Sunday, February 16, 2003

The compulsory rally report, and The Australian’s editorial

So, I went to rally for peace on Friday in Melbourne. As everyone whose followed the coverage will know, they were expecting 10 - 20,000 and got well over 100,000. The rally was to meet up at 5 pm in front of the State Library and then walk the length of Swanston Street down to the crazy cubist delight of Federation Square by the river. Well, at 5.30 the closest I could get to the State Library was about a hundred metres down Little Lonsdale Street on the wrong side of the road. (For non-Melbournians about a block away.) There was absolutely no hearing what was going on, which sort of robbed a participatory element from proceedings, but not really. Even if I was just another suited lawyer there “making up the numbers”, it was a great experience.

What really impressed me was the diversity in the crowd. Yes, it was predominantly under-35s - but there were Fransiscan sisters, aged hippies, families with strollers, school kids, badge-sellers, suits and the usual uni-campus fringe lefties with loudhailers. There were puppets, including big doves, white banners, and little kids with paper cranes on sticks.

Oh, and of course the inevitable, ignored vendor of Green Left Weekly desperately trying to raise consciousness of those desperate to avoid the Green Left street press.

But you get that.

It seriously looked as though marching to Federation Square was going to be impossible, the city’s central axis was already thoroughly clogged with people. Sure everyone could manage to squish up a bit - but march, let alone fit in the Square?

When the walking began, those I was with slipped down a laneway and came out at the next major intersection to see what was going on. Delightfully, there was movement. Even more delightfully, we slipped into the march for peace.

Well, strictly we were ambling for peace. It was an enormously relaxed affair: people were climbing public phones and lamp-posts (I suspect there are people who’d do this all the time if they could, but can only get away with it at a demo), laughter, bad improvised protest songs, and a lot of positive comments flowing to the women in traditional Muslim dress who were walking.

I ambled as far as the Square, which it seemed was going to hold a lot of people - as was the intersection of Flinders and Swanston and a good stretch of surrounding road. We could sort of hear what was going on, and found a view from the front of St Andrew’s cathedral of the big TV screen in the square so we could see what was happening - but after two hours on our feet, including Marching for Peace, it seemed time to Sip Beer for Peace, and then Go Out for Lebanese Food for Peace.

As Valentine’s Day could go - not bad.

Then I opened the weekend paper to check out The Australian’s coverage. I knew the paper had lurched to the right recently, but good god damn. Writing on the marches organised internationally this weekend the editorial said:

If Australia is any example, the protesters will be drawn from every part of the political spectrum. Unfortunately, if Australia really is an example, their humanitarian concerns are likely to be hijacked, as so often before, by the far Left. While there is mainstream opposition to war, people who seriously believe Saddam Hussein is no worse than George W. Bush have in effect lost contact with mainstream political opinion and therefore desperately rely on protests such as this to create the temporary illusion, for the world and themselves, that they are part of a broad-based social movement. They are not.

This woolly-thinking verbal sleight-of-hand really makes my blood boil.

While acknowledging the protest has support from “every part of the political spectrum”, its legitimacy is not-too-subtly impugned on the basis that this creates a “temporary illusion, for the world and themselves” that the far Left have a legitimate point to make, supported by the mainstream. Indeed, these dangerous lefties are likely to “hijack” legitimate protest. Subtext: this sort of protest provides false cover to dangerous elements, and gives them some sort of standing in the “world” media. In fact, the protest can be constructed as not represent a “broad-based social movement” (despite the huge turnout) because those articulating its aims are out of touch with the “mainstream”. While paying lip-service to what it dubs the “fine and honourable thing” of opposing war in a democracy, it basically implies that the protest movement is not in the hands of people with a responsible view of the facts.

It underlines this point with a pathologically brilliant piece of scare-mongering:

And for those who believe the US-lead initiatives are serving only to “radicalise” elements within Islam, this week’s message from Osama bin Laden should have been a wake-up call. It expressed the credo of a movement that is racist, misogynistic, bloodthirsty and already “radicalised” to the very heart of its being.

I think they mislaid the obvious concluding paragraph advocating the internment of all Muslim Australian citizens and residents for the duration of the War on Terror.

To judge Islam by bin Laden’s missives makes is as cretinous as judging Judeo-Christian Western society by the pronouncements of a Grand Imperial Cyclops of the Ku-Klux Klan. On a purely pragmatic level, where are Western nations going to get intelligence agents from if this is the line we take? Oh, sorry, terrorists are Evil - we don’t need anyone who might know something about their languages, cultures or real or perceived grievances.

Bombing the crap out of an innocent civilian population, by contrast, will not “radicalise” anyone. It is a responsible move that will not spawn future generations of terrorists and suicide bombers with real, immediate grievances against the US, Britain and Australia.

But the Prime Minister isn’t convinced that the rallies represent popular opinion, which he intuits is still undecided. So rest assured that the Australian’s editorial staff is a “mainstream” voice, keep a tight hold of your Terrorism hotline fridge-magnets and Prime-Ministerial pamphlet and remain “alert not alarmed” – democracy is presently experiencing turbulence and it may well be a bumpy landing.


Marcus covers the protest with some pictures. Beth also writes on being part of the movement in Melbourne. Canberra coverage by blogger Shauny here.

No comments: