Sunday's 3rd anniversary of the attack on Iraq was marked with around 200 people protesting in Perth, a far cry from the 20,000 who took to the streets of Dullsville in early '03.
The speakers were sound, especially Anne Azza Aly and human rights lawyer Mark Cox, but none of them addressed the matter of the dramatically dwindling numbers.
National polling released last week indicates that 66% of Australians want the troops out either now or in the short-term future, but only 200 of them would march behind a banner saying 'troops out' in the streets of Perth.
Alexis Vassiley, who has been involved in the campaign since it started 3.5 years ago, told me that people had become “demoralised” and “pessimistic” about their chances of making an impact becuase the vast demonstartions held around the world in 2003 hadnt halted the invasion. He added that it was “still important” to make a stand.
—
I understand Melbourne's rally was also small (though an improvement on ours). Any thoughts on why the movement has atrophied and why Howard will be PM for the next 20 years?
Barney says:
I would suggest it is perhaps largely attributable to a lack of awareness that the protest was actually happening. Admittedly, this can probably be whittled down to a less vigorous campaign on the part of the more avid anti-war protest groups when it came to enrolling the broader public in the campaign, but I think there is also an increasing apathy (and deliberate underemphasis in many cases) on the part of the media towards these types of protests as they become more 'background' and less 'topical', which is making it more difficult to communicate messages regarding protests like this one via those channels on which we have all become so reliant. An anti-war protest, anniversary or no, is less 'news-worthy' at the moment than AWB, State Lib unrest, etc.
Maybe the organisers would have had a better turnout if they had driven around in vans with loudspeakers on the top, Blues Brothers-style, and engaged people at the grass roots level. or built a data-base, MoveOn.org-style, as a means of circumventing convemtional media channels.
Of course either way, it would appear that for many the entire conflict is simply becoming a part of the status quo and - as you are rightly inferring Jeeves - it's just plain easier to protest in principle than in voice.
Giovanni says:
Well, the promotion was terrible. Absolutely terrible. I was told about it two days prior due to running into a friend by chance. My housemate, a Left-leaning uni student, heard of it through me the day before.
Given that I'm a journalist working for a paper that covers the area in which the rally occurred, it's a bad sign I wasn't contacted somehow prior to the rally.
Gawain says:
For me, there is certainly an issue that we should never have gone into Iraq, but once there and 'victorious' we are morally obliged to continue having a presence. I'd indicate to a yes/no poll that I'd like to have troops out to express an anti-war sentiment and my dissatisfaction with the nature of the allied occupancy. Polling currently onThis is an opinion I've heard quite a few people voice.
What little publicity I saw for the Melbourne Rally (I've been working around the clock at the Stolenwealth Games so I've only seen Madden approved Media) put it forward as a troops out rally rather than a 'show them you're still pissed off' protest.
Then again, as Alistair Duncan has often told me, there is going to be 20 years of blood-shed and civil war so we may as well get out of Iraq and let them get it over and done with.
Back to work for me now.
Giovanni says:
I have the perfect solution. If it's a liberation and not an occupation - we should place all US Coalition forces under the command of a democratically elected Iraqi government. Then they can use it "until the task is complete". If they give it orders the US etc don't like, then they can pull it right the fuck out. See how that works.
Taco says:
You've gone mad. Everyone knows the sand-negro, like his African cousin, is incapable of rational thought and therefore needs the white man to lead him. They are unfamiliar with such things as democracy and toilet paper. You can't leave people like that in charge of their own destiny!
The Middle East is a giant bowl of fuck. Personally I believe that it should be divided up into satrapies that directly reflect those of Alexander the Great in 323 BC with no concern or thought for tribal or cultural movement over a two thousand year period. O hang on, that's what happened.
fancy dave says:
The popular imagination is withered and ill. People are happy enough to be lied to as long as they have a 'strong economy'. IR will sink Howard more likely than Iraq, because (unlike Iraq/AWB) they will be affected in the hip-pocket. We are a bunch of selfish cunts. And masochists with a puny master. I feel demeaned.
K to the L says:
I am feeling so jaded and disenfranchised that I can't even be bothered trying to answer your questions, Geeves, let alone going out and protesting.
So as far as I am concerned the terrorists have already won.
Giovanni says:
IR will not sink Howard.
There's this funny notion among 70% of people in this country that "the unions" are a third party in the labour and capital relationship, as opposed to organisations consisting of labour.
So when "the unions" are under attack, it doesn't mean "we" are.
For some sick reason, this will translate to people not worrying too much about the abolition of unfair dismissal laws until they get sacked. It will stop people worrying about the centralisation of the IR system. It will stop people worrying about the destruction of the industrial arbitration system and a system of open class warfare…
Because all those things are matters for "the union" to worry about. Not "mums and dads" and "ordinary working Australians".
Giovanni says:
"a system of open class warfare rising in its place" reads better, butyou get my drift.