Russell Chapman wrote:
>> At 11:48 PM 7/18/01 +1200 K.Feete wrote:
>> >the protests have been remarkably violence-free, concentrating on
>> >property distruction or the like.
>
>Does anyone know what it is they want? I've never heard any report which said
>"these protestors are seeking xyz". Can they really stand there day after day
>just saying "I don't like big business"?
>Surely when someone somewhere at some point convinced these people to go out
>and smash stuff, they gave a reason, or a goal - some sort of justification?
Just off the top of my head, one related organization:
http://www.adbusters.org/
As far as the Seattle protests go, though it wasn't documented in the
conventional media, the protesters wanted an end to WTO talks that would
prevent "trade barriers" being put into place by any country for goods
the country might consider undesirable for a "non-trade" reason. This
includes tariffs on or banning of genetically engineered food or (the
minor one that got a lot of press) the labelling of fish as
"dolphin-free." Basically it says the consumers are on their own.
I have to wonder about this. Does this mean, for example, that the US
couldn't boycott China for human rights abuses? (Not that they would.)
And if so, how is the continuing trade embargo on Cuba justified? Not to
mention the "War on Drugs," pursued for distinctly non-trade reasons. But
I don't really understand these things, as everybody so enjoys pointing
out. <grin>
Kat Feete
------------
Never raise your hands to your kids. It leaves your groin
unprotected.
- George Carlin
