Chuck0 <chuck at mutualaid.org> wrote:
> See, the style of protest practiced by the WWP and its
> front groups is the same thing preferred by other
> sectarian groups. My friends and I call this
> "passiveisim," to mock the sectarians who think that
> their permitted activities are a form of civil
> disobedience. Permitted rallies and marches are low risk
> events that look good in pictures and enable the
> sponsoring organization to put its leaders on the stage
> and its propaganda machine to hawk newspapers. Of course,
> the ineffectiveness of these actions have to be denied,
> often with dumb comparisons to Vietnam protests, or
> patronizing alarmist bullshit about the need for safe
> space for women, children, old people, and illegal
> immigrants.
>
> But I'm sure this is old news for most of you...
>
> Chuck0
>
Oh come now Chuck...The WWP/ANSWER/IAC is bad on many levels but lets not condemn those people who our outraged at the prospects of war, but don't feel (for whatever reason) it's a good thing for them to be arrested.
I'm sure there are quite a few people who want to have a 'safe zone' where they know they can be heard. Is there anything wrong with that?
I'm not going to get into whether one tactic or another is better. Everyone has their reasons for doing what they do.
I don't think its fair to condemn those who don't find getting into streetfights with cops is what they want to do to express themselves. --- Sent from UnionMail Service [http://mail.union.org.za]