G-20 protests

Instead of portraying G-20 protesters as jackasses who throw public tantrums over unspecified grievances ("If You Are Revolting, Stay Away From Pittsburgh," June 10, Reg Henry column), why doesn't the Post-Gazette interview opponents of global free trade agreements, find out what their grievances are and report it?

Four days before Mr. Henry's article trashing G-20 protesters, the Peruvian government opened fire on hundreds of indigenous people who were protesting laws to open up the Amazon to exploitation by multi-national companies. At least 60 people were killed and about 150 wounded. The laws were passed in order to bring Peru into compliance with the U.S.-Peru Free Trade Agreement.

Let's not forget that the same global economic and trade policies that will be the subject of the G-20 meeting devastated our local economy a generation ago. These so-called "free trade" policies made it possible for investment banks to pull financing from marginally profitable U.S. steel companies and invest in more highly profitable plants overseas.

It took decades of hard work for the people of Pittsburgh to rebuild, and we still haven't fully recovered. Now the architects of those policies want to come here and showcase the fact that we've somehow managed to survive? Thanks, but no thanks.

In light of the devastation that the G-20's global economic model has wreaked on our manufacturing base, I for one will be disappointed if Pittsburghers don't come together and (peacefully, non-violently) shut it down.

ROBERT DAMEWOOD
Mount Washington

 

 

Posted Jun 20 2009, 06:00 AM by Susan Mannella

Comments

myreply wrote re: G-20 protests
on Sat, Jun 20 2009 9:15 AM

So this is to be a business meeting?  In today's PG you have Hardy talking about setting aside rooms for visitors to the G20.  The rooms start at $300 a night.  Now if this is a business meeting in downtown Pgh why would anyone be staying at Nemacolin?  

My guess is that in this financial climate, there will be demonstrators from every corner of this country descending upon this city.  I don't know if they will "shut it down", but their voices will be loud and clear.  This is a good thing.

regis wrote re: G-20 protests
on Sat, Jun 20 2009 10:13 AM

The writer makes a good point.  Hopefully the PG will rise above the usual level of our media and actually talk to protesters and try to present  a coherent picture of what people are upset about.  People don't engage in such actions just for the hell of it.  Yeah, every demonstration since the dawn of time has attracted a few yahoos who just want to cause uproar and destruction.  They are a tiny minority, but they get most of the coverage from our media because it's easy and cheap.   Turn the tables on them, and let's hear what serious people have to say.

kevin morris wrote re: G-20 protests
on Sat, Jun 20 2009 10:56 AM

The last time there were significant protests in Pittsburgh, around the start of our latest Iraq war, the police were ruthless in dealing with the peace(ful) marchers. I would hope that this isn't repeated, but I would also hope the PG would monitor the actions of all the security forces involved.

myreply wrote re: G-20 protests
on Sat, Jun 20 2009 11:08 AM

Kevin:

I agree with your statement.  Now, more than ever (as in Iran) we need voices of dissent.  It is imperative that the media and the police monitor and aid those of peaceful voice, and arrest and name those of other persuasion.  

Pittsburgh has a a chance to show that not only are we the friendly city, but actually put that into action and reaction.

GBRetired wrote re: G-20 protests
on Sat, Jun 20 2009 1:55 PM

Permit me to show my age. The right to free speach is indeed guaranteed by the constitution and has been reaffirmed numerous times in the court system. I fully agree with this right, however, as with any other rights comes responsibility. If I am not mistaken, there is a First Amendment to the Constitution that specifically permits freedoms of speech, assembly, press, religion and petition.It also grants  "Free Speech Zones" in public areas for political activists to voice their opposition.

However, what it does not guarantee is the freedom to cause public menace, riots or general disorder. The need to maintain order and assure citizen safety supercedes the right of malcontents to foment civil disobediance.

I believe that it is a distinct minority of those who wish to voice opposition in this manner, but these actions taint any fruitfull gains of the honestly concerned dissentors to the point where over reaction by civil authority is deemed acceptable by the opposition.

I hope that clear, calm and thoughtful dialogue wins in this encounter. The ability to merely disagree should be the ultimate victor here.

thescarletpumpernickel wrote re: G-20 protests
on Sat, Jun 20 2009 3:12 PM

We should welcome and provide a forum for honest dissent and dialogue.

This is one of centers of the empowerment of the working class.

We should never forget that.

PghGirl wrote re: G-20 protests
on Sat, Jun 20 2009 4:31 PM

Good points, GBRetired.

Media attention to the concerns of the people  is an excellent way to encourage peaceful, organized demonstration. Ignoring the concerns, problems, morals & values of everyday citizens -- especially while painting them as crackpots -- almost guarantees trouble. The combination of frustrated protesters & the media portrayel of demonstrators as annoying, unnecessary, invalid, etc.  is a great recipe for trouble.

Wags wrote re: G-20 protests
on Tue, Jun 23 2009 6:49 PM

you are free to protest ...provided you obey the law.

wear something to hide your face from the media or identification...face arrest (it is the law)...besides, if you want to be heard, be prepared to be identified, don't be a "kitten".

failure to dispearse or obey the direction of a law enforcement representative...face arrest

disrupt traffic flow...face arrest

step off the sidewalk outside a crosswalk or against a light...expect to get run over

throw something at me or my vehicle or property...well, I think you all know the outcome of that mistake!

More Reading On The G20 » Birds Before The Storm wrote More Reading On The G20 » Birds Before The Storm
on Sun, Jun 28 2009 1:33 PM

Pingback from  More Reading On The G20 » Birds Before The Storm