RE: Eyewitness account of nonviolent action at WTO

>I have one problem with the activists' premise.  That is, the line should 
>be
>drawn farther back.  I disagree with the groups who try to draw a
>distinction between shutting down the meeting and rioting.  Although no one
>got hurt, shutting down the conference was an act of violence, in that it
>deprived the delegates of their rights to association, assembly and speech.
>I'm disappointed that when the WTO offered to include activists in open
>forums, the activists declined, instead deciding that it is better to shut
>down the process completely.  That's as undemocratic as throwing stones at 
>a
>McDonald's window.

I entirely, respectfully, politely, disagree.  Delaying the conference was 
a type of
indirect violence, but it was symbolic not designed to cause bodily injury 
to anyone.
Neither was the smashing of shop windows intended to cause direct physical 
harm.

However, it seems, as we can gather from posts, that while a large number of
protestors were engaged in blocking the event, they disapproved, and made 
some
attempts to prevent, other protestors from using "unnecessary" violence.  I 
tend to
think that in terms of affecting public opinion, which is largely what such 
actions
are about -- and I've been in quite a few myself in the US and Asia -- 
those smashing
the windows, while right in principle, were made a tactical mistake.

In short the blocking of the conference, and the mass demonstrations, was 
successful
and is to be applauded and supported.  Wish I could have joined myself.

elson