You've been following the right wing for long enough to realize that even the most vehement racists can dial it down long enough to fool a sufficiently determined journo on a Dapper Nazi deadline.
-
-
Anti-Iraq war protests weren't Stalinist in the leadership or in their demands. The siege of Ottawa is explicitly anti-democratic, violent, and radical. Its demands are clear and its strategy and tactics are public.
-
Here is Christopher Hitchens on organizers of 2003 protests.pic.twitter.com/JQ1Dxe2tGz
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
As someone who also participated in anti-war protests, this is true. But people were still expected to give an account if they were marching under the banners of ANSWER, etc.
-
The proper response (or at least the one I gave) to why I was marching under banner of ANSWER is that it's a transparently bullshit guilt by association move.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
And there's nothing about joining 500,000 people in a permitted march denouncing war that implicates you in Stalinist ideology. Whereas, if you're engaged in radical civil disobedience in action organized by racists, you are implicated.
-
If you're participating the siege of a city organized by notorious right-wing extremists, the burden should be very high before a journalist credits you with not sharing or even condoning their ideology.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
And then there's the larger journalistic question of why these supposed non-ideologues deserve top billing. It's like finding one Stalinist at an Iraq war march and profiling them.
-
What evidence is there that these supposedly non-extremists laying siege to Ottawa are in any way representative of the siege at large? Do they have any power? Any organizational roles? Are their opinions popular or even welcome in the group?
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.