Taking Back the Spolight ? How?

[Bruce Monkhouse]

I stole this quote from  the "debate on Terror thread as it was one of the rebuttals from the originator of that thread but Reeceguy is bending over backwards to keep that thread on-topic so I decided to bring this into a new forum.
Quote from Missmolsonindy,
While I cannot personally identify with the statement made above, I'm sure it holds its ground. Statistics are shaky, and those statistics only came from a single poll, in reality, the figures could prove to be much different. While I cannot offer you statistics upon which everyone will agree on, I can say that I sense an overwhelming sense of hostility towards US foreign policy in Canada, and many other parts of the globe. When President Bush makes his appearance in Ottawa next week, protestors are expected to explode onto the streets. I suppose we'll have to wait and see.

Now here is what really irks me, I know the media just needs anything to feed its tremendous appetite  but in reality 2000 people might show up, and half of those will be paid rent-a-thugs. Meanwhile 99.999 % of Canadians will be doing what they normally do and thinking "Hey the president is in Ottawa, thats good/bad ...well lets see what happens. But will any news service even mention that...NO!  How did we get here where our political climate that projects to the rest of the world is sent out by the media, some publicity-seeking stooges, and not the 99.999 of the rest of us?

 

[NMPeters]

Do you honestly think that it's just the Canadian media that is like that? Have you not seen political protests from around the world broadcast by other media? Sorry to say it, but that's what news is. I'm not defending it, just stating a fact.

There have been many times on this board when discussing protestors that someone has stated that it's the soldiers that fight and die to give these protesters the right to protest. That's very true and I'm not disputing that. What I do find interesting though, is that we stand proud to fight and die to give people the right to protest, and then bitch and whine when they actually do. Does anyone else see the irony in that?

 

[bossi]

Quote from Missmolsonindy,
While I cannot personally identify with the statement made above, I'm sure it holds its ground. Statistics are shaky, and those statistics only came from a single poll, in reality, the figures could prove to be much different. While I cannot offer you statistics upon which everyone will agree on, I can say that I sense an overwhelming sense of hostility ...

Hmmm ... unbiased statistical science vs. emotional feelings ...
Kinda makes me think that in reality "The Silent Majority" is rarely consulted
(while squeaky protestors get lubed ...)
Ultimately I guess it all depends on the colour of the sky in one's universe ...

 

[jrhume]

Heh-heh.  Nice one, bossi.  It's usually blue in mine.  Yours?

Jim

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

MS Peters,
Never stated it was just the Canadian media, there are lots of places with hungrier media than ours.
Actually no I don't see the irony, what are you trying to say here, cause I don't get it. Protesters have the right to bitch but those serving do not as they are the protectors, if you will. I don't see how you seem to be saying that their right to bitch is more important than a soldiers right to bitch about them. Explanation, please.
What I'm asking here is there anyway the silent majority[to steal a phrase] can take back the spotlight or will it forever be the "lube jobs"[thanks Bossi] that steal the screen?

 

[MissHardie]

What I'm asking here is there anyway the silent majority[to steal a phrase] can take back the spotlight or will it forever be the "lube jobs"[thanks Bossi] that steal the screen?

Two points to bring up:

First, media is an industry, and as such it is in the business to make a profit.  The extent of this profit-seeking motive in presenting 'news' is up for debate, but I think that while a great deal of journalists are in the business to present the truth - as they see it, of course - the bottom line is always which stories will sell newspapers or magazines or attract viewers.  And sensationalism does sell. Yes, I realise this is an obvious point, but I feel I should bring it up regardless.

Second, I don't believe the 'silent majority' will have any impact until they morph in the 'outspoken majority'.  Silent isn't the way to go if you're interested in having the spotlight or merely making your views heard.  Of course, the very existence of the silent majority is up for debate; MissMolsonIndy "senses an overwhelming sense of hostility towards US foreign policy in Canada" which to me implies that she thinks a majority of Canadians feel this way, whereas Mr. Monkhouse and others believe the opposite.

 

[dutchie]

I personally don't have a problem with protesters. I also don't have a problem with people who adamantly support the 'establishment' or whatever it is that any particular group protests. I DO have a problem with ignorant posers and rabble-rousers.

If you disagree with something, go ahead and protest. Before you grab your placard, jiffy marker, and pack your 'Happy Planet' Extreme Green energy drink and head to the nearest rally, you had better inform yourself of the issues. Don't form your 'opinion' on some crap you read on the Internet. Just because all of your friends say the World will end if BLANK is allowed to happen, doesn't make it so. By protesting for the sake of protesting, you not only dilute the impact protests have, rendering them less effective when something truly worth protesting comes along, it also dishonours the sacrifice others have made to give you that right.

On the flip side:

Just because someone disagrees with something and chooses to protest does not make them a left-wing nut job. It also doesn't make them weak, 'Anti-establishment', Anti-police, an NDP supporter, or any other cliche. They may be very well informed on their position, regardless of whether or not you agree with it. They might be someone you have a great deal of respect for. For me, when debating politics and the like, I don't judge a person on their political views (or whether or not they like protesting), but rather on how they express those views and how well informed on the issues they are. If you are going to criticize the protester (for good reason), but not the cause, fine. But lambasting them simply because you disagree with their view or there political orientation is kinda shallow. Maybe their cause is legitimate? As well, by having groups of opposing views vocalize their opinions, I feel that gives our political system balance, not to mention making it a little more interesting.

BTW: I am not accusing anyone in particular of being 'person 1' or 'person 2' in my comparison....this is just as observation/opinion.

Any-hoodle, rant over.

 

[camochick]

i have participated in a few protest. One was a major one a few years back and things got crazy. I was there because i didnt agree with what was going on. But i did see alot of people who were there just to cause destruction. it was sad. I agree that you should be informed before you go out and protest anything. I was disapointed that so many were there just because they knew it would be chaos. I marched, I made my voice heard, but i refused to participate in the chaos that ensued. Lighting fires and throwing stuff at cops doesnt make your voice heard, it just makes you look stupid.

 

[dutchie]

I'll never forget the footage of the protest-turned-riot in Milan, Italy during what I think was the WTO conference about 3 or 4 years ago. The Italian Caribinieri (sp?) were in a troop vehicle, and the shit was really hitting the fan. The vehicle was surrounded, and this idiot came at them with a huge fire extinguisher over his head attempting to smash one of the troops heads in. The Caribinieri double-tapped him twice in the head, and then the vehicle made a quick exit through the crowd (literaly), running over the dead vandal in the process.

I recall the protests being a lot more 'protest' and less riot in Milan in the ensuing days. Funny how that is.

 

[Brad Sallows]

No need to get worked up over the natural state of things.  People have an inherent right to freedom of expression, not an inherent right to common sense.

 

[dutchie]

Ha-ha! Good one. Haven't heard that one in a while.

Or as I like to say to really obstinant 'debaters': You're entitled to your opinion, even if your wrong.

 

[Acorn]

I find it ironic when those protesting things like intervention, occupation or military action resort to violence to get their point accross. I suppose it is really true that the only way to change the mind of a fanatic is to alter his grey matter with a bullet.

Acorn

 

[NMPeters]

Bruce, I think we are both unintentionally misunderstanding each other. I'm not saying that protesters rights are more important than anyone else's. For some reason, I just find it ironic that a soldier will fight for a democratic and free society, and then get upset when the people they are fighting for actually use that right of freedom of expression. Wasn't pointing any fingers, wasn't trying to get anyone's back up against the wall, just pointing out what I perceive to be an irony. I'm also trying to figure out why there is such an inherent dislike of protesters among those of us in uniform (or previously in uniform). Isn't it part of our job to protect the inherent rights of Canadians, including that of free speech. I'm just curious and wondering why a lot of you here don't like protestation.

I, personally, am not convinced that protestation is such a bad thing. Take the Ukraine today, for example. It's a huge protest about election fixing. It's a peaceful protest. But guess what? The international community has taken notice of it. There is now talk that the election results will go to an international court. That's not a bad thing if it's true that it was corrupt. And seeing as how the majority of the country is protesting, my guess is that they are correct in their assumption that the election process was rigged. What if they had stayed silent? What if they were not allowed to protest? What would have happened then?

As for the silent majority being heard, one cannot be silent and have one's point of view heard. I agree with Miss Hardie on that one. To be heard doesn't necessarily mean carrying picket signs and marching in the streets. There are public debates, letters to the editor, publishing internet articles/websites/papers and, of course, open and frank discussion on forums such as this. So if you disagree with what the protesters are saying or doing, you have to speak up about it. But when you do that, do you not, in effect, become a protester yourself? Protesting the protesters? Another question I have, why is it such a bad thing that the protesters will be out in force during the President's visit? If everyone just sits back at home and watches the proceedings on TV without voicing their views, how do we keep politicians honest?

I know I've waxed poetically here and have asked a lot of questions, some of them even controversial. Not all of them need answering, just trying to get people out of the box for a while and look at things from a different angle. I'm also trying to understand the dislike towards protesters. When it's violent, of course that is not only wrong, but it serves no purpose. But I can honestly say that I don't disagree with protesting. I do not, obviously, participate however I'm not sure that I could say that if I wasn't in uniform. I think I may be getting more tree-huggerish as I get older  ;D

So there you go. Trash me at will!

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Peaceful protesting and chanting, etc....no problem.  However as we type I'm sure Clarke and OCAP are gearing up with their rocks and masks[and wallets] and renting the professional s#$%-disturbers with funding from several"charitable" groups.

 

[NMPeters]

Ok. Fair enough. I agree. But what's OCAP?

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Ontario Coalition Against Poverty Here is their latest, stolen from the thread in Infantry on "Riot Control"

Quote from Danjanou,
Clarke and his goons er excuse me associates are fast becoming experts at this sort of thing, including media manipulation (not hard to do in Toronto mind). This weekend OCAP they stormed the old Police HQ Bldg at 590 Jarvis and tried to turn it into a squat. They knew full what the response would  be when they chose it and ended up with more footage of them being "attacked" by cops. That should be good for a few recruits and a few donations to their war chest.

Try googling these clowns and get why those of us from southern Ontario have a bit of a lip on for "protesters".
Bruce

 

[NMPeters]

And those of us in Ottawa never see protesters?  ;D Ok. I don't agree with setting up a coalition to form protest groups. All this does is encourage those to join who protest for the sake of protesting and have no idea what their protesting about. We've had many here in Ottawa actually. A couple of years ago there was a homeless protest, probably organized by this group, and they squatted in an old house that had been unoccupied for a number of years. For whatever reason the owner did not or could not fix the place up so they decided that since it wasn't occupied, it was their right to squat. THAT I do not agree with. Same with the protesters here this summer that squatted on City Hall property for nearly two months protesting homelessness. They started off with a good cause, but when I heard that the "leader" of the group and his pregnant wife turned down an offer of employment from the Mayor because it didn't suit their purposes for protesting, that's when I tuned them out and cheered when they were thrown off the property. This organization appears to lack focus and the knowledge of who best to protest. Why would you take over a privately owned building? Why would you protest provincial homelessness on City owned property? To me, those kinds of protests don't make sense. Most of the ones here though are done on Parliament Hill, where they belong to target the right people. And then there was the G8. That one was very scarey and that was one I was in total disagreement with. Violence in protest solves absolutely nothing and only makes the protesters look like morons.

Back to your point on "silent majority" though. How do you know that they actually are the silent majority? We are, after all, complacent Canadians who sit back and say to ourselves that there's no point for us as individuals to be involved since someone else is already out there making the point. I'm just not sure that I can honestly say that the "silent majority" of people agree with President Bush's policies. I know that I have heard a lot more anti Bush than I've heard pro Bush. But that also doesn't mean that I can say that most Canadians disagree with him. I just don't know.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Back to your point on "silent majority" though. How do you know that they actually are the silent majority? We are, after all, complacent Canadians who sit back and say to ourselves that there's no point for us as individuals to be involved since someone else is already out there making the point. I'm just not sure that I can honestly say that the "silent majority" of people agree with President Bush's policies. I know that I have heard a lot more anti Bush than I've heard pro Bush. But that also doesn't mean that I can say that most Canadians disagree with him. I just don't know.

Or are most of the "silent majority" not complacent, but completely disillusioned and apethetic towards the farcical, "democratic" dictatorship that runs this country. Maybe they just say to themselves "What's the use? They're just going to lie to us and do whatever they want anyway, why bother?" There are a lot of Canadians out there that believe the politicos of this country are in it for themselves and do not have the best interest of the country or it's citizens at heart. Just my $00.02.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

I guess in my own opinion its also easier to "hate" something than to "love" it. Now what that means is, for example the war in Iraq, I believe in the reasons for it and wish a couple of other "tinpots" could go also, however it would be totally asinine to stand on a street corner shouting "drop more bombs"..."come on lets kill people"...etc or in the case of poverty, yes there is poverty, but I believe its become an industry on to itself, however I'm not going to stand on the street and shout " No, let them go hungry" in responce to OCAP's cry of " feed the poor"
Catch 22?

 

[GGboy]

OCAP is short for the Ontario Coalition Against Poverty, a group of professional trouble-makers led by an ex-pat British pseudo Marxist. Most of the genuine protesters at any given event have very little time for these schmucks since they show up at any large vaguely left-wing gathering looking to bust heads. Although usually theirs end up getting cracked. No vital organs damaged as far as I can tell ...
I'm interested in the comments about the media and sensationalism. A journo friend of mine (shocking but true: journalists DO have friends ...) once told me that his job was "keeping the furniture ads in the back pages from running together."
The reason the media tends to focus on the loud minority, or the negative aspects of a story about, oh, let's say Sea Kings for example, is because that's what people want to read or hear about. Think about it in the context of an industry that you don't know or particularly care much about: would you read a newspaper story headlined "Everything going just fine in the copper mining industry" ? Me neither ...