[g8-sheffield] Re: right to demonstrate?

[@mp]

The right to demonstrate might end up being better assured by not
"demonstrating".
A demonstrators' strike ... if and provided that such "non action"
highlighted the huge unbalance of powers between peace (protesters) and
security (forces).
Security (forces) are not needed to bring peace (to protesters, to the
city...). But to g8 main characters, obviously.
(BTW, have they thought about how shop-lifting will thrive during the
summit? Z.)
If security forces are told that they are not needed by protesters, they
will just focuse on their goal, which is protecting the city from
terror(ist) attack (by creating some mischief, true, but after all you
have to pay the price to be living in a secure reassuring country. (They
mean it. )
The more one thinks about it the worse it looks...
What kind of protection will protesters have?
Stewardesses function might be protection of protesters, regardless of
what they don't do. This sounds very much like the old argument: "agree
on a specific statement of non-violence" (or *uck off). Then you will
become "your brother's guardian". (When common sense dictates that any
violence from protesters would mean suicide....yet of course we're told
there are suicide bombers... ).


There you have plenty food for thought.

Amp