Protestors Prevent Veterans' Ceremony

28 posts / 0 new
Last post
#1

Protestors ignored Arnold Schwarzenegger, Matt Lauer, Bob Costas, etc but did succeed in
preventing a Veterans' Ceremony at the Victory Square Cenotaph.

Great work on the whole public opinion battle. Ignore the high profile, world renowned
torchbearers, which would garner huge attention to your protests, but be sure to prevent the
ceremony showing respect for Canada's honoured veterans, not to mention once-homeless
and long-time Downtown Eastside resident Matt Lee's celebration of his neighbourhood.

--

Here's an interview CTV did just prior with Jim Green, onetime director of the Downtown
Eastside Residents Association, who has had a hand in countless improvements to the lives of
the Downtown Eastside residents. The interview was conducted in front of the Cenotaph in
Victory Square and right by the protestors organized to 'intercept the torch' and near spray
painted signs reading "RIOT 2010".

CTV: This is an exciting day for people down here.

JG: It's very exciting. This is probably the best Olympics I know of. It's not perfect by any
means, I have criticisms, but we wouldn't have Woodward's sitting there if it wasn't for the
Olympics, we wouldn't have the Province buy 22 hotels down here and put in 16 other sites if
it wasn't for the Olympics. And when I hear people protesting that are never involved in this
neighbourhood, who have never built a unit of housing, who do not respect the rights of the
First Nations that voted to support the Olympics, and we're on their territory, and who don't
see the value of Matt Lee who's about to run the torch from here, a longtime resident that
everyone loves. He's a symbol of hope for all of us. And for Matt Lee to be facing protest just
drives me up the wall.

CTV: So if they prevent him from running? If they reroute the torch?

JG: Well I don't think they should do that. I think that that's going to cause a real problem.

CTV: What do you say to people who say that too much money has been spent on the Games
and not enough down here?

JG: I would say that too much money has been spent on the Games and not enough down
here myself.

If you want one protest to stand for all Olympic criticism, then I guess it's OK to have the thirty dopers already caught before the Games begin to stand for all Olympic ideals?

http://www.volunteervancouver.ca/

Go help out if you're so worked up about the 'right' way to effect change and show us how it's done. There's lots of opportunities for such a clearly concerned citizen such as yourself

Keam, your "Lead, follow, or get out of the way" rhetorical wordplay defense is a poor
response to any discussion. It's also incredibly hypocritical coming from you, who spends
hundreds of hours on here critiquing various things you're displeased with.

Weren't you the one who said you were "just a guy presenting some information"?

The amount of time or effort that I contribute to any particular causes (which you have no
idea of) does not give me any more or less right to critique what I see, just as your
contributions do not affect your right to critique what you see.

That sort of ad hominem argument which you constantly fall back on belies the strength of
your position.

--

I thought the decision to ignore the high-profile targets that would have given world-wide
attention and coverage to the protest, and instead prevent a ceremony of our veterans in
front of our veterans' memorial (and the celebration of one of the 'disadvantaged' they've
plastered on their anti-Olympic posters) was piss-poor on so many levels, not the least of
which was efficacy of protest.

The reasons that they made that decision?

1. Incompetence.
2. True priorities and prime motivation not being 'human rights' or other supposed 'causes'.
3. Insensitivity to both veterans and the DTES residents.

I suspect a decent combination of the three.

This isn't a discussion. It's a judgmental lecture from you about how you know how to do it better... but you don't do anything about it. The issues that I think I know how to help, I volunteer my time to, or yes, raise awareness of the issue. I also write letters to elected representatives, research issues and suspend judgement when I don't have enough information. You just criticize because some people are pointing out their dissatisfaction with the system as it stands. Huge difference, unless you are going to outline some of the ways in which you are successfully tackling the problems in the DTES, at which point I will tip my hat to you and offer you sincere thanks,.

You may continue to try to make this story about me, but that's just a diversion tactic to
draw attention away from the actions of those members of the 'Welcoming Committee' who
showed a lot of disrespect to our Veterans today.

We boycotted the last Olympics that featured a host country fighting in Afghanistan.

The people who were at the protest may not share your reverence for fallen soldiers. By their measure, it may have been the perfect place to make a statement

Funny to see you getting your butt handed to you over at the Tyee BC Boy,

cheers,

CK

I fear CK that if too many people take up your suggestion to get out and do something rather than just complain then we'll have a lot of vigilante's kicking the asses of the loser protesters that serve only themselves.

How much of that security money was spent just trying to keep these idiots from being too disruptive. What happened to their assurances that they'd interrupt the opening ceremonies? Oh yah, nothing.

Picking the easy targets like the veterans is low. I wonder if when they go home they take change out of wishing wells.

you guys are awesome. You want to paint every critic as a Black Bloc anarchist who does nothing but protest, despite the fact it would take about 5 seconds of googling to see that critics of the Games come from a huge cross-section of incomes, professions, and beliefs, not to mention the fact that most of the key organizers are working in their communities to help others.

Seriously, you sound more brainwashed than the people you're criticizing.

The veiled threats of violence as a response to free speech is just the icing on the cake. Talk about being that which you hate. Way to personify the Olympic spirit.

Wow, big leap to "every critic" from "these idiots"

You're amazingly blind to your hypocrisy here though, or have you not heard some of the completely overt threats from the "ORN".

The simple fact is that if people actually DID follow your advice, there would be hoards of people out there beating the tar out of this vocal, disruptive and above all selfish minority. That's not to say every critic of the olympics, only those that disrupt the events at the expense of those who are least able to adapt to the disruption caused.

I stand by my statement, if people did as you suggest (get up and Do something for what they believe), then there would be violence.

Or do you think your advice only pertains to those that are on the same side as you?

My advice isn't to engage in violence, it's to engage in your community and work to make it a better place.

You're saying that individuals can't be controlled. That's the exact same thing the ORN says. They don't advocate violence or destruction of property according to the spokesperson I saw on the news Thursday. "Selfish" is a value judgement reflecting your opinion. It has no place in a discussion of methods. There was one protestor arrested last night. By that metric, they're better behaved than the average Granville St Saturday night crowd.

Finally, if disrupting peoples' lives is a crime, there's going to be some busy cops. They could start with the people who cause accidents at rush hour, and VANOC itself would be culpable of the same crime.

I get it. You really, really want the Games to be big success. Others don't share your p.o.v. I'm pretty ambivalent and can see arguments for both sides as having some validity. But, to try to stifle dissent by suggesting people are going to be hurt is as undemocratic as anything Iran or China might throw out there.

World leaders can't claim this is a world in environmental crisis, with myriad challenges such as poverty and homelessness the pressing issues of the day and then get a free pass on putting on hugely expensive spectacles with questionable long-term benefits that do nothing of substance to address those issues. That is the absolute crux of the issue and the central thesis of Olympic criticism near as I can tell.

Keam: "Funny to see you getting your butt handed to you over at the Tyee BC Boy,"

I had no idea what you were talking about until I googled. I think you're assuming that I
contribute at the other website, and that somehow that is relevant to the topic at hand. That
assumption is as bizarrely wrong as it is irrelevant. The short time I spend in this forum is the
total extent of my wading in the political fora cesspools (BTW you didn't notice that I prefer
to use my own name over any sort of other moniker?)

--

Keam, two weeks ago you wrote in support of armed forces personnel.

To go from that to defending the rationale behind preventing WWII veterans from holding a
ceremony in front of the Veterans' memorial cenotaph is a sickening example of the
hypocritical gymnastics you'll use to argue.

CK: "I get it. You really, really want the Games to be big success. Others don't share your p.o.v. I'm pretty ambivalent and can see arguments for both sides as having some validity. But, to try to stifle dissent by suggesting people are going to be hurt is as undemocratic as anything Iran or China might throw out there."

CK, what's this about?

Who is trying to stifle dissent by suggesting people are going to be hurt?

And since you "see validity in both sides" what's a single valid point of view for not wanting the Games to be a success AT THIS POINT? (i.e. not a valid point of view for not wanting them in the first place) Protesting these Olympics now is like protesting Vancouver hosting Expo 86. At this point not wanting the game to be a success is like hoping that the school system does a crappy job teaching kids.

And the only reason more protesters weren't arrested is because if they DID arrest the protesters literally assaulting officer, people like YOU would be up in arms about free speech. From the CBC (personally I think the protesters that engage in this sort of behavior should be immediately thrown in jail):

"Some protesters sprayed vinegar in officers' eyes, threw sticks, and spit on officers, police said.

Two officers were injured with flying objects and one was sent to hospital with a shoulder injury but was treated and released, said Const. Lindsey Houghton"

Like it or not, the Police are behaving admirably, and these particular protesters are acting like morons.

"Keam, two weeks ago you wrote in support of armed forces personnel.

To go from that to defending the rationale behind preventing WWII veterans from holding a ceremony in front of the Veterans' memorial cenotaph is a sickening example of the hypocritical gymnastics you'll use to argue."

I'm not defending or attacking the rationale, just pointing out that from the perspective of some people, it's perfectly in keeping with their viewpoint and reason for protesting.

"what's a single valid point of view for not wanting the Games to be a success AT THIS POINT?"

It helps other cities that might bid on the games realize it's not as guaranteed a success as the Games proponents tend to characterize the event.

"And the only reason more protesters weren't arrested is because if they DID arrest the protesters literally assaulting officer, people like YOU would be up in arms about free speech."

I think you will find the majority of the protestors do not support violence and are happy to see the Black Bloc anarchists removed from their ranks. I don't have a problem with them being arrested, so you're wrong about that I'm afraid.

(personally I think the protesters that engage in this sort of behavior should be immediately thrown in jail):"

I'm sure they will be treated according to the laws of the land

"At this point not wanting the game to be a success is like hoping that the school system does a crappy job teaching kids."

Terrible example. A better example would be to suggest they are protesting ongoing funding for private schools while public schools are under-funded. Or a sports team not playing to lose after they are mathematically out of the playoffs. Just because something one opposes goes ahead doesn't mean someone should abandon their principles.

"Like it or not, the Police are behaving admirably, and these particular protesters are acting like morons."

Yep. Just like the Canucks riot, the Metallica riot, countless Euro soccer riots, etc, etc. Every section of society has its idiots.

"I think you're assuming that I
contribute at the other website"

BC Boy quotes from the Tyee:

"But that hasn't happened. The protest marches will go, and guess what? There will be media attention, the leaders and a few outspoken protestors will get their time on TV and in the paper, but yet nothing will be done about homelessness and
the caring for the mentally challenged in that area as a directresult of the protests.

What happened to protesting that actually
resulted in something being fixed? Now it'smore of an excuse to yell and scream
and then go home afterwards and key into
Facebook about arranging the next protest.

Nice way to support the down and outers isn't it?

Again if the ORN put their efforts into actually doing something useful to fix the problems they allegedly care so much about, the area would be back to a more livable area."

and

"They're quite proud that I am leading a good company in the IT industry, and volunteering for charity and community work. "

quite the coincidence isn't it?

Keam: "quite the coincidence isn't it?"

You're delusional.

You honestly think that since there are two people saying similar things, that they are the
same person? Perhaps it's a conspiracy Keam! It might be worth noting that there's hundreds
of thousands, if not millions of Canadians who share my opinions on this matter.

I'm a little amused by your master deductions, but it's not me. I don't think I've ever touted
my profession (which isn't what you posted) as an ad hominem endorsement of my position,
nor have I ever suggested that my contributions or volunteer work (which aren't what you
posted) somehow validate my point.

Indeed, I often espouse the exact opposite! A form of rational debate, which does not include
any sort of personal validation of arguments (such things are pointless in a debate). When
you examine it through sane eyes, your friend on the other site doesn't sound like me at all.

Six straight posts by you, paranoid suspicions. You are losing touch with reality, man. Is it
because you are trying to defend the indefensible, or are you trying desperately to build a
straw man so you can tear it down and divert attention away from what's happening?

Not delusional, just making an assumption. If you say it's not you, then I believe you. Very similar attitudes and assumptions however, you're right in that regard.

multiple posts because I was addressing individual points in each one.

"You are losing touch with reality, man."

Haha, If you say so. Gave me my larf o the day mate.

"When you examine it through sane eyes, your friend on the other site doesn't sound like me at all."

Trust me, it sounds a lot like you.

"Is it because you are trying to defend the indefensible"

Not sure what you mean by that. What is the indefensible thing you are referring to?

Dugly:

I was referring to this statement by you:

"I stand by my statement, if people did as you suggest (get up and Do something for what they believe), then there would be violence."

I think that's essentially telling people that dissent will get them beat up. Am I mis-characterizing?

Ok, Keam, you have to stop being crazy.

I'm not sure why you felt it was necessary to contact me through my work channels, but that
is totally unacceptable, and *very* 'unspirited'.

I'm not sure why you feel it's important to make comments on what I do for a living.

I don't know what motivations you have want to continue this 'argument' outside this forum.

Frankly I don't care. Stop. Now. Frankly I'm a little concerned.

If I could prove to you that I'm not your sworn enemy from your other website, I would be
happy to, but I'm not sure I can. If you have a suggestion, I'll gladly oblige to burst your
paranoia.

Oh Temple, you can cancel the call to Securigard.

I wasn't trying to continue the argument outside the forum. I paid you a compliment as one business person to another via your very public business email address. For all the lurkers having a laugh at our pissing match, here's the text.

"I don't want to be your buddy, or suck up to you Craig, but I do give credit where due. That's an interesting niche you've found for your business.

cheers,

CK"

As for making a living, you haven't hesitated to publicly connect my work and my viewpoints in other threads, so pot/kettle IMO.

I agree, enough already. I already said I believe you about the Tyee posts, but you continue to ignore that statement. Your hyperbole about sworn enemies just demonstrates your propensity to mis-characterize and exaggerate things to make your point. Play by your own rules please.

Ladies and gentlemen, I've been to Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, and I can say without hyperbole that this is a million times worse than all of them put together

"I think that's essentially telling people that dissent will get them beat up. Am I mis-characterizing? "

You're miss-characterizing. The vast majority of people find the violent protesters reprehensible. People believe that these violent idiots need to get beat up. If people got up and did it themselves there would be violence.

Instead, through either apathy or trust that the system will deal with the issue appropriately, that majority will sit at home and do nothing. This isn't suggesting that most people would resort to violence, but most people do condemn the behavior. Nor is it suggesting that the fear of violence should keep people at home. In fact, in previous discussions you've suggested that protesters are already afraid of violence from the police (remember the discussions around the police plants in Quebec?)

Although through their complete inaction and refusal to provide the police information in apprehending the violent minority, the entire protest is losing any moral high-ground and credibility that they have ever had.

I'll admit that for a while I've been doing little more than skimming this name-calling fest, but it seems as though at least some of the yelling aimed at CK is a bit off the mark. Somehow his position that if you feel strongly about something, you should get out and do something about it has become "if you feel strongly about something, you should go shout in people's faces and wreak havoc." At least that is the impression I get from the shift to discussion of getting beat up if you take action.

I'm sure most of us know, but perhaps have forgotten, that there are more, and much more effective ways to effect change than to follow the lead of the boneheads who caused trouble Sunday. (Volunteering at a soup kitchen, petitioning council for funding for a project...) Most of these better methods carry no risk of personal confrontation, let alone bodily harm. I certainly don't think CK was suggesting anybody follow the example of the protestors who broke windows etc on Georgia st.

Now please return to your regularly scheduled tangents.

Where have I yelled or name called CK? Or he in response?