Grandma & Grandpa's Farm
Showing posts with label Freedoms. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Freedoms. Show all posts

Saturday, March 14, 2009

Grumpy Old Man -- Drinking Problems

More Than DUI or Alcoholism

There is more to a "Drinking Problem" than driving drunk or under the influence; or issues of alcoholism to my mind — or at least not what I think people might traditionally consider.

Now I am not 100% prudish. If someone were to take a "nip" from a flask on public transit during rush hour or at a sporting event I'd look the other way — especially if they did so discretely and they were not bothering others. You must of course remember that for the most part here in Canada, drinking in public is frowned on. Meaning you aren't really allowed to drink in public unless at a licensed establishment. Of course, now many stadiums do sell alcohol, however they frown — legally — on BYOB¹. Public drunkenness is right out!

Getting back to public transit... I had the pleasure — displeasure — of sharing my bus-ride with two "gentlemen" who were travelling home from some job or practical job training which involved scaling poles or trees. They had their climbing belts and gear with them. That included rather nasty hammers, spikes, and husky ropes. I noted later that it also included some "belts". The one fellow really reminded me of my upstairs neighbour who more often than not would spend his recreational time "boozed up". It was only a short while later where I realized the resemblance -- though I admit I could be wrong and greatly biased. Here too was a man who drank whenever he was not working or at least he drank at any time he could do so. This included the time he might be commuting on the bus. I am going to assume that didn't include the time commuting to work as he likely had to be somewhat sober for work.

Granted he needn't be staggering drunk, but drunk enough that anyone around would note it and many would find themselves uncomfortable around him. His travelling partner, another fellow pole climber — who probably also worked very hard at work — was snorting back a few on the bus with him. The two of them weren't making a huge scene, but — and here is where the "drinking problems I am referring to come into play — were making the young woman (24-25) and young man (14-16) sitting by them very uncomfortable. The young man nearly jumped out of his skin when the empty "mickey²" flew past him to land on the shelf at the back of the bus.

Perhaps the high school student and the young college student should not have been upset by two hard drinking, hard working men enjoying their leisure time in their company... but we aren't talking about a pub or bar, nor even a restaurant or BBQ. We are talking about public transit just at the beginning of the rush hour. Somehow I think that people should be able to take advantage of public transit without being forced to face hard drinking.

The drinking problem is people being made uncomfortable... if I seem out of line consider this. The two men are incapable of restraining themselves from drinking for their trip home -- or even the 20 minutes the bus ride lasts. Twenty minutes is the entire duration of that bus route from start to finish. Perhaps they had had to endure a previous bus ride, but even so... if they could not wait to start drinking until the got where they were getting to, it shows that even sober they had issues of controlling their actions. These also were men carrying piked hammers and hatchets in addition to climbing spurs and ropes. They were rough looking customers who I think would take more than equal numbers of police to subdue if it ever came down to it.

So we have two fellows who "might" have problems controlling their impulses when sober, drinking on the bus while armed.

I think that this is in reality a "drinking problem" and not meaning their drinking problem but that of everyone around them.

I still haven't mentioned them talking about how they always liked to have a bottle in their pocket. That was in case someone came up behind them, so that they would always have something they could hit them across the face with, and how they never liked people who approached them from behind or who might talk behind their back... and when I heard them talking about it, I got the impression that people might pick fights with them half-way regularly. I wondered if their actions brought any of this onto themselves?

But that is the "Drinking Problem" I am referring to... that of making everyone around them uncomfortable without regard.

For that matter — yours truly even felt uncomfortable around them, not knowing what they might do — or not do — and I am not a small person.

Later!
~ Darrell

157.

__________
¹ BYOB -- Bring Your Own Bottle.

² A 375-ml (13.2 imperial fluid oz - 12.7 US fl oz) bottle of liquor such as whiskey.


DailyStrength - Free Online Support Groups


Wednesday, March 4, 2009

Found in my notes - a personal bill of rights

Personal Bill of Rights

I found this personal bill of rights on a folded piece of paper tucked away in my secretary after my move last Fall. The list includes a couple paragraphs about it afterwards which I will include at the end of the list. I figured I would post it here:

MY PERSONAL BILL OF RIGHTS

   1. I have numerous choices in my life beyond mere survival.
   2. I have a right to discover and know myself.
   3. I have a right to follow my own values and standards.
   4. I have a right to recognize and accept my own value system as appropriate.
   5. I have a right to say no to anything when I feel I am not ready, it is unsafe or violates my values.
   6. I have a right to dignity and respect.
   7. I have a right to make decisions.
   8. I have a right to determine and honor my own priorities.
   9. I have a right to have my needs and wants respected by others.
  10. I have the right to terminate conversations with people when it leads me to feel put down and humiliated.
  11. I have the right not to be responsible for others' behavior, actions, feelings or problems.
  12. I have a right to make mistakes and not have to be perfect.
  13. I have a right to expect honesty from others.
  14. I have a right to all of my feelings.
  15. I have a right to be angry at someone I love.
  16. I have a right to be uniquely me, without feeling I'm not good enough.
  17. I have a right to feel scared and to say "I'm afraid."
  18. I have the right to experience and then let go of fear, guilt, and shame.
  19. I have a right to make decisions based on my feelings, my judgement or any reasons that I choose.
  20. I have a right to change my mind at any time.
  21. I have a right to be happy.
  22. I have a right to stability — i.e., "roots" and stable healthy relationships of my choice.
  23. I have the right to my own personal space and time needs.
  24. There is no need to smile when I cry.
  25. It is OK to be relaxed, playful and frivolous.
  26. I have the right to be flexible and be comfortable with doing so.
  27. I have the right to change and grow.
  28. I have the right to be open and to improve communication skills so that I may be understood.
  29. I have a right to make friends and be comfortable around people.
  30. I have a right to be in a non-abusive environment.
  31. I can be healthier than those around me.
  32. I can take care of myself, no matter what.
  33. I have the right to grieve over actual or threatened losses.
  34. I have the right to trust others who earn my trust.
  35. I have the right to forgive others and to forgive myself.

In our recovery process, we begin to discover that we have rights as individual human beings. As children and even as adults we may have ben treated by others as though we had few or no rights. We may have ourselves come to believe that we had no rights. And we may be living our lives now as though we have none.

The above personal bill of rights are taken from a compilation of several groups and may be considered until you have your own personal bill of rights that is a part of your recovery.

Rivercrest Hospital, San Angelo, Texas, 1991

I am not sure where I picked up this list, but know it was at least 10 years ago and probably in some program or other — perhaps at business college in their personal development segment — and it is on a piece of paper that was possibly printed on a word processor rather than a computer printer. Anyhow I think it is worthy of reading through even if you might think it a little "flower child". I won't tell you which one I have checked off on that list in particular, though even after all these years, I remember checking it off.

Later!
~ Darrell

156.

__________
¹ A "secretary" is a small desk in the form of a bookshelf with a leaf that folds down for a writing surface. Mine is a small bookshelf that my Grandfather made for one of my Uncles and was passed down to me when I was in Grade School.


DailyStrength - Free Online Support Groups


Sunday, October 12, 2008

Hair!

A Hairy Issue - I thought we were beyond this.

I thought this sort of thing was out of the dark ages of modern western civilization. A 5-year-old kindergarten student was apparently punished for his family's religious beliefs¹. In Needville Texas the Needville Independent School District (NISD) have forced an American Indian kindergarten student into "isolated In-School Suspension"¹. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Texas is saying it is for the student practising his family's religious beliefs and heritage -- and indeed it is -- but it centres around the school dress code and the young boy wanting to keep the long hair that is a part of his American Indian Heritage.

(image to right from American Civil Liberties Union of Texas)

The boy's -- AA² -- Father is of American Indian heritage and follows American Indian religious beliefs and he and his son belive that one's hair should only be cut for "life-changing-occasions, such as the death of a loved one."¹ believing that hair is a sacred symbol of their own lives. The boy's hair has never been cut.

The School District has a dress code which requires boys to have short hair and their response to a successful appeal that the NISD can not force the boy to cut his hair is that he keep it in a single tight braid tucked out of sight down the back of his shirt at all times. He must also re-prove his religious sincerity to NISD officials every school year.

The parents requested exemption from that area of the dress code over 8 months before school and it wasn't until a week before school that it was granted after appealing the initial denial.

I gather that "Independant School District" does not mean the school is a private one or religious one but the normal public school for the area. I might understand that a school that is a religious institution might have some restrictions, but this seems out of place in our day-and-age.

Perhaps it is because I come from a generation when hair length was at the heart of things. When I was in kindergarten many of the boys had brush cuts and others had different short styles. But it was also the time when the Beatles became popular and long hair was made famous or infamous by the "Hippies". Gradually long hair became more and more acceptable and by the time I reached Grade 7 and Junior High School they had changed dress codes to allow for much that wasn't allowed the year before. But this was 1971. That was the first year that jeans were allowed in our school -- of course not any jeans with "rivets". Girls still were not allowed to wear pants in school which was awkward in -30º - -40ºF weather with girls changing in the halls.

But boys by the time I reached grade 12 sometimes had hair that was a foot or more long! That was in 1975-76 when I graduated. I guess there weren't the problems with gangs and such... I have heard that they are trying to combat hairstyle as a distraction in the school system.

(image to left of 6-year-old with Mohawk from USATODAY.com)

Distraction at least is what they are claiming in the case of a boy in Parma, Ohio shown here. The Principal of the school, "Linda Geyer" says that the boy's hairdo was "disrupting the educational program."³There is a school uniform at that school and the boy wears it, but they have given him a third infraction of the school dress code and suspended him from his kindergarten class.

In this case it is a matter of freedom of expression rather than religious freedom, but for some I think they would be very similar. In USATODAY,com there is an article pointing out yet anothr case of a 7-year-old sporting a "Mohawk" -- "a 3-inch spike of hair running down the middle of his scalp."

In another article -- again from USATODAY.com -- where they describe coveralls for students breaking the dress code to wear, they have a link to the Dress Code for "Gonzales Independent School District".

Tuesday, 15 July 2008
GONZALES DRESS CODE
The District’s dress code is established to teach grooming and hygiene, prevent disruption, and minimize safety hazards. The district prohibits pictures, emblems, or writings on clothing that are lewd, offensive, vulgar, obscene, that advertise tobacco products, alcoholic beverages of any kind, drugs, or any other substance prohibited under school policy. It prohibits any dress or grooming that, in the principal’s judgment, may reasonably be expected to interfere with normal school operations. The dress code applies anytime a student is on campus during a normal school day and anytime a student is involved in an event or extra-curricular activity that represents Gonzales ISD. Co-Curricular and extra-curricular uniforms will be specified by the sponsors of organizations and approved to meet GISD Standard of Excellency by the campus Principal. Violations of the dress code; see student code of conduct for consequences. Students and parents may determine a student’s personal dress and grooming standards, provided that they comply with the following:
1. No student on school property or at any school activity shall wear, possess, use, distribute, display or sell any clothing, jewelry, emblem, badge, symbols, sign or other things, which are evidence of membership or affiliation in any gang.
2. Hair must be neat and clean. Boys’ hair must not extend below the bottom of the collar of a dress shirt, below the bottom of the ear, or over the eyes.
3. Any hairstyle, which by its appearance causes a disruption of any kind, as determined by a school administrator, is unacceptable.
4. Males must be clean-shaven if facial hair is noticeable. Sideburns cannot extend below the bottom of the ear.
5. Shorts, skorts, dresses, and skirts should be to the knee and appropriate for the school setting. Decency when sitting shall be a prime factor in determining appropriateness for the school setting.
6. Miniskirts, leggins, tight shorts, tights, cut-offs, wind shorts and biker shorts may not be worn; including jean shorts that are tight and rolled up.
7. All shirts will have a collar and sleeves. All shirts will be free of words and/or pictures and may have a logo of not larger than a 2 inch square. NO t-shirts are allowed except for Gonzales Apache spirit shirts which may be worn any day of the week. All shirts worn by males must be tucked in. Shirts worn by females must be tucked in if they are longer than the bottom of the hip.
8. All clothing that shows undergarments is unacceptable, including clothing with conspicuously low necklines and/or low backs.
9. Sagging pants (pants worn below the waist) will not be allowed. Belts will be worn in grades 5-12 for all male students. Pants must be hemmed and not frayed. Nylon, athletic, or wind pants are not acceptable. Boxer or spandex shorts are not acceptable as outer wear and must not be visible.
10. Oversized clothing or coats may not be worn. Sweaters, sweat shirts, and jackets must not fall below the back pockets.
11. Clothing such as undergarments, muscle shirts, halter-tops, cropped shirts, tank tops, spaghetti straps, and clothing that shows a bare midriff or cleavage are not acceptable.
12. Students shall not be permitted to wear hats, caps, sunglasses, sweatbands, or other disrupting apparel in any building on campus during school hours.
13. Garments that have spikes (bracelets, necklaces, belts, etc.) are not permitted.
14. Males may not wear earrings. Females may wear earrings. No other body piercing jewelry of any kind will be accepted.
15. Bare feet and metal taps are not acceptable.
16. Cleats may not be worn in any school building. Shoes with built-in skates or wheels (Healies) are not permitted in any building unless the wheels have been removed.
17. Clothing that displays violence, obscenity, tobacco products, alcoholic beverages, drugs, or any other substance prohibited under policy FNCF (L), is prohibited.
18. Any other attire that disrupts the educational process as determined by a school administrator is prohibited.
19. The school, advisor, or sponsor of any specific activity or function may impose additional guidelines.
20. Additional dress code guidelines are required by S.A.F.E. They may be obtained from the campus principal.
21. Inappropriate tattoos will be covered at all times as determined by school administrator.
22. House shoes, distracting, or unsafe shower shoes (beach type) will not be allowed.
23. No cargo pants allowed.

Perhaps much is understandable and most would agree is reasonable -- though of course coming from a T-shirt and jeans generation... some seems excessive. I would have problems with my own personal T-shirts and cargo pants that I wear and probably the track pants I wear normally while I am losing weight and my waist is changing so much. I have a few pair of pants with belt loops...

I can only imagine what they would do with groups such as the devout Sikh or people of other religious groups who have set religious rules about dress and hair that do not fit this set of rules. I guess they would feel these people belong in separate schools? Perhaps even in their own separate parts of the city or town so as not to disrupt things?

I don't know... I look at the picture of the boy's Mohawk, and I did have a better picture of the boy with the braided Native American hair, and if this is disruptive to the educational program... those must be very poor programs. There had better not be anything controversial in any newspaper the children might read or newscast they might see.

Later!
~ Darrell

144

¹ "ACLU Sues School District For Punishing Kindergarten Student Because of Family's Religious Beliefs" Posted Oct 2, 2008 (updated Oct 9, 2008) American Civil Liberties Union of Texas.

² AA will be used to identify the boy in this article.

³ "School suspends kindergarten student over Mohawk haircut" Posted by Mike Carney, (Photo by Peggy Turbett, The Plain Dealer via AP) February 27, 2008; ON DEADLINE -- USATODAY.com.

"FLA. school boots little boy over Mohawk haircut" Posted by Mike Carney April 24, 2008; ON DEADLINE -- USA TODAY.com.

"School district will force dress-code violators to wear blue jumpsuits" Posted by Mike Carney July 30, 2008; ON DEADLINE -- USATODAY.com.

"Gonzales Independent School District -- Dress Code 2008-2009" 15 July 2008; Gonsales Independent School District.


DailyStrength - Free Online Support Groups

Thursday, September 25, 2008

Tunnel Vision - Even Blinder

In a Hoodie -- Tunnel Vision -- Hiding in a Mobile Cave

You see them all over, mostly worn by young people, though often too by people who are acting young or at least acting like they have little responsibility. The hooded sweatshirt is a very functional garment which can keep you cozy on a coolish evening or dampish day. The hood could be worn up or down and could be worn over other clothes or under them for a very functional layered outfit.

Working you can peel off a layer at a time while you get hot through strenuous work and then don again when you stop and start to cool down. I think they are great to wear under rain gear and I see many workers with the hoods up under their hardhats. The Hoodie¹ can be practical. (image to right - image from Wikipedia

But... I see so many young people on warm clear days wearing them with the hoods up. I am fairly sure it isn't to protect from the UV light from the Sun for they wear the hoods indoors in malls as well... I wonder if they wear the hoods up in class too?

Perhaps the hoods might be keeping the wearer warm, but I gather for a large part it is a matter of being at least slightly incognito.

Perhaps not all who wear hoodies are hoods looking for trouble, but a lot of people looking for trouble like the hoodie and baseball cap combination to hide their identity from security cameras and witnesses if they are doing not so legal things -- like: shop lifting, "tagging", trespassing, loitering, lighting illegal fireworks, and many other things.

Three and a half years ago a shopping centre in Kent in the UK "outlawed" "hooded tops" along with baseball caps and swearing at  Bluewater shopping centre.² They had a zero-tolerance approach. The ban was not appreciated of course by some and applauded by others such as Tony Blair and John Prescott.

(image of young people in hooded sweatshirts with baseball caps from BBC News

I'm not sure about the banning of apparel like that. For the most part kids are just following their roll models. When I went from Elementary School to Junior High School (from grade 6 into grade 7 -- 12-years-old to 13-years-old) there was something new... a dress code. In public school in Alberta we don't have uniforms, but there were some regulations in Jr High. One of the things I remember was that there was a ban on jeans! Well actually the year I started Jr High they relaxed things and they allowed jeans as long as they didn't have rivets. That was a relief because almost all my pants were actually work pants that were jeans. They were green, but they were jeans.

Now they said the issue was with the rivets hurting the desks, but I didn't quite buy that. Another rule was that girls were not allowed to wear pants (slacks) in school. That didn't directly effect me except I found it a bit embarrassing in winter. That was because nearly all the girls would be switching out of the pants they had worn through the snow and  subzero temperature on the way to school in the hallways in front of the lockers. Thirteen-year-old boys could be easily embarrassed. The rules seem very silly now...

Now the rules tend to be more towards modesty and keeping the clothes modestly decent.

I think that I could understand rules about wearing hoods and hats in school... but I am old school and when I was young it was considered improper for men to wear hats indoors so it still feels odd for me to wear a hat indoors.

Still... I look at the people wearing the hoods and it seems a bit like those glasses that are so popular that I wrote about recently in "The Gnomestead Stump: Blinders - To See or Not to See"³. The hoods like those glasses with the wide temples cut down the peripheral vision so that a person can mostly only see what is straight forward. (image to right - image from iOffer)

Like I said there -- perhaps some people just need a way to focus on the world in front of them, like the "...sidewalk ahead with fewer distractions. just like the draft horses of the past..."³

Later!
~ Darrell

140

__________
¹ "Hoodie" Wikipedia

² "Mall bans shoppers' hooded tops" May 14, 2005 BBC News - South East news: Week in review

³ "Blinders - To See or Not to See" Darrell Wade Penner Sept 6, 2008 The Gnomestead Stump.


DailyStrength - Free Online Support Groups

Wednesday, September 24, 2008

Thunder in the Distance - It wasn't Zeus on Mt Olympus

Freedoms of Expressions Clash at Official Start of Olympic Spirit Train

It was mostly cloud Sunday afternoon -- September 21st, 2008 -- and though the Sun only showed occasionally, it wasn't rainy and it was very pleasantly warm for the assemblage who turned out for the launch of the "Olympic Spirit Train"¹. (image to left of 2010 Winter Olympic Locomotive -- image from Canadian Pacific) I didn't go to the event at the Port Moody West Coast Express Station, but I sure ended up experiencing it²

I was a bit buried in some work -- I have other projects on the go -- and hadn't realized that the Olympic Spirit Train was launching from just blocks away from The Gnomestead.³ I began to hear the sound of "tom toms" in the distance and at first thought the Air Cadet band had come to practise at the local schoolyard. The music continued and got louder and I realized that it must be coming from some sort of celebration which I figured was at the local Rocky Point Park -- they have an outdoor stage there. The music started to expand to include other cultures than Aboriginal American and was okay in the background and I sort of enjoyed the ethnic diversity we have here. But then I heard a different sort of chant and drum. That chanting and ranting that we have begun to hear again and again with all sorts of gathering where protesters have gathered -- whatever the protest or statement being made.


(Spirit Train Landscape -- Image from Canadian Pacific)

I must admit that the forms the chants take became boring to me years ago regardless of the words they put to them, but I recognize that the pattern and chanting helps to unify the protesters into a cohesive group. That is something important -- especially if you expect opposition of some sort.

I couldn't make out the words, but with the music sounding like there was some sort of "cultural mosaic" celebration I could only guess that the celebration was being protested by "Right-To-Life" people or perhaps it was a group protesting for or against gay rights. They seem to use the same sounding chants.

The chants being loud enough for me to hear from blocks away -- between 3 and 6 depending on where the event was -- became very annoying. Isn't it interesting how sound can be more annoying depending on content? Music you like at one volume in the distance is okay but music or chanting you don't like is annoying. The volume of the music began to increase too. It started to actually be louder than the music I had playing at the Gnomestead so I had to shut my windows for the remainder of the afternoon.

(Protest banners blocking CP Spirit Train Stage - image to right from No2010.com).

I found out later, on the 5-o'clock news, that it was the Olympic 'Spirit Train' send off celebration and that there was a fracas there with Anti 2010 Olympic protesters trying to interrupt the proceedings.

The protesters were protesting the Olympic Games' impact on the environment, the homeless, and on aboriginal rights.² There were around 3 dozen protesters.² Police arrested two people in connection with the protest. PM Police Sgt Phil Reid said he experted the protesters would be charged with assault. From the reports they say that the protesters where shouting "Homes, not Games!" and shouting down the scheduled entertainment for more than an hour. The performers turned up the volume but were unable to proceed.

According to one of the protester's shouts:

The Province

"I think the idea is to make some f---in' noise here," shouted Garth Mullins, a fixture at anti-Olympic protests. "They're trying to drown us out, so let's drown them out."

(image to left taken by Dawn Paley of protesters from The Dominion)

The protesters positioned two large banners so it was difficult for the audience to see the show and tempers flared when spectators tried to see the entertainment despite the banners and protesters. Colin Hansen, BC minister responsible for the Olympics; federal minister James Moore and four other guest speakers cancelled their speeches. One of the acts which was interfered with that was performing on stage was an aboriginal band. Cree musician Dallas Arcand sang and beat on a drum while his music was drowned out by screaming and banging on pots by the protesters.

The protest did move from in front of the stage to the Canadian Pacific corporate tent next to a table where families were collecting autographed postcards. Eventually the protesters moved on to the Port Moody police station where the arrested protesters had been taken. The Globe and Mail reported 40 protesters were present.  The Dominion's Dawn Paley puts the number of protesters at 50 while the No2010.com website places the number at up to 75 protesters. With the Canadian Press estimate of around 36 and from what it looked like on TV I would personally say that the number was between 36 and 50.

(image to right taken by Dawn Paley of protesters being arrested from The Dominion)

There are a number of different sides to the whole episode. There is the side of the Olympic promoters and the people who were putting on the whole send off for the Olympic Spirit Train. There is the side of the Protesters who very much want their message to be heard on the injustices they see being done to the homeless or those who might become homeless and the aboriginal people, and the damage that they see being done to the environment. There is the side of the politician who does not want to see discord in the community. There is the side of the police who are there to keep the peace and the law... hopefully the two coincide. There is the side of the public who have come to be entertained at a family event and celebration open to the public. There is the side of the entertainers who are their to express themselves in their art. There is the side of the people in the neighbourhood who expect to live in a peaceful community and the businesses in the neighbourhood who expect the same.

It is not peaceful to sit at my desk in my room and listen to this protest war. The argument with the volume control over who can be loudest is not confined to those for or against the Olympics. While the protesters were heard to say that the protests did not bother or scare their children that they brought -- their children were brought to the event expecting to be taking part in their parent's protest. The children at the event were there with their parents expecting to be entertained at a show and they were -- from what I saw on camera and what parents and reporters said -- scared, afraid, or at least bothered by what was going on.


(No 2010 banner from no2010.com)

Perhaps the protesters nearly outnumbered the spectators? (Gord hill speaking on behalf of the "Olympics Resistance Network") Perhaps the police presence was too much with three separate police contingents? Regardless, there was too much something.

The event was attended by uniformed and undercover officers from: the Canadian Pacific Police Service, the Port Moody Police Department, and the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority Police Service. The Dominion Paper also reported a large group of private security guards from Vancouver 2010 Integrated Security. While I am not sure of numbers, I do note that the train is on CP property and their train and thus responsibility of their CP Police Service; the venue for the event being the Port Moody West Coast Express Station Park and Ride lot means that Translink is also responsible and thus the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority Police Service; and the whole station is in the City of Port Moody so it is fairly obvious that the Port Moody Police Department be there.

(image to left, Spirit Train - image from Canadian Pacific)

I am sure that a quiet protest at the entrance to the event with the banners and placards would have announced to everyone the issue without problem. But I am also sure that there was a desire for confrontation that would be enough to make news headlines and national television news coverage on the part of protesters. It was pointed out that a number of the faces among the protesters are regulars at many different sorts of protests and seem to be keys in organizing them. I recognize the faces without them being pointed out.

I do believe in freedom of expression -- which I believe is a part of freedom of speech -- but I think that there is a problem where what people are considering a "freedom of expression" is instead infringing on other's freedom of expression, and on other's rights to peacefully appreciate that freedom of expression.

People do have a right to peacefully protest and make their voice heard -- but stretching things just a slight bit farther to illustrate a point -- would they have the right to disrupt a movie in a theatre or a show on stage to make their point?

(image to right of Vancouver 2010 Mascot Wallpaper from Vancouver 2010)

I agree with some of the points of the protesters, but not the protest. I agree that there are also many benefits that come with hosting the Olympics as well. I do think that we could be getting greater benefit from the games and we could be creating fewer problems with them as well. But I don't think the protesters are helping with the way they are protesting.

I think that the protesters of the games lost much credibility before with some of their protests -- I think they may have lost a lot of support with their "demonstration" on the 21st.

Later!
~ Darrell

139

__________
¹ "Vancouver 2010 Mascots Sumi, Quatchi and Miga join the CP Spirit Train Experience" Breanne Geigel Sept 8, 2008; Canada Pacific

² "Departure of Olympic 'Spirit Train' met with protesters in B.C." Sep 21, 2008; The Canadian Press

³ If you hadn't gathered, "The Gnomestead" is the location from which I write and live.

"Protest mars Olympics fun" Ian Austin Sept 22, 2008; The Province

"Spirit Train spreads Games excitement" Allison Cross Sept 21, 2008; The Vancouver Sun

"Olympic spirit train makes debut in B.C." In Brief Sept 22, 2008; The Globe and Mail

"Banners Blocking CP Spirit Train Stage" No 2010 Olympics on Stolen Native Land -- Resist The 2010 Corporate Circus no2010.com

"Protesters Disrupt "Spirit Train" Sendoff" Dawn Paley Sept 21, 2008; The Dominion Paper.


DailyStrength - Free Online Support Groups