A very determine bunch of protesters.
I showed up and the first thing that caught my eye was the Fredericton Police Cruiser park right beside the protesters.
But they didn’t stay long. They left the area and that’s the way it should be.
The Police should only be present if trouble begins.
There’s more than 30 people who showed up in the snowy and rainy condition.
The weather was just terrible.
Speaker after speaker spoke against the war in Afghanistan and Iraq.
The episode lasted more than one hour and everyone quickly went home.
I got to give credit to the people who showed up to voice their concerns because if I wasn’t a blogger?
I would have stayed home!
Ohhhhh....Another group of determine people were present.
The students from the STU Journalism course.
That’s for another blog.....lol
26 comments:
Why do these protests keep getting smaller and smaller? Why are these people more an more just preaching to themselves?
What ever happened to direct action? What ever happened to the people that used to protest in this city?
These groups need to ask themselves why nobody wants to go and hold signs with them anymore. Until they start to realize that they are driving everybody away--and thus being part of the problem--activist groups in this city will continue to shrink.
Take a look at these pictures. This is sad. I will continue to protest, but never under the banner of these fools.
What exactly was foolish about their banners? They were pretty much to the point. So your 'protest' that you do consists of what exactly?
That's actually a fair size turnout for a small city on a miserable day. The weather is one reason it was small, but no doubt lots of people simply think its a waste of time. But that's not the fault of the people who publicly protest.
I don't know what 'direct action' means, but these people look pretty 'directly active' to me. I don't know what more people expect. But if you have ideas I'm sure you could show up and get people involved.
How they are 'driving people away' by protesting is beyond me. They meet, they give free food, they have speeches, how is that driving people away? Free food is a pretty good enticement!
At least this is something, so its up to people who are anti war to ask themselves why they didn't show up, calling other people names doesn't cut it, at least they are doing something-and it certainly isn't driving people away, the more the better.
The War in Iraq is a Hoax,it has nothing to do with terrorism but with taking over another countries oil reserves and Afaghanistan is the same except its more to with pipelines. The US made Saddam and they backed Bin Laden in Afghanistan. Its all smoke and mirrors ,the news is complicit with government and no longer investigates the truth. I think this is why we have blogs and so much alternative media to look at??
check out www.infowars.com check the facts as they always add up to truth! at least the people protesting are getting up and doing something,as staying silent just gives them the go ahead to do more destuction!
Anonymous 10:17 I think "under the banner of these fools" isn't a literal reference to their actual banners. That being said I have no problem with this group or any group for that matter protesting in a civilized manner as was done yesterday. They had their say, they got their point across and they did it without interfering the flow of daily life on the street or damaging property.Much to the dismay of a couple of the regulars who frequent such events that like that kind of attention far too much.
That doesn't explain why 'these' people are fools. If all the above applies, then they aren't foolish at all, that they are well behaved caring people. By saying he wouldn't protest with 'these fools' the first poster implies that they would protest with others who may not be so well behaved.
Like the above, I don't see any problem with people acting in this way. Whether the outcome would be the same if it were summer tourist season on a sunny day is a good question.
Because someone calls them fools doesn't mean YOU have to agree. Lord knows there is a good many things said in this blog that not everyone would agree with. And don't bother asking for proof, its an opinion after all just like pretty much everything else in this blog. As for this particular protest as I said, I have no problem with their protest but that doesn't mean I agree with them. I just felt as protestors they behaved better than most lately.
I agree that protesting something is better than protesting nothing at all. That's an obvious. What I am talking about is when *this* group gathers many people together and then, once they are there, gets on tv and speaks on behalf of them. They trick and and use them for their own agenda. The people at the rallies usually do not fully agree with the statements that are being made by these tv-aholics.
For anonymous 10:17 you say this was a fair turnout, but it seems to me that a couple years ago there were over 100 people attending these protests, weather didn't matter. These large protest days were bragged about by one of the activists in these groups.
The reason the attendance was so low was because it was freezing rain outside and very cold! My jacket leaked onto my shirt and my hands and toes went numb! A lot of people saw that coming ahead of time, so they decided not to come last minute (we got emails from them).
As for TV, I don't even think the tv media were there. And I don't have television.
That would be funny, people protesting 'nothing'. "We're here, we're clear, we've got nothing to say!!"
But don't get confused, these people have zero media power, otherwise we'd hear about these issues more often. One of the main reasons for a protest is to simply try to get SOME attention on these issues. To be fair, it's often only by getting arrested or being belligerent that they get coverage at all. This one was well behaved, so we can watch the media monday and see how much coverage they get.
'Well behaved' means 'boring' and to media that means no coverage. As for getting on television those are media decisions,not protestors. Media often makes it a habit to focus on specific people. In Fredericton its usually Asaf, although lots of people end up speaking at many of them.
That's common in media, especially in the states and larger cities. For example, at protests its a common editorial decision to use clips showing people who look like they are the fringes of society and ignore average people. So people like ordinary grandmothers don't get coverage, even though at forestry protests in BC it was largely organized groups of 'raging grannies' that spearheaded many protests. Yet in media pictures you'd think it was 19 year old drug addicts or something.
That's media manipulation 101, and once again those aren't cameraman or photographer decisions but editorial decisions. Obviously it doesnt' apply here because its a small group and Charles takes pictures of everybody. If Charles was smart, he would have interviewed a few people, in fact, he could interview people on the street because there are far more people who are opposed to being in Afghanistan than are represented here.
Kira,
News-TV crews didn't come, but I'm sure that they were all given lengthy letters.
Small Crowds could also mean that just perhaps, a good part of the people of this city do not agree with the protestors. For that matter if even a good many "regulars" did not bother to show up because of the weather then one might well question their support of the particular cause. Fair weather protestors like fair weather friends should not be counted on too highly.
Why would the news media cover a dozen people with a sign in the rain? Hippies who don't like our military isn't news.
"For that matter if even a good many 'regulars' did not bother to show up because of the weather then one might well question their support of the particular cause."
It doesn't necessarily mean that they don't agree with the cause. It could just mean that they have their own ways of protesting -- ways that the group out in the rain didn't want to acknowledge.
A protest is news, why is it news because a bunch of protestors show up to protest ATV rules? Take a look at the newspaper on monday, I guarantee you'll see story after story where you're thinking 'this is news'? During a major international festival in Moncton the other year the front page story was a picture of an elderly couple and a story about how 'lots of elderly people in RV's visit Fredericton'.
In reality, polls regularly show at least half of canadians are opposed to being in Afghanistan, so it certainly isn't true that there is only 30 people in the city. However, most people are of the opinion that showing up a protest doesn't accomplish anything. Also, of course, without media coverage nobody even KNOWS about it, which of course makes it hard to show up.
I don't know what 'count on' means, people wanted to protest the war, they show up. Some don't. That's to be expected. But 'hippies', dude, that word hasn't been used in thirty years!
Talk to a Veteran whos had to kill another and find out what war is really about! Does anybody reading this blog remember the Vet who used to walk around downtown Fredricton with a spade while thinking he was on march while banging it into the sidewalk every few time a minute? These Vets were in every town and were traumatized in some way wether it be shell shocked,missing limbs, Heavy Drinkers trying to forget but we all knew who they were and what they meant to us! There is nothing glorious about war especially wars that dont have a true reasons or a clear outcome!
To count on (in this instance)...to depend or rely on....Does that help anonymous 10:37? As to polls I tend to distrust the results until I see the question but would agree that its probably fair to say generally the war in Afghanistan is a divisive issue. That doesn't translate into a lack of support for the men and women currently over there of course. No one should take a concern for the political relevance of the war for a lack of support for the people we have sent over there. The vast majority of Canadians wish them all the best. No one has suggested that "only 30 people in the city object to the war in Afghanistan I simply pointed out the obvious when kira above used the excuse "The reason the attendance was so low was because it was freezing rain outside and very cold! A lot of people saw that coming ahead of time, so they decided not to come last minute (we got emails from them)." It seems just a tad ingenuous to say on one hand that a lot of people saw it coming...but called to say they weren't coming at the last minute. Wouldn't people that truly wanted to come and new the weather was going to be poor have used that knowledge to dress appropriately and come?
Because NATO peace-keepers are definitely an unstoppable war machine. Maybe they'll liberate us from Conservative rule when they're through in the Middle East...
"Liberate us from Conservative rule," Robbie?!? I'm starting to notice a common theme, these types of protests aren't so much about being against war as they are about being against anything to do with the United States or Stephen Harper. The Frederictonpeace.org site is full of that. Now, if people want to protest those things go for it, it's a free country BUT be honest about it.
Their website has other stuff because its crazy to set up a website for all different issues. Its an anti war protest and an anti war website...so what's 'dishonest'? Harper happens to be prime minister and the US happens to be running the war, should every sentence begin with "we are not protesting the specific individual or country making the decisions to keep the war going but rather the fact that they make the decision to keep these wars going".
Come on!
But I still don't know what 'rely on' means. Rely on for what? So some people didn't show up because it was cold..so what? I highly doubt their idea of 'a lot of emails' was in the hundreds. But so what if it was? All it means is like everybody else they are human beings who make decisions. Do we assume that 'they just don't care much'? So we can't 'rely on them' to care enough to show up?
So what? There were people there protesting, which makes it newsworthy. So what if some people didn't show up? If you don't believe polls that's your business and good luck to you.
So anonymous just curious what was the question as stated in the pole that you quoted above? I mean surely if poles are so important to you as they seem you must know the question. Or are you simply like most that quote them without any knowledge as long as you happen to like the numbers? I wouldn't normally ask or care but you seem so sensitive about it.
There isn't much you could do about the weather. I had coat, hat, boots, gloves..... rain leaked through to my shirt, I'm lucky I didn't catch a cold! We've had far more successful protests in the past, so I would think that's why attendance was so low. I don't think these people are inconsiderate for not coming due to the weather. They are just a lot more sensible than I am for standing in the rain. It was pretty cool except for the bad weather and that nazi jerk who zeig heiled the crowd.... what a meanie.
You can go look up polls yourself, just type them into google. I'm not sensitive about it, I simply don't understand your point. I don't know what these people are supposed to be 'relied on' for, or why its important.
The polls are fairly consistent, but like you say, they vary depending on who sponsors them and what the questions are. However, the numbers that oppose being in Afghanistand vary, but usually around the 50% mark.
In the last poll, the question was asked whether "you support the military in Afghanistan". That's a bad question, because it doesn't differentiate between BEING in Afghanistan, and supporting the troops. Virtually nobody says they actually want harm to come to canadian soldiers, so for many of the people 'support the troops' means wishing them not to die.
So without defining what 'support the troops' means, its a leading question, so the number that actually 'support the trooops' was quite high, something like 75%. However, in that same poll almost 80% of respondents felt that "the mission will not be a success".
So that's quite a discrepancy. The poll didn't specifically ask "do you think we should leave afghanistan right now", so we don't know that. However, if you don't think a mission will be successful, then there's a pretty good likelihood that you don't support being there.
It's an interesting notion to simply ask extended family. There is usually more variety of ideology there than in friends, but co-workers works well to. You'll probably find it around 50%, but thats by no means scientific, but its interesting. For example, I've noticed that in extended family, typically the younger the person is, the more likely they are to oppose being in Afghanistan. Again, that's not scientific, but it is interesting. But from the pictures you will notice that many of the people there are middle age, and even old.
I suspect that if you ask thirty people of varying backgrounds and ideologies then you'll probably find that 50% around right. And that doesn't even get into the 'specifics' of the mission. Many people simply have no idea what the mission IS.
That was my point exactly anonymous 11:46. it was in fact simply a response to someone saying a lot more people were going to come but called..or in this case e-mailed that they decided not to bother. The point is there is no reason to make excuses for the crowd size, it was what it was. You don't count on people saying they will come you count on who shows up.I don't think you could to figure out the support or lack there of for the war in Afghanistan based on the crowd size anyway (although someone well versed in math or statistics probably has some incomprehensible formula to figure that out)
On the subject of poles, while I know you can often find them on line it isn't always easy especially when they are paid for by third parties. I had a heck of a time trying to see the questions asked in a survey done provincially a few years ago on sex education in the schools. I even went so far as contact the group that paid for it to no avail.
It might well be that its almost impossible to ask a question in a way that isn't tainted by ideology although I suspect even if a perfect question was out there those on the "other" side of the results would always claim it was biased. All I would like to see is when someone quotes a pole they quote the question asked or at least where it can be found. Not so much maybe in an informal setting like this but when groups and organizations continually refer to pole results when arguing there point of view it seems only right to make that information easily available.
Perhaps the famous philosopher H.J. Simpson said it best when he said "Oh, people can come up with statistics to prove anything, Kent. 14% of people know that."
Fair enough, that was obviously a misunderstanding on my part. That's very true about polls, for my part I've posted the polls so many times that I'm tired of finding them, and often people don't bother checking them anyway, so I figure if people REALLY wanted to know then they'd type it into a search engine.
Just google 'canada', 'afghanistan' and 'poll' and a whole list will come up to go through.
No point in arguing since we both have the same point, the crowd is certainly not indicative of the feelings of canadians about the mission in afghanistan. Many countries use a far more reliable method, namely a referendum. Like elections the only real marker of how people feel is how they cast their vote.
I think we will be in afganistan for a very long time
Post a Comment