Did Harper's apparent lack of concern for protests mask a more ominous, underhanded strategy?
Did he (or someone in his office) authorize attempts to discredit protesters through agents provocateurs?
A recent Supreme Court decision explained the Prime Minister's Office is regularly briefed on security measures for meetings when other Heads of State are involved. What might a public inquiry into this week's events dredge up?
Between this, Harper's embrace of oil barons, and his loyalty to the Bush-Cheney “War on Terror,” the conditions are ripe for activists to deliver a knockout blow this fall. The wind is back in the sails of North America's global justice movement, and not a moment too soon...
Full article: http://www.rabble.ca/in_his_own_words.shtml?sh_itm=68067dff9a4c7b2320fbc6cb97d46b10&rXn=1&;
[Proofreader's note: this article was edited for spelling and typos on August 29, 2007]
Note: http://www.rabble.ca/in...
The Politics Of Corporate Party Crashing
Posted on Monday, August 27 at 12:34 by sthompsonContributed By
Topic
Article Rating
(0 votes)
Options
Stumble It!Comments
view comments in forum
Page 1
Thanks for this update
---
"When I tell the truth, it is not for the sake of convincing those who do not know it, but for the sake of defending those that do."
William Blake
Not all businesses share the wants of the CCCE nor would all members of the CCCE benefit equally from their influence over government.
The only reason that some CEOs and their enablers, such as Manley, now want the process opened up is that the interests they represent perceive that they will not receive the benefits they had hoped for. They need to try to enlist public opinion on their side.
For example, not all business interests would benefit from a private health care system. A system of totally private insurance is a huge cost to business. Those pushing for a private system are those interests who see enormous potential profit for themselves.
The same goes for energy. The NACC is promoting a totally market based system of distributing energy with price determined by the "free" or private sector. By de-regulating and/or privatizing the entire energy market in electricity for example, private corporations could achieve huge profits. Other corporations and consumers would have to pay all the market would bare pushing many consumers totally our of the market because of cost.
Then their is the conflict between those who want to sell cheap imports verses those who want to produce locally. Now the issue of product safety has become a major issue for consumers.
As far as I am concerned, the protestors are over-estimating their impact on the issue. It is more likely a combination of the economic realities, the long term education strategy of individuals and groups like the Council of Canadians, and the increasing conflicts between various economic interests that are increasing the pressure to open up the dialogue.
Words of particular merit from the article:
There is a lesson in these events, and it bears repeating as global justice activism moves forward.
Communication between “family friendly” and “direct action” protesters is crucial, and must be built into future organizing in the appropriate way. As we organize separately, we must continue to find ways to support each other.
We need creative “direct action” to confront the warmongers, climate change deniers, and corporate profiteers imperiling our planet. Such confrontation, in my opinion, is most effective when assault or property damage isn't part of the plan.
We also need large, inclusive, “family friendly” events to build the largest movement possible. These events, in my opinion, are most effective when organized beyond the self-defined “Left,” and when principled, plain language is used to shift public opinion.
Both strategies came together in Ottawa and Montebello. Both are required for success in the politics of corporate party crashing. Both can mobilize bottom-up dissent to the SPP, and give voice to the thousand alternatives coursing through our movement.
A very good assessment. For example, notice how suddenly products from China are deemed to be unsafe, after at least two decades of apparently safe production (since we never heard anything about unsafe Chinese products until now).
This all looks to me like a concerted effort by elements within the ruling establishment to slow down cheap imports from China simply because at this point in time, the imports no longer work towards their advantage, or some internal power struggle has shifted the power base.
Whatever is going on has absolutely nothing to do with a concern for our safety.
Hey, what about those pesky Holocaust deniers? May as well toss 'em in while we're at it don't ya think?
hertz ma brane
---
"When I tell the truth, it is not for the sake of convincing those who do not know it, but for the sake of defending those that do."
William Blake
As for pollution, we should confront the worse offenders (i.e., industry) and force those bastards to STOP!
I have given up on people who proudly stand firm in ignorance though.
We all are loaded with hypocracies carefully and wilfully fed us sinse before the time of Johannes Gutenberg
---
"When I tell the truth, it is not for the sake of convincing those who do not know it, but for the sake of defending those that do."
William Blake
I know. Of all people, you are definitely not an anti-Brain thought denier. I do appreciate your ability to fearlessly provoke people to think about what would normally be unthinkable to them.
My response to the "global warming denier" statement was in no small part due to the example you have set.
I wish not to detract from the impressive achievements due to opposing the secret SPP meetings, but I could not just ignore the use of the "denier" terminology because it's a memetic tool that is used to deny thought itself!
Opposing something like the SPP is the opposite of thought denial, it's instead intended to ensure that everyone can see what's being discussed and so that everyone can understand what's going on.
To oppose a "denier" (any denier) is to oppose the very same fundamentals that caused the opposition of the SPP itself!
Demand that the deniers speak freely and openly, for if they are wrong, they will bury themselves!
The SPP leaders have "denied" that their secret meetings are for nefarious purposes, and in response the opposition to the SPP have demanded that those attending the secret SPP meetings must speak freely and openly for all to see, for if they are doing misdeeds or lying to us, they will bury themselves!