What might have been?

by Y Sat Mar 22, 2003 23:43

If so many people needed to head home or back to work, then they would have done so without Lord Barrett telling them over a megaphone.

Richie and co arrived at the Dail well after the TDs had gone in - unlike the folks who either stayed all night or turned up at 9.

He was speechifying to 'the masses' as usual.

Some folks, on the other hand, put it right to the TDs - on their way IN and OUT of the Dail.

If Richie had places to go, then he didn't need to ask everyone else to leave.
If he wanted them at a demo at 6, he could remind them. Not treat them like kids and tell them not to play with the non-SWP strangers while he was away.
He just got on his megaphone and told people to leave. Just when it was getting interesting.
there was enough of a crowd to cover all the gates, and properly ensure that TDs had to face the people as they left.
RBB managed to convince a lot of them it was time to go, even though the vote hadn't even been taken.

The huge numbers at the US embassy at 6:00 were good and justified, but at 4:30 the place to be was outside the Dail, where the decision-makers were voting.

Was he scared that the crowd would turn too militant or something? OR was it "our protest or no protest" - that's not good for diversity.
Inspector Keenan's footsoldiers dragged the brave blockaders from the road, - some of them several times - that would not have been so easy an operation with more people. RBBs split -intentional or not- was stupid.

RBB you can join Gogarty in the dunce's corner for a while.

by Paddy X Fri Mar 21, 2003 21:32

Ye're protesting Anglo-American imperialism in a faroff country while semmingly oblivious of the fact that Ireland, North and South, is totally subjugated to that same imperialism. Just read Ahern's speech. Why not attack the imperialism where it might have some effect. Right here at home.

by Unamerican Chris Fri Mar 21, 2003 20:48

While I agree with some of the points being made you must admit that in comparison to most other countries including the god forsaken one I come from who wage this war, that the level of participation at this very moment and what action is being taken is pathetic. A repoter tonight in Baghdad said with shock in his voice that the city was totally ruined. It is all happening now, what more do people have to wait for. The genocide has begun. I simply can't believe more people can't do more than just march. I hope tomorrow people can properly express their rage and take back some of the power for a change.

by Cian Fri Mar 21, 2003 20:13

I think that the role that the IAWM has played in the building anti war protest in Ireland has been huge and commendable.

Tens of thousands have participated in protests for the first time ever. People who perhaps never saw themselves participating in protest at all.

The IAWM together with the NGO peace alliance and PANA have provided a means for masses to voice their opposition to the war. This should not be underestimated.

Of course the IAWM has disappointed many activists in terms of encouraging actions and protests that many see as futile. But I think the answer to this is to continue to build our actions, always mindful of trying to include as many people as possible.

Without the IAWM, direct action would be taking place in a vacuum, where the government could easily marginalise and ridicule activists. The protest yesterday outside the Dáil was I think very sucessful and it didn't require the leadership of the IAWM after they left. Also it shouldn't be underestimated that many of those who left at 2pm would have been going back to work anyway.

I think one of the great changes that has taken place over the last year or so, is that activists who prefer direct action are ploughing ahead and organising rather than just complaining about the leadership of groups like the IAWM.

Direct action has a key role to play in our opposition to war. Direct action has already played a key role in driving three airlines carrying U.S. troops out of Shannon. But direct action also has its limits in terms of how many people can get involved. Many will not touch direct action out of fear of arrest and commitments to work and family or perhaps due to health reasons. Thousands others just cant imagine themselves blockading something when they've never been on a protest before.

In short lets get on with organising opposition to the war and the use of Shannon and lets respect all non-violent means that people use in opposition.

by wateva Fri Mar 21, 2003 20:03

'However, i must voice my disgust at the decision of Richard Boyd Barrett to encourage, at about 2 pm, all those gathered to leave and return at six to another IAWM protest - US embassy'

'Diversity of tactics' also means diversity of actions - get used to it, it's called a diverse movement.