during rush hour last night and shut down main arteries - such as Lake Shore Drive and Michigan Avenue (the Magnificent Mile) for HOURS. I'm sorry but that kept a lot of people from work, a lot of people from their families, and generally pissed us all off. [img]graemlins/1pissed.gif[/img] .

[img]graemlins/funnysad.gif[/img] Well if your pissed. Then just think how much more annoyed and shut down you would be if you were having the begeezes bombed out of your city. Now you should smile and think how lucky you really are to live in a country were you can have protest and not worry about having the begegeezes bombed out of you due to an evil leader.

[Ronn_Bman]

Rokenn, of course it's the idiotic minority that gives any movement a bad name. She's not discrediting the entire movement.

It's the job of the legitimate elements of any protest to distance themselves from, and condemn, the actions of the idiotic fringe.

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Chewbacca - as to your question I felt it was rhetorical. Could there be any argument that I am worse off? I won't pretend there can be. But, I can state my fellow Americans should not *make* me listen to them if I don't want to, should not limit my freedom to move about my city after a long day at work, and certainly should not make the cesation of business their central goal. Unless they want the rest of us to be jobless and have nothing better to do with our day than protest, that is.

Yeah, I guess my question was rhetorical, but it illustrates what many people are protesting against. No matter how you dress it up or justify it, war is not humanitarian and to many is evil, unjust and an action of the very last resort. Good reasons to protest war if you ask me, particularly if we weren't attacked first.

I bet many folks in Alabama didn't want a bunch of civil rights protestors clogging their "white only" facilities anymore than you want pro-peace demonstratores to stop traffick. But what if traffick was stopped for a pro-war parade? Or what if those demonstarotors recieved a permit to protest in the streets. Would that be any different or wrong?

I guess I find it difficult to critsize any peaceful protests and non-violent civil disobediance as history shows these are sometimes effective measures to defeat institutionalized injustice, particularly on a large scale and with principled ideology.

Ultimatlely I agreee with you that it is inconvient to be stuck in traffick (I know, I live in Boston!), But to many of the protesters you want to metaphorically punch in the face, it is a life or death situation that goes beyond inconvienence.

[ 03-21-2003, 12:58 PM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

[Cloudbringer]

Originally posted by Larry_OHF: Most definately very well said, Cloudy. Very well said. Would the crowd blocking the streets have moved outta the way if an ambulance had to get through or a police car trying to stop a crime at somebody's home? What about people who work as temporary emplyees who lose thier job if they are late even once during thier trial period? Protests should not stop normal flow of taffic or prevent people from moving about.

Exactly why I don't approve of such 'protests'. Bad enough if emergency vehicles can't get through for usual reasons (heavy traffic at rush hour for instance) but because of a deliberate traffic tie up?

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: But what if traffick was stopped for a pro-war parade? Or what if those demonstarotors recieved a permit to protest in the streets. Would that be any different or wrong?

If I couldn't get to work, or to the store, or to my home because of a pro-war parade, I would ab-so-damn-lutely be pissed and complain. Furthermore, I would oppose any pro-war protest that was specifically aimed at blocking traffic and shutting down work. Don't you think there were anti-war people stuck in traffic that were pissed at the protestors.

It does make a difference if they get a permit. If they get a permit, the street is blocked off and traffic is redirected.

[Moiraine]

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman: Quote: Originally posted by Masklinn: Second, a MacDonalds got a bit broken, thaz true. Nothing really bad though, they didn't set it on fire or anything. What do you want ? MacDonalds are one of the biggest american symbol there.

Masklinn, I've looked at this paragraph several times and tried to ignore it, but I just can't. I'm too bothered by it.

So this was ok because the McDonald's was only busted up a bit? It was ok since they didn't set it on fire? The fact that it's a big symbol of America makes it acceptable? I'm sorry, but you are wrong to make excuses for this action, and I'm disappointed.

How would you have felt about me and my views if I had tried to explain away or excuse in any way the actions of those people who spray painted the French-American's garage door from the story earlier this week?

They didn't burn her house down. Heck, the didn't even bust her home up. All they did was spell out some mean words with paint on her garage door. The neighbors repainted it for her anyway. What do you want? She was the biggest symbol of France in the neighborhood.

How would that argument have been any different from what you said? [img]graemlins/1ponder.gif[/img]

To me, it wouldn't have been any different at all. Of course, I didn't say anything like that and never would. I immediately condemned that action against the French-America. I condemn protestors on all sides who result to violence or discrimination or illegal activities to make their point of view known. Don't you?[/QUOTE]I agree with you on this, Ronn. Any violence must be condemned.

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman: Quote: Originally posted by Masklinn: Second, a MacDonalds got a bit broken, thaz true. Nothing really bad though, they didn't set it on fire or anything. What do you want ? MacDonalds are one of the biggest american symbol there.

Masklinn, I've looked at this paragraph several times and tried to ignore it, but I just can't. I'm too bothered by it.[/QUOTE]More importantly, it completely undermines any objection anyone on this forum ever had to wine bashing. Full stop.

Rokenn, Cloudy's analogy was not over-the-top. Under the law, keeping someone in a place against their will is false imprisonment whether you have a weapon or not.

Let me point out some legal things.
1. Impeding the flow of traffic = misdemeanor.

2. While you have the right of free speech, it is not absolute. Under the COnstitution, the government may limit the "time, place, and manner" of your speech.

3. In this instance the rally was approved for the federal building Area (Everett Dirksen building). The protestors travelled 4 blocks west to Michigan Avenue, 6 blocks west to Lake Shore Drive, and then up to 12 blocks North on each street. This was in violation of law. It is another midemeanor.

4. When told to return to the appropriate points or disperse, the protestors largely refused. This is obstructing an officer - third misdemeanor.

Ultimately, this behavior hurts the cause. I do not doubt there are good reasons to protest the war. I do not doubt their conviction. But, in this land you play by the rules or pay the price. I don't like it when they break the rules any more than I like it when animal rights activists break into a facility and set animals free.

While both have the right to thier opinions and the right of free speech, and even a good message. But, in both instances, none of these things obviates their duty to obey laws and respect their fellow citizens.

[Moiraine]

Originally posted by Cloudbringer: Quote: Originally posted by Larry_OHF: Most definately very well said, Cloudy. Very well said. Would the crowd blocking the streets have moved outta the way if an ambulance had to get through or a police car trying to stop a crime at somebody's home? What about people who work as temporary emplyees who lose thier job if they are late even once during thier trial period? Protests should not stop normal flow of taffic or prevent people from moving about.

Exactly why I don't approve of such 'protests'. Bad enough if emergency vehicles can't get through for usual reasons (heavy traffic at rush hour for instance) but because of a deliberate traffic tie up?[/QUOTE]But Clouddy, how exactly do you suggest people express their opinion in a peaceful way and nonetheless showing numbers ?

About ambulances and such emergencies, I don't know how it goes in the US, but in France people organizing a manifestation in the streets must give the travel map to the police - thus, an ambulance can know which streets to take.

[Ronn_Bman]

Moiraine, that's pretty much the way it's suppose to work here. People are suppose to get permits. The problem is these protestors did not get permission to go where they went, and that they intentionally blocked traffic in an area they weren't suppose to be in.

EDIT - Thanks for your agreement on the other.

[ 03-21-2003, 01:46 PM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]