On Wednesday, Feb. 17, 2010, VIVO (a not for profit media production, exhibition and distribution centre) hosted a night of discussion on the support of a 'diversity of tactics' and the direct action protests against the Olympics that took place on the previous Saturday, entitled 'Heart Attack'.
In this clip, Vancouver Media Co-op's Dawn Paley defends protesters' non-peaceful tactics.
This video can be found at rabbletv's YouTube page
Wow, the headline is a disgusting simplification of what Dawn said.
Oh yeah and the audio sucks.
I don't think that the headline reflects what Dawn was actually talking about.
Beyond that, what, exactly, is a non-peaceful tactic? Is it something that's illegal? Is it something that reduces corporate profits or costs taxpayers money? Is it doing what police order you not to do? Is it property destruction? If it's any of those things, then for consistency's sake, I expect to see Rabble.ca using the adjective very often indeed.
Hi Emo and Dru,
Thanks for your comments. I thought 'non-peaceful' was a more value-free and neutral term (rather than the 'violent' adjective some have used). How would you describe the distinction between people who just march and people who engage in more, hrm, 'disruptive' actions?
What would you suggest as a different headline?
Thanks for voicing your thoughts - it's always appreciated.
- Tor
It was hard to hear, but I didn't think Paley was defending non-peaceful tactics.
As for "disruptive actions", some say just marching en masse peacefully down the street is disruptive.
Is disrupting the Olympic torch run by forcing it to re-route a "non-peaceful" tactic?
These are not idle questions: Where we draw the line is not just an academic exercise. It could mean the difference between being defended by the BC Civil Liberties Association and being denounced by them to the police.