Oct 28th Day of Action... What's the verdict?

Submitted by Mike McGregor on October 29, 2006 - 3:43am.

tags:

London Commons

Hey,

I'm curious as to people's opinions about how yesterday's rally went. You know: What went well? What could be improved? Did the right messege go out? Was it a cohearent messege? An emotional message? A rational messege? Did the messege reach as many as was hoped? Did we reach anyone new or sway any one towards our opinion(s)? Did we present a reasonable/realistic alternative to the current mission? Is there energy to sustain a local campaign or was this a one time thing? etc, etc, etc...

Average:

No votes yet

Trackback URL for this post:

http://www.londoncommons.net/trackback/1484

Universal Soldier

Submitted by R Ellis on November 11, 2006 - 8:38pm.

This songs seems really relevant to the current war in Afghanistan (Randy Bachman played it on CBC tonight).

**********************************

Universal Soldier by Buffy Sainte-Marie

He's five foot-two, and he's six feet-four,
He fights with missiles and with spears.
He's all of thirty-one, and he's only seventeen,
Been a soldier for a thousand years.

He'a a Catholic, a Hindu, an Atheist, a Jain,
A Buddhist and a Baptist and a Jew.
And he knows he shouldn't kill,
And he knows he always will,
Kill you for me my friend and me for you.

And he's fighting for Canada,
He's fighting for France,
He's fighting for the USA,
And he's fighting for the Russians,
And he's fighting for Japan,
And he thinks we'll put an end to war this way.

And he's fighting for Democracy,
He's fighting for the Reds,
He says it's for the peace of all.
He's the one who must decide,
Who's to live and who's to die,
And he never sees the writing on the wall.

But without him,
How would Hitler have condemned him at Dachau?
Without him Caesar would have stood alone,
He's the one who gives his body
As a weapon of the war,
And without him all this killing can't go on.

He's the Universal Soldier and he really is to blame,
His orders come from far away no more,
They come from here and there and you and me,
And brothers can't you see,
This is not the way we put the end to war.

Regarding the coverage

Submitted by Mel Sheehan on November 10, 2006 - 9:35pm.

The "Support Our Troops" yellow ribbon

I was one of the rally participants that was featured on the A-Channel news coverage (3 seconds is good enough for me) and I must say that my overall feelings on the whole rally is that there was a good turnout, just not as much coverage as there could have been. For instance, the article about the "day of action" in the London Free Press kept it's summary of the London rally to a paragraph... and they used a picture from the Montreal rally. I mean, we could have had more than that for coverage. But since the rally, I have seen and heard just about everything.

I was one of the ralliers, but it wasn't without controversy. My boyfriend was all upset because I was in the rally (he was the one that told me that I was on the news) and well, he's just beginning his Canadian Forces career. But one thing that he said caused and still does cause an argument sometimes between us: "if you don't support the mission, you don't support the troops." which I think is completely not true. I mean, you can respect the heck out of the brave men and women over there "peacekeeping" (more like fighting if you ask me) and still not like the job that they were assigned by the government. Am I right?

But ever since the rally, a lot more people have begun to really care about our troops being over there. So I guess it wasn't a worthless cause. Some people still hang onto what they believe to be true: Our troops are fighting their own war.

Um, I recall that this is the US' war in the first place. Like yeah, terrorism is bad and all, but why are we doing the US' dirty work?

Comments welcome!

Mel

Support The Troops

Replying to myself (I am a blonde, keep in mind)

Submitted by Mel Sheehan on November 10, 2006 - 9:53pm.

I think that as long as our opinions, along with the opinions of the people who turned out for the rallies across the country, get to the government by any means possible, we should feel that we at least came together as citizens of this great country to speak our mind as the Charter gives us the right to do so. We should feel that we have started something that we believe will in the end, bring the troops out of the war (in the fighting sense) and bring them back to peacekeeping, where they were supposed to be in the first place.

Mel

Support The Troops

It seems (to me) as if many

Submitted by Mike McGregor on November 2, 2006 - 1:17pm.

It seems (to me) as if many people in the Canadian anti-war movement (and our local microcosm of it,) feel that the mission of Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan should either A) shift from its current incarnation to a peace keeping or humanitarian operation, or B) shift from its current incarnation to non-existent.

my question is how would we want to see these transitions occur? what sort of course do we need to advocate towards either of those goals? I think we can agree that these transitions cannot realistically (or safely, given lack of any sort of political stability or ceasefire) occur overnight.

I think that a lot of things would need to occur before a peace-keeping mission could be a realistic option (IF it could be a realistic option, given that Canada is a close ally of the US and may never be an accepted by the US's opposition as a candidate for a neutral peace keeping force). What conditions would have to be met for a peace keeping force to even be able to operate in Afghanistan? What would need to occur to put those conditions in place? And would the means to that ends be compatible with the beliefs of an anti-war movement? I think a lot of those same questions and considerations would apply in calling for a shift to a humanitarian mission as well.

So, what about pulling Canadian troops right out of the conflict? How quickly do we want this to occur? "Troops out now!" obviously implies that we want them out right now. What are the goals of calling for such a sudden withdrawal? It is to remove or nation from a war that we view as immoral, correct?
But is it enough to remove Canadian troops from the war while the war rages on? Is it a strategy to make this war less sustainable for the nations that do continue to be involved, hence hastening their withdrawal? I don't think I've ever heard anyone attempt answer these questions that these slogan "Troops out now!" raisees in my mind.
What would be the consequences of such a sudden withdrawal? One likely possibility is that they would be replaced with more American troops. Is that a desirable alternative? I'm not saying that living under the occupation of the Canadian Forces is a good thing, but I'd be willing to guess that living under and American occupation is worse... Another possibility is that troops from other nations would have to fill the void. Is it desirable, or fair to leave the burden to the soldiers from another nation? what makes a Canadian life more valuable than a Dutch or German life (or an American one at that)? Would he Afghan people be any better off under another nation's occupation? Or would they just have to deal with the status quo while soldiers from another nation do the dying? or do we expect that the Afghan people in the region where Canadian Forces have been operating would simply be left to their own devices? I think these are all possibilities that the Canadian anti-war movement could benifit from addressing...

When I hear the slogan "troops out now!", it strikes me as an overly simplistic demand that reflects a lack of understanding as to what the the consiquences of fulfilling that demand might be.

Here's a link to some older discussions on the war in Afghanistan:

http://londoncommons.net/node/693

-30-
Mike.
"We only wear black, but that's only until something darker comes along..." -Anonymous Black Bloc Member.

some numbers from other oct 28 demos

Submitted by Steve DArcy (not verified) on October 31, 2006 - 3:29pm.

Hi,

The CPA sent around a 'sample' of some of the reports sent in about demos on the 28th. They had descriptions of what went on, which I won't pass on. But they also had numbers in attendance, which I will pass on:

saskatoon, 100
ottawa, 500
kingston, 100
halifax, 300-400
antigonish, 60
duncan, 120
nelson, 200
edmonton, 150
toronto, 2,500
st. johns, 122
hamilton, 225

vancouver, 2,000

Montreal, 2,000

They don't seem like very big numbers, really. (Our demo -- 150 to 200 for the rally? -- seems like it falls somewhere in the normal range.) But there's every reason to think that the numbers will grow in coming months, as the notion that NATO can be a force for good in Afghanistan becomes less and less plausible to people, as it surely will. Of course, crucial to getting people out is convincing them that protesting can have an impact, that they are participating in a larger movement that might actually win what it is demanding. That's something for all anti-war activists to think about.

Mike, I'll reply in the next day or two to your request for elaboration on the realistic alternatives question, as soon as I find the time.

Steve.

A bit confused here

Submitted by Alejandro on October 30, 2006 - 9:12pm.

De las sombras a la luz... (aunque sean soñadas) J.L. Borges

I went to the rally, and although I found the event a success considering the lack of enthusiasm I have encountered before in the people around me to participate in these events, I am shocked by the complexity of the subject and I think it is worth mentioning that may be the “bring the troops home” message I myself shouted aloud with some others, could be not the main thing to be focused on. I spoke with a couple of acquaintances from the Middle East that night, and I found to a great degree certain antipathy towards the whole issue, which I brought happily into their concerns for conversation. To my surprise and shock, they don’t like the idea of Canada pulling out from Afghanistan. Although aware of the U.S. and Canadian Imperialist interests behind the whole issue, it seems that pulling the troops out from Afghanistan may have extreme repercussions on the people of Afghanistan, especially those who have no means to defend themselves politically. With evidence that falls back to the Gulf War, and the initiation of direct U.S. occupation on the middle east, I had an extreme heated debate where in the end I had to recognize its validity, and for a moment feel totally frustrated about the intentions of the rally… As I understood it, pulling out Canadian troops of Afghanistan may mean some sort of vengeance from War Lords, Extreme Taliban leaders and other extremely violent “get backs”, to those peoples who “are in favour of the Canadian forces” as their peace keepers and helpers, those who actually have gotten some benefit in one way or another from the military occupation. The complexity of this issue has escalated from a troops “pull out” to trying to solve also the collateral damage solution where the safety of a population is being put at stake, if the message that we are strongly suggesting was put into place right now. In my conversation, both parties understand the destructive underlying principle in capitalist imperialism, and yet, they have family and relatives that have stood up, or find some release of pressure with the forces that can not be ignored, and that may be put at steak in case of a “pull out”.

During the Gulf war, when the U.S. took over, lots of people made their voices and actions known against Saddam… when the U.S. pulled out… there were multiple massacres, a Saddam’s “vengeance” on the activist people of the region… atrocious crimes that I wish not to mention. I believe this is extremely crucial, activism about this issue needs to get actual people from these regions involved and active, we may be blindly trying to fight Imperialist Capitalism at the cost of several innocent deaths from these getting back at the people “vengeances” (to all of those who speak up, or are trying to reconstruct in one way or another, “supported” by the Canadian troops), we need to listen to the Canadian refugees whose family and friends remain in these regions whose lives may be put at stake. It is a fact that Afghanistan needs reformation, help and reconstruction, and it is also a fact that Canadian occupation of Afghanistan goes beyond reconstructing and helping, however in the façade, Canadians and Afghans got caught in. speaking on my “dissenter’s” behalf and trying to reconsolidate my views about this issue, I make a call to all of you where we need to hear these voices and look very carefully at the whole picture…

Hope this makes sense

Best to all

alejandro

Peacekeeping?

Submitted by Anthony V on October 31, 2006 - 11:49am.

The majority view of those in attendance on Saturday, seemed to favour this plan of getting back to peacekeeping. Noble plan, if it were possible. I feel that peacekeeping is largely a myth. We are enforcing someone's rules with our military, and its pretty clear who controls the setting of rules globally. The idea of Canada as peacekeepers is a nostalgic, feel good notion, but we weren't needing peacekeepers before the invasion and occupation of the country. We are responsible for the predictable outcome of our actions. If we stay we are killing civillians and coercing the population to accept the roles dictated from Washington. If we leave we may watch the former Taliban seek vengeance on conspirators with the occupying force. If we want a certain outcome in Afghanistan can we not work toward that without using violent acts on a beaten population? Can we not refuse to take part in building the American empire and work to bringing true freedom to areas under adverse conditions. I mean, why Afghanistan? Why not so many other deserving causes? What about the struggle in Oaxaca or the African disasters or the shameful scenario in the occupied territories? Or are we only to play an acceptable role within the 'war on terror'. I know I am completely sure that I want no tax dollar spent in my name for any military involvement in Afghanistan at all.

i had mixed feelings about the message too

Submitted by Jeremy McNaughton on October 31, 2006 - 1:37am.

You're not alone with your mixed feelings over the message of "bring the troops home now!" I have them myself, as do many of my friends.

When we were preparing for the CIRCA action in the summer, the research done by our R&R team found that troop withdrawal was not necessarily what people were calling for. They were calling for disarmament and peace, for foreign powers to accept responsibility for conducting their wars on Afghan soil and help rebuilding.

For the CIRCA action, we called for "peacekeeping not war!" and "solidarity not empire!" and tried to educate people about how our government and the other occupating powers are not peacekeeping at all.

The research thread is here.

Jeremy

Sun Media Hires 'Protesters'

Submitted by D Hilton on October 31, 2006 - 9:03am.

Insted of reporting on the demo on Saturday the London Free Press (under directions from their owner Sun Media) hired actors to be protester on the war to do a 'poll'.

The unionized reporters refused to do this, so they hired actors.

Please write to the LFP about this 'made-up' news and lack of real coverage.

http://lfpress.ca/newsstand/News/Local/2006/10/31/2185660-sun.html

Our Day of Action

Submitted by Anthony V on October 30, 2006 - 1:03pm.

I would say that for me the day was a mild success considering the circumstances that we had to deal with. Some groups seemed reluctant to be involved with yet another anti-war rally. The NDP crowd was together already and eager to participate. We had late notice of the ex-Green leader Harris wanting to participate. Nice to see the involvement of labour. The speakers displayed the range of views in the crowd, I thought, as there never was any one consensus on the issues involved (we're not all NDP). The involving of differing views and allowing their expression, to me was a point of pride. The injection of some passion, creativity, and vitality was a freshness not especially present in past rallies. The concluding that the more radical messages were automatically negative is not recognizing the impact these can have on young people just getting involved. Some people told me afterwards, that was their highlight. At least there was some of the anger displayed that has been so absent in events in London. I was glad of it.

The media coverage has been disappointing. The discription of A-ch coverage is accurate. The little bit of message that was put out was drown in negativity and pro-war coverage. I taped it, if anyone is interested, as well as City, CTV and CBC coverage of the national event. The freeps was even worse. We were barely mentioned in a CP story on the national event, and the pictures weren't from London. Shame.

I think that there definitely should be an ongoing group (AWOL?), here in London to plan further events of this nature. It would be useful if the group could retain the diverse opinion and range of views from this action. I think we should strive to learn from everything that we are involved in and move forward accordingly. The LondonFog guy shows us that the other side never rests.

The questions you raise

Submitted by Steve DArcy (not verified) on October 30, 2006 - 8:55am.

The questions you raise are interesting and important ones, although some ("did we present a...realistic alternative to the current mission") strike me as barking up the wrong tree, even though I can see why other people might not it see it my way.

As for what could be improved: Obviously, things were a little on the chaotic/disorganized side at times during the event, and that could certainly be improved. There are some partial excuses for that, I think, but I don't mind admitting my share of responsibility for the problem. Given the bad weather, it would have helped to be more organized and disciplined about running things smoothly.

In retrospect, it seems comical to me that we didn't make any effort to organize even a minimal group of marshals, which -- if only for safety reasons -- every street march ought to have. Thankfully, Dan H. very helfpully assumed that role. We needed the help that he thoughtfully offered. (We had decided weeks ago that we'd try to have a few marshals, but didn't actually get around to organizing it.) There were other things like that, but since it is not (as far as I know) an ongoing organization that can learn from its blunders and do things better next time, many of those mistakes have the status of "spilt milk" and "water under the bridge."

On the question of the "message," there was no agreement among organizers on how to think about the issue. So, realistically, I think we had to have a 'laissez-faire' attitude about that. We agreed about "Troops Out Now," but little else. Personally, I'm not terribly comfortable even with the slogan, "Support the troops, bring them home," which is mild in its patriotic overtones, but still concedes too much to the nationalistic sentiments that, in my view, prop up the very things that the anti-war movement needs to challenge, including the idea that the lives of "our" (volunteer) soldiers matter more than those of the (non-volunteer) civilians who are killed (in far, far greater numbers) in Afghanistan. Others, by contrast, felt strongly that we should sing the national anthem, and more generally push the idea that 'peace is patriotic.'

Underlying many of the questions you raise is this (unstated) question: how should one go about building an anti-war movement in Canada today? This, of course, is the crucial question. I don't have time to respond to it today, although I really think it is the kind of question that people ought to discuss in detail and at length, so I'd love to have other people answer it.

The verdict? It was fine -- not amazing and not terrible -- but it is just one (more) step in building a movement to get Canadian troops out of Afghanistan.

Thanks for raising these important questions.

Steve, NDP signs...

Submitted by Mike McGregor on October 31, 2006 - 4:40am.

On the subject of all the NDP/Layton signs, I'm not really objecting to a visible (or even prominent) NDP presence at the rally, I just think that signage that was more specific to the issues at hand would have been more effective. I think that the average motorist could easily mistaken the rally for a campaign event in the upcoming by-election or even just a party event (unconnected with the war in A-stan). I understand that by holding up Layton signs to passers-by, the intent was to show support for the demilitarisation of the mission in that: Jack's Position is the NDP's position -> the NDP's position is to bring troops out and send aid in -> this is an anti war rally... But, I think that the average driver with the windows up, busy with traffic (or even a passing pedestrian busy going about their day) is going to make that connection. At first glance, it appeared as if this was a rally supporting the NDP and not the NDP supporting a rally. If the signs used were more specific to the event or issue (say, "The NDP supports peace in Afghanistan" or something similar and snappier) it would have gone a long way towards communicating the message to an even wider audience.

Steve, you said (err, typed...): "The questions you raise are interesting and important ones, although some ("did we present a...realistic alternative to the current mission") strike me as barking up the wrong tree,"

Could you expand on that point?

Also, it seems like you touched on an understandable failure to reach a consensus on a message beyond "Troops Out Now" in the available time for organising the event.

Do you (and others) believe that this lack of consensus could be overcome if a campaign were to evolve from this event/group of organisers? Could this lack of consensus be overcome even if this base group of organisers expanded to include event more individuals and groups, each with their own opinions and positions?

Perhaps if a consensus on a core messege is deemed to be not possible after disscussions, etc, it would be a good idea for the original/expanded group to fork into smaller organising groups that could each come to their own consensus, and organise their own events along a message that they can agree on within those groups. That way all groups could focus their efforts on orginizing along their own principles while making an effort to endorse and support ( i.e, get bodies out to) each other's events and actions, rather then expending energy on trying to reach a consnsus that my not be possible or watering down the message(s).

(This could also have the added benefit of facilitating a diversity of tactics that (IMHO) hasn't been seen for a while...

-30-
Mike.
"We only wear black, but that's only until something darker comes along..." -Anonymous Black Bloc Member.

a fascinating discussion

Submitted by Lorraine McNeil on October 30, 2006 - 12:18pm.

I have found this discussion fascinating. I confess - I looked to see if it had started several times yesterday, and was delighted to find it today. As a speaker, I didn't want to be the one to start it off!

As one of the speakers, my reflection is definitely biased. I want to acknowledge that straight away. A question for future rallies may be, do we want a consistent message, or do we want to trust the speakers to say whatever they choose. Should organizers check in with speakers ahead of time? I can see pros and cons here, but I think it is a debate worth engaging in.

Personally, I floundered a bit in deciding what approach to take. In the end, I tried to base what I said on information I found either on the CPA website, or through them, as much as possible. I do find it ironic that all that made it onto the A channel was me saying "The best way to support the troops is to bring them home." I hope that played well to the tv audience, but it wouldn't be my first choice of what is most important. I am far more interested in challenging the imperialist premise behind our involvement, although the "market" (sorry!) for that perspective would be a lot more limited. I was happy to be interviewed, but Steve's caution about the media resonates extremely well with me. It would be an egregious error to ever trust the mainstream media, or to see them as allies, I think.

For those who didn't see it, the A channel showed Roland speaking (saying, and I am paraphrasing, that we are not against the soldiers), me giving that one line (not in my speech, but in an earlier interview). There were a few shots of the crowd. A large portion of the time focused on the conflict between the protester and the "anti-fog" guy. It ended with a clip of the elderly gentleman who was a veteran saying that he thinks it's a crime whenever one of our soldiers comes home in a casket. Clearly, any coverage we got only focused on the soldiers; not a word about the reasons behind Canada's involvement or the tragedy of life for the Afghan people today.

They went on to say, that some Canadians do support the troops (implying that regardless of what we said, we don't really), and then they went to school kids making presents or cards or something (I turned it off at that point so can't really say what they said).

I don't get the Freeps, but I looked online and didn't see any coverage. I expect to hear something on 6X in the halls of Fanshawe in a month or two! They typically give us the best coverage of any mainstream media.

In general, I thought that we did well to get the crowd we did, and do as well as we did, considering the weather. And yes, it may have looked more like an NDP rally than a peace rally. One of the questions that arises from that is Why? If the majority of people who come to a peace rally are associated with the NDP, then where is everyone else who supports the peace movement? Why weren't they there with signs as well? Is peace only an issue for the NDP? I know it isn't, but I encourage people associated with other groups to engage in some critical thinking about why a peace rally would look so overwhelmingly NDP.

I agree with Steve, that the crucial question is how to go about building an anti-war movement in Canada? We had the beginnings of one in early 2003, but that disintegrated with the invasion of Iraq and the feelings of hopelessness that engendered. I hope that these conversations continue, and with it, we can continue to be involved in building that movement. I encourage us all to not think of last Saturday as a finite "thing" - been there, done that, so to speak, but just one more step in the process.

I have more to say (always!) but work calls so I will leave it at that for now. Thanks to everyone who worked so hard to organize the event, and who had no control whatsoever over the weather!

I was really pleased with

Submitted by R Ellis on October 29, 2006 - 9:18pm.

I was really pleased with the number of people who came out to the demonstration. I was unhappy with the weather as were my children, who I'm sure you all heard crying simultaneously (fun!). I see the actions that happened across the nation as part of a larger movement against the war in Afghanistan and, as the first step in what I hope will be a growing movement, I thought they were great. I am very pleased that a protest happened in London even though I know that the organizing group was very small and had to put a lot of work into making it happen.

Part of me does wish that I was in Toronto since I heard that Sid Ryan (CUPE Ontario president) made a great speech in which he strongly critiqued the imperialist aims of the mission and drew connections to Iraq and the struggles of Palestinians. I have a soft spot for Sid.

who's for the troops? I'm for the troops! uh uh....one time one

Submitted by alex homanchuk (not verified) on October 29, 2006 - 8:06pm.

I was happy with the turnout given the terrible weather. Much of what Roland had to say was particularly poignant and some of the other speakers made some very strong points for suspending Canada’s war and returning to a more traditional peacekeeping role. The event seemed to receive reasonably favorable coverage but it could have easily gone the other way given the impetuous and ludicrous statements made by one particular speaker and ill-informed posse.

I also appreciate the NDP's position and support, however i did not enjoy the way that their signage / self-promotion seemed to outflank the protest & message.

------------------------------------
"First, let me make it very clear - poor people aren't necessarily killers" - G.W. Bush

Signs and coverage

Submitted by Mike McGregor on October 29, 2006 - 9:12pm.

I have to admit, when I drove up central from the west and crossed Richmond, my first impression was that the gathering looked like an NDP rally rather then an anti-war rally. I think that big orange signs with an anti-war message (even if making it well known they were being held by an NDP contingent) would have been more effective (and less confusing) than all the Jack Layton signs.

One other criticism I have (with the 'Canadian anti-war' movement in general, but came up here) is that there does not seem be any meaningful dialogue as to how the Canadian Forces should move from the current mission to a Peace-keeping operation, from the current mission to a humanitarian mission, or from the current mission to a complete pull-out. I keep hearing these messages, but rarely any proposals or ideas of how to go from the current situation (with attacks on NATO and Afghan Forces and Afghani civilians) to a situation where peace keeping or humanitarian operations could safely be carried out, or what would replace Canadian Troops if they were pulled out.

Where was the coverage? I looked through the Freeps and couldn't find anything except a short mention on p.9. I didn't catch the news last night... was there a story there?

-30-
Mike.
"We only wear black, but that's only until something darker comes along..." -Anonymous Black Bloc Member.

replying to myself... (n00b?)

Submitted by Mike McGregor on October 30, 2006 - 3:17am.

Someone who caught the story on A-channel(I think) mentioned that rally participant was telling a cameraman that he had no right to take pictures or something like that... True? and if so: WTF?

No one seemed to have a problem with me taking pictures, but that may be because I'm awesome.

-30-
Mike.
"We only wear black, but that's only until something darker comes along..." -Anonymous Black Bloc Member.

Mike you are more than awesome!

Submitted by Mel Sheehan on November 10, 2006 - 9:41pm.

You just plain kick a**!

Mel

Support The Troops

Nonsense About Spying

Submitted by Greg Fowler on October 30, 2006 - 10:41am.

According to the A-channel coverage that I watched, there was a lone dissenter and that person was taking photographs. A locally well-known social activist asserted on-camera that it constituted "spying" and more.

Regardless of the individual's reason for taking photographs, I believe that he had every right to do so. I do not believe that it is unlawful to take identifiable photographs of individuals without their permission. What you can't do (without risking a legal action), is publish those photographs without a signed model release.

Greg Fowler, Candidate Ward One.

londonfoggy

Submitted by D Hilton on October 30, 2006 - 11:24am.

You are correct in the legal right to take peoples photos in public without permission.

Anyways people who have not checked it out should see http://thelondonfog.blogspot.com/

It's kinda funny and equally disturbing in it's viewpoints.

When is sombody going to post an 'article' on the demo?

I didn't watch the news (nor

Submitted by Steve DArcy (not verified) on October 30, 2006 - 8:42am.

I didn't watch the news (nor do I recommend that others watch the so-called news), but the incident involves the person who runs that ridiculous redneck blog, The London Fog, which rambles on and on with mundane details about it.

The only thing notable about it is what it tells us about the mainstream media: they cannot be used as a vehicle to promote progressive social change. The mainstream media are part of the problem that progressive social change needs to address, not one of the resources we can use in addressing problems.

Way back in the old days, when I was active in OCAP in Toronto, we basically ignored the news media completely (except, of course, alternative and non-corporate media like CKLN), and viewed them with the contempt that they do so much to earn. Too many activist groups think that they need the media, that they can use the media, and that they actually have something to gain by developing a good relationship with the media. I'll believe it when I see it. Really, it is just a special case of the more general phenomenon of relations with all the other kinds of corporations (A-Channel is run by the CHUM corporation). Often, deliberately antagonizing them is appropriate, but it is never appropriate to court their approval or to see them as allies.

I know this is an extreme view, and that most people will see it as one-sided (at best). One could point out that sometimes, for example, there are sympathetic accounts of demos, even in the LFP. But I'm not saying that coverage is always negative (although it usually is). I'm saying that worrying about how things will be covered is problematic, because it encourages people to think that the media can be used to promote our goals. This is the same misunderstanding that leads people to think that Shell Oil can be used to promote environmentalism or that the police can be used to promote anti-racism. These institutions are not just neutral instruments that can be used to promote any end whatsoever; they exist in order to promote ends that are antithetical to those of left activists.