Here's what I actually wrote:
Short of actually illegal actions against them such as this, if a leftist political party takes power in Canada, we should do to them what they do to us. Take a page out of Ontario Puking Creep Mike Harris's playbook. Say that there's a constituency that supports us, and we'll work for them, and everyone else can go to hell. Raise their taxes, regulate 'em, eliminate their dodges, frustrate their media, ignore their opinions. And when they protest, let 'em scream their ugly heads off, and ignore, ignore, ignore. (Emphasis added.)
This has raised the hackles of one "fergusrush." Scary, authoritarian, blah, blah, blah. I'm probably entering Hugo Chavez territory in its eyes.
How do you identify "Harper's Harpies"? I am not being coy, it's a serious question because you advocate punitive measures being taken against "them" upon the election of a "leftist" government. I'd hate to be mis-identified.
and:
And you still haven't said how a leftist government will go about identifying those Blogging Tories. Little arm patches, perhaps?
How to make this clearer? I shan't bother. But "fergusrush" and all its ilk can wear their little arm-bands if they want to. I just want to know, if "fergusrush" is so concerned about the speculative actions of a government in the future, which are to be based on the actions of right-wing governments in the present, ... why isn't this creature up in arms about these governments of the present?
11 comments:
If you slide over to the Cynic's place and actually read my comments, you'll find that I support an investigation of the SQ and the purpose of its undercover foray.
It's a matter of degree here: you have vaulted to the conclusion that sinister intentions are obvious, despite the current lack of actual proof, while I say that such a conclusion is premature. This makes me supportive of right-wing misbehaviour?
Perhaps you see sinister intentions in the police action because, as your post shows, it is just the kind of thing you would do?
I have read extensively about the criminalization of dissent in North America. This goes back to FBI spying and harrassment of Black Civil Rights leaders, North American indigeneous peoples' actions, and free speech and anti-Vietnam War protestors in the 1960s.
The FBI had a little something called "COINTELPRO" that was partially investigated and officially disowned in the 1970s.
Lately, there have been police riots in Seattle, New York, Quebec City, Vancouver, and Miami. How much sharing of information goes on between Canadian and USian law-enforcement can only be speculated, but I'm sure that Mr. Arar has something to say about the nature of this cooperation.
US police and military were present at the SPP Summit, so I'm not being off-topic in bringing up this history.
Vancouver, Quebec City, Montreal, etc., are plenty of evidence that our own police do not show much respect for the civil rights of Canadian protestors.
And now, after a day of blatant lying, you're prepared to grant the police the benefit of the doubt?
It speaks volumes to your professed concerns about civil liberties that you side with the forces of the state protecting a secretive, undemocratic summit process, than you do the civil rights of people wanting access and debate with our leadership.
Perhaps you are so worried about what I mean by doing the same thing to the right-wing as is presently suffered by the left because you're actually quite aware of what happens and you don't want to see it happen to you?
You see how we can go around and around like this? Perhaps the best thing would be if your team or, (if you're going to be evasive about it) the powerful forces you're so willing to trust spying on citizens, could simply come clean and have these meetings in public, and allow genuine open debate with the people who tend to be right all the time, there wouldn't be this polarization, this armed camps atmosphere.
But the corporate system can't bear the light of day and that is why it hides.
"And now, after a day of blatant lying, you're prepared to grant the police the benefit of the doubt?"
Benefit of doubt is what our legal system is based upon, and hence the need for an inquiry.
"Vancouver, Quebec City, Montreal, etc., are plenty of evidence that our own police do not show much respect for the civil rights of Canadian protestors."
And as I've said many times before, if you want to talk, you don't show up dressed for a donnybrook. I'm a union man, I've seen it before.
"It speaks volumes to your professed concerns about civil liberties that you side with the forces of the state protecting a secretive, undemocratic summit process, than you do the civil rights of people wanting access and debate with our leadership."
If it hasn't been clear before now, I'll make it so: I side with the forces of order. We are heirs to a system that allows us freedom of speech, not license to commit mayhem. Despite your belief to the contrary, you do not have the right to sit in on every meeting that will have impact upon you; this is why we have a representational form of government. If you do not like the way your government is doing business, feel free to vote them out. If you cannot do that because a larger number of your fellow citizens votes in favour of the opposing side, you must live with that result and try harder to elect your side next time. You never have the right to violence in public. I would think this stuff self-explanatory.
"Perhaps you are so worried about what I mean by doing the same thing to the right-wing as is presently suffered by the left because you're actually quite aware of what happens and you don't want to see it happen to you?"
Nah, I was just being flip with you when I made my comment before because you sounded just a wee bit paranoid and overwrought. I don't believe we live in a police state, and neither do you. If you did, you'd not bother writing this stuff for fear of the midnight knock at your door. The fact that two guys like us can hash this stuff in a public forum without fear of any repercussions is proof that our system is sound. If that changes, I'll stand beside you at the barricade. Deal?
Huh. No, by that time, it will be too late.
Your complacency and your naivete about the level of democracy in our system, and the strength of the rule of law in this country are outdated and deluded.
You might not notice it, but the very thing we're talking about, the SPP, is a violation of the democratic procedures you saw fit to lecture me on.
You and I can have our ineffectual discussions here in cyber-space. Should we ever go out into the real world and try to dispute the status-quo, ... well you can see for yourself what happens.
At Montebello, ... at Miami, http://www.democracynow.org/static/miamimodel.shtml at Quebec City, http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0424-05.htm
(that last article is by noted communist firebrand Sinclair Stevens -- there's a pattern here, for those with eyes enough to see it.)
"Should we ever go out into the real world and try to dispute the status-quo, ... well you can see for yourself what happens."
I suppose that depends on what your definition of "dispute" happens to be.
Why don't you ask the radical revolutionary "Council of Canadians" what they want.
Face it. You're either a chump or an apologist.
"Face it. You're either a chump or an apologist."
You're a funny guy, thwap. You don't actually listen to what people say to you, you just hear what you want to hear. And then jump to ridiculous conclusions.
Hey, just for shits and giggles, let me try. I have no idea how old you are, but there are two stereotypes that your words fit quite well: you are either an aging boomer who longs for your youthful days of yelling slogans at "the Man" and getting high with the chicks, or you are an angry young man with a shitload of piercings and hippie parents.
Gee, that was fun. And easy. And about as sensible as the nonsense in your quote above.
You know nothing of my politics, only that I disagree with public violence.
One final observation: if this is a demonstration of how well you listen, it is not surprising that you are unable to converse.
fergusrush,
Thanks for the armchair psychoanalysis.
I'm neither of the demographic stereotypes you mentioned.
Why should I agonize about teasing the supposed meanings out of your yammerings? I mean really?
At the very least we are both talking past one another.
But at least I'm arguing from facts, while you are arguing from self-delusion.
The SPP is designed to circumvent the democracy you are so proud of. That's the whole fucking point. Do you understand this now? This summit [consisting of two unelected presidents and a prime minister with minority support who has dubious democratic credentials himself, AND a bunch of unelected, unrepresentative CEOs, with NO ONE from any other groups representing anyone else in North American society], is dedicated to streamlining the harmonization of the regulatory [read legal-political] environment, so that the environmental, labour, safety, investment, and other jurisdictions represent what North American capitalists, and no one else, wants.
Okay. Did you follow that? Are you capable of basic cognitive skills?
This is an undemocratic summit, closed to civil society, dedicated to circumventing democratic oversight of investment and production.
It is also, more ominously, dedicated to constructing a unitary "security" regime, ostensibly to "protect" North Americans from terrorism. We are to be "protected" by allowing our governments to spy on us unconditionally, to arrest us without cause, and to hold us indefinitely, perhaps to try us based on secret "evidence."
And when civil society and labour groups and a few anarchist groups show up to protest this; to present a petition to the leadership, to be granted access to this conference, they are demonized, ridiculed, and, ultimately assaulted by the forces of order you admit to supporting (while laughably clinging to insistence on your "democratic" principles).
You maintain that people who go to demonstrations dressed for a donnybrook are obviously uninterested in talking. What you appear to mean is that everyone must, for all time, go like a lamb to the slaughter when they seek to confront power.
You accuse me of close-mindedness when you're the one ignoring the legacy of official suppression of the right to protest that has been going on since the 1960s. I gave you examples of police-state tactics in Miami and Quebec City, all to protect the corporate agenda of which the SPP is the latest initiative, and yet you still insist that any citizen who takes this legacy of police violence into account during their preparations for protest, has renounced all their civil rights and can be spied on, and attacked, and you will give the forces of order the benefit of the doubt every time.
Democracy cannot long withstand the corrosive effect of laziness and complacency such as you display here.
"We are heirs to a system that allows us freedom of speech, not license to commit mayhem."
Who asked for this? Meanwhile, to protect the sensibilities of a mass-murdering kleptocratic dictator, our national police force was moved to improvise "Charter-free zones" and received a barely perceptible slap on the wrist, ... and this is the system you trust, that you revere?
"Benefit of doubt is what our legal system is based upon, and hence the need for an inquiry."
I've had to deal with this tiresome drivel before. Understand this; juries and judges have to withhold judgment until they've heard the evidence. People who are not in a position to cast judgment and impose sentences are free to think and say whatever they want. Especially when the so-called "forces of order" appear to be abusing their powers!
"Despite your belief to the contrary, you do not have the right to sit in on every meeting that will have impact upon you;"
... don't put words into my mouth okay. I have claimed no such desire. Although I must thank you for this sentence, because of the unintended hilarity you provided with the second part of it ...
"this is why we have a representational form of government."
Ha-ha-ha!! Yes! So beautiful! And it's precisely any form of representation or participation that is being dismantled by the SPP you dolt!
To conclude; I present an argument based on facts, YOU present complacent, condescending droning based on some idealized image of our society that you have in your brain that is impervious to rational argument.
You can, of course, claim otherwise. You probably will. But since you're immune to argument and so clearly caught up in your own self-righteousness, I don't give a shit what you think.
It just occurred to me, after typing all that, ... the fundamental illogic of your position.
You claim that you're the one withholding judgment until there's some bullshit inquiry with no penalties (a-la APEC), but it's quite clear from your words that you have already condemned the anarchists without once trying to muster up any proof of their violent intentions.
Meanwhile the "forces of order" having already demonstrably lied about their participation in the event, are now claiming innocent intentions, and you condemn anyone who engages in "idle speculation" about these intentions.
You're one for the books my friend.
Now get outta here.
Bravo, bravo!! Stirring stuff indeed!! Now, however, it behooves me to point out your bullshit...
"You maintain that people who go to demonstrations dressed for a donnybrook are obviously uninterested in talking. What you appear to mean is that everyone must, for all time, go like a lamb to the slaughter when they seek to confront power."
I mean exactly what I say, not the babbling nonsense you, once again, choose to read into my words. I do not mean you must "go like a lamb to the slaughter when they seek to confront power", I mean don't go looking to talk while dressed to fight. It's so simple even you should be able to understand it. If you think that talking in a reasonable manner means you are being a lamb, and such a thing offends you, then do it your way by all means. Dress for a fight and be forever puzzled why nobody listens.
"You accuse me of close-mindedness..."
You'll have to refresh my memory on that one. I did no such thing.
"You claim that you're the one withholding judgment until there's some bullshit inquiry with no penalties (a-la APEC), but it's quite clear from your words that you have already condemned the anarchists without once trying to muster up any proof of their violent intentions."
Read this next bit slowly, thwap, because you are very slow on the uptake: I said that the cops dressed the way they did because it would fit the anarchist stereotype; I said the SQ's lying gives cause for further investigation into the purpose of the undercover operation; I said that until such an investigation is done, any thoughts on the purpose of the operation are mere speculation; I said going to a discussion dressed for a fight is not the way to be heard. You may read other things into what I wrote if you wish, but those are the things I wrote.
I did not ever speculate on the intentions of the anarchists, I spoke about how they were dressed and the impression it gives. Note, if you will, that Maude Barlow manages to attend these gatherings without a home-made samurai outfit. I did not say there was no nefarious intention on the part of the police, I said it cannot be proven with the information currently available,without an inquiry. Not the same thing, thwap, not even in your universe. Twist the words if you will, but my assertion is not a condemnation of anyone.
""this is why we have a representational form of government."
Ha-ha-ha!! Yes! So beautiful! And it's precisely any form of representation or participation that is being dismantled by the SPP you dolt!"
I must have missed the disbanding of Parliament. Was it on the news?
The simple fact of the matter is your worldview is so fucking fragile that anyone who is more moderate than you, let alone disagrees with you, is seen as a "chump", a "dolt", an "apologist" or "immune to argument". You are just incapable of holding a temperate discussion.
"Now get outta here."
And, at last, the usual final stroke from a moonbat who cannot hold up his end, who feels small and unable to compete: you want to take your ball, which your big daddy paid for, and go home in a huff. How totally and completely fucking predictable. I can only imagine how much sooner it would have happened if I'd actually been arguing politics with you instead of making observations on current events.
Remember, thwap, just keep clicking your ruby slippers together and chanting, "The Man be holdin' me down, the Man be holdin' me down!". Maybe it'll ease your pain.
Well, it's just about bedtime, so here I go.
fergusrush, I take it seriously when people accuse me of not listening. I try very hard to listen, and I hope that others do the same.
"I do not mean you must "go like a lamb to the slaughter when they seek to confront power", I mean don't go looking to talk while dressed to fight."
Right. So, after decades of protesters being tear-gassed, and after North American governments have been found to be spying on, and harassing activists, you continue to insist that anyone who so much as wears a bandana (let alone a gas-mask) is asking for trouble?
I'll pass on your advice, thanks.
"If you think that talking in a reasonable manner "
I'm sorry, I must have missed the part where the protestors were invited to talk with the summit participants. I'm sorry, I must have missed where Maude Barlow came dressed for a fight. I'm sorry, I must have missed the shredded tatters of logic that you surely intended to convey with your asinine, incoherent yammerings.
Your argument is flawed on so many levels that it defies comprehension.
"You accuse me of close-mindedness..."
You'll have to refresh my memory on that one. I did no such thing.
Happy to oblige sport:
"You're a funny guy, thwap. You don't actually listen to what people say to you, you just hear what you want to hear."
You know, it's one thing to misinterpret me, but if you can't even keep your own game straight, you really ought'nt be wasting my time.
"I did not ever speculate on the intentions of the anarchists, I spoke about how they were dressed and the impression it gives."
Yes. And to you, the impression is that they were looking for trouble. And I'm talking about the lies of the cops, their actions, and the impression it gives, based on the history. What part of that do you find so objectionable?
"I must have missed the disbanding of Parliament. Was it on the news?"
Listen, the Council of Canadians is far more moderate and peace-loving than I am. I see they haven't made an impact on your complacency either. You've missed the entire complaint about the SPP, regardless of who tries to educate you.
"And, at last, the usual final stroke from a moonbat who cannot hold up his end, who feels small and unable to compete: you want to take your ball, which your big daddy paid for, blah, blah, blah, ..."
Whatever. Listen, I'm a radical. I make no apologies for my analysis. I make no apologies for my ability to understand that a system requiring death-squads in the commodity producing regions and blatant police-state tactics against dissent in the developed democracies is totalitarian at heart.
And I have little patience for people who have admitted to being willing to give this system and its enforcers the benefit of the doubt, but who are too witless to grasp the significance of that decision.
Blogger.com has provided this free service, ... I know not why, ... but it has. And therefore, as it stands, this is my blog, such as it is. If you're really too dense to know what you, yourself are saying, and too thick to understand what I'm saying, accept your limitations and begone. But don't accuse me of not listening to you. I have. Your analysis is poor, and there is nothing more that I can give you.
Post a Comment