Re: Eyewitness account of nonviolent action at WTO

I agree with you.  I know of some individuals who flocked to Seattle who
could not possibly have known what the issues were or what the WTO is.  If
you protest, they will come.

Ed Weick

>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.
>
>The problem is that activists don't distinguish between the successful
>protests of the civil rights movement and the unsuccessful ones that
>followed.  I can't imagine Martin Luther King leading anything like what
>happened in Seattle.  Did MLK shut down the Birmingham bus system?  No, he
>led a boycott.  Did he shut down Selma?  No, he led a march.  Did he block
>the streets of Washington and prevent Congress from meeting until blacks
>were better represented?  No, he led a peaceful protest on the Mall.  Even
>the Greensboro lunch counter boycotts--the prototype for civil
>disobedience--did not deprive others of their right to do business at the
>very same lunch counter or of the lunch counter owner to keep his business
>open.
>
>The Seattle protesters should not have blocked the convention center.  They
>should have gathered peacefully, spoken, demanded that their voices be
heard
>and participated in forums when invited.  Instead, they waged a "Battle."
>Is it any surprise that some took the battle literally?  Mike Dolan and his
>collegues are every bit as much to blame for what happened as the less
>informed thugs in ski masks.
>
>C. Sisk
>