Hi Keith,
I will try to reply with more later, but for the moment I must say that I
like the terms "spikeys" and "fluffies". The latter is an especially good
term to apply to Canada's political left in its current state of absolute
disarray. It was out in some force (if you can call it that) in Quebec
City.
I would add that I'm not so sure that the intelligence of the police is
below that of many of the demonstrators. Watching the latter bounce around
trying to bring down the Quebec City fence had me wondering if they were all
body and no brains. One police officer who handled himself extremely well
was Mike Gaudet, the spokesperson for the RCMP, whom I happen to know when
he is not in uniform. He is a highly intelligent and socially conscious
person.
Ed
> At 11:42 25/04/01 -0400, you wrote:
> > The tear gas has cleared. The politicians and their advisors have
gone
> >home. The kids have gone back to their classes or wherever else they
came
> >from, though a few are still being held in Quebec City.
>
> Well, all may be quiet in Quebec City, but we (that is, Londoners) are
> expecting the biggest riots yet, now being known generically as "S-26"
> (after the September 26, 2000 riot in Prague) on 1 May. Enormous numbers
of
> police are already being trained and kitted out with riot shields and
> batons and so forth. They don't stand a chance of keeping the peace, of
> course, their intelligence being generally below that of the
demonstrators.
> Their plans (from what we learn in the media) are to protect about 200
> monuments, McDonalds' and the like in the City of London and, to do that,
> they are going to plant a few police in each place. The "spikeys" (the
> generic name for the real trouble-makers) will wheel about
> opportunistically, coordinating their activities with mobile phones, while
> the police, only instructable from the centre, will be slow to react. I
> think we can expect the worst riots yet. The whole thing is being charged
> up to high voltage by the politicians. I wouldn't be surprised if someone
> dies this time.
>
> We seem to have a new tradition in the making -- Seattle, Melbourne,
> London's Parliament Square, Quebec City, and now back to London. Spikeys
> must be spending an awful lot on airline tickets in order to join the
> home-grown and relatively peaceful "fluffies" in one capital after
another.
>
> What's the answer? There isn't one within the present terms of reference.
> How can there be when almost every major politician in Europe has been
> tainted with suspicions of corruption on a large scale in each case --
> Kohl, Schmidt, Mitterand, not to mention the relatives (such as the
alleged
> backhanders to Thatcher's son, Mark)? Political scandals follow one
> another like cars off the production line. How can there be an answer when
> important political decisions are taken in secret according to hidden
> agendas (as is now occurring with Foot and Mouth Disease in the UK)
without
> consulting the experts and with no public debate?
>
> No wonder that only a minority of young adults bother to vote in General
> Elections (only 44% of 18-24 yr olds last time, and probably about 33% in
> the one due to be held in June). Within three or four more General
> Elections, only a minority of the whole electorate will bother to vote.
> This is not a short term phenomenon -- it has been going on for decades.
> This trend, plus the riots, are clear signs that the present political
> system is coming to an end and has got to change radically. This is
> Chartism of the 19th century all over again.
>
> Keith Hudson
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> What’s it
> >all mean? From the media reports, I gathered that much of the discussion
> >among leaders focused on the politics of a more closely linked western
> >hemisphere, not on the economics, though economics may well have
dominated
> >discussion in the back rooms. Politicians appeared to give particular
> >attention to the so-called "Democracy Clause", which was intended to
> >establish conditions that would exclude non-democratically elected
> >countries from the FTAA. It would seem that, as long as a country could
> >demonstrate that its leadership was elected, it was in, regardless of
how
> >elections were held or rigged, how power was distributed, and who had
> >control behind the scenes. Dictatorships like Cuba, even if benevolent,
> >were out. The economics will undoubtedly prove more troublesome. The
> >protesters on the street were probably right in seeing the FTAA as a
means
> >of making it easier for corporate capital to move from the richer parts
of
> >the western hemisphere, mainly the United States, into the poorer parts
> >where labour was cheaper and restrictive environmental and social
> >regulations were fewer. However, the protesters were wrong in making
this
> >look all bad. Poor countries would benefit and so might the rich. For
> >example, Jamaica is alleged to have become a major transshipment point
for
> >drugs moving from South America to the United States not only because
the
> >drug trade is extremely lucrative but also because young people in the
> >vast shanty towns of Kingston can find little else to do. Giving them
some
> >alternatives and raising the standard of living even a little might do
> >something positive in stemming the flow of drugs. Providing more jobs at
> >home could also stem the brain-drain which Jamaica and other Caribbean
> >countries are experiencing. As another example, people who must live in
> >the huge and growing slums of Sao Paulo have a strong work ethic and
will
> >do anything legal or illegal, to keep themselves and their families
alive.
> >They try to learn English in little classes held at night to get jobs in
> >downtown hotels. Even exploitative foreign investment would be welcome.
> >Unions were out in some force in Quebec City. They do not want to see
> >capital move from the United States and Canada to Jamaica and Brazil. It
> >means a loss of jobs for their members and a further decline in their
> >powers. However, the movement of capital to cheaper labour abroad has
been
> >only one of a number of factors accounting for the decline of unions,
and
> >not likely the most important factor. The industrial structure of
advanced
> >economies, the nature of work, and the character of employer-employee
> >relations, have all changed greatly over the past few decades and would
> >all seem to have eroded labour power. But the most important thing about
> >the FTAA is that it is unlikely to result in anything very substantial
by
> >2005, the target date set at Quebec City. Indeed, it will probably not
> >result in very much that could not happen under bi- or tri-lateral
> >arrangements. There are just too many problems and differences among the
> >countries of the Americas to permit the establishment of something
unified
> >and workable. They vary enormously in wealth, income distribution,
> >education, the composition of populations, and other such factors.
Efforts
> >have been made to establish freer trade. The most notable example is
> >Mercosur, the trading block which includes Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay
and
> >Uruguay. At present, however, Mercosur appears to be in some trouble.*
> >The FTAA will most certainly not result in anything resembling the
European
> > Union. Member nations of the EU were originally much closer to enjoying
a
> >similar standard of living than are countries of the Americas. They have
> >put years of work into fiscal restructuring. They were willing to
> >relinquish important powers of governance, including monetary policy, to
> >central authorities. There is no way that one can see anything similar
for
> >the Americas in the next few decades. * (See:
> >http://www.stratfor.com/home/giu/archive/042401.asp#Cavallo) Ed Weick
> ___________________________________________________________________
>
> Keith Hudson, General Editor, Calus <http://www.calus.org>
> 6 Upper Camden Place, Bath BA1 5HX, England
> Tel: +44 1225 312622; Fax: +44 1225 447727;
> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ________________________________________________________________________
