Peaceniks Try Direct Mail on Vandoos Destined for AFG

[Meridian]

I will close with a final thought:  I actually have no problem at all with your opposition (although I disagree with your opposition) to our mission in Afghanistan, per se, although I believe that you are not in possession of the facts and have strung together a bunch of recycled anti-Iraq war arguments.  Where you and I part company rather sharply is your group's method.  Your group's blanket mailing the PMQs in Valcartier is morally reprehensible and potentially violates portions of the criminal code.  Why is counciling soldiers to violate the will of Parliament (and make no mistake that, while you may disagree with the vote in Parliament, it, NOT the CF or it's soldiers who decide when and where we fight) illegal you might ask?  Consider the opposite (and hypothetical) scenario: we are a country at peace, but a war breaks out in a country with historic ties to Canada.  Parliament votes to not go to war.  This, however, does not sit well with a group of activists who want Canada to take a side, so they begin sending letters to individual soldiers counciling them to steal weapons, ammuntion and desert the CF to fight in this (hypothetical) war.  Just how happy would you be now?  The whole point of civilian control of the military in Canada is that only our ELECTED civilian masters get to control us- not anybody with a computer and a printer.  You don't like us in Afghanistan? Fine- campaign against the Conservative and Liberal Parties in the next election- but leave the individual soldier out of it!

Superb arguments, SKT!  I was thinking the same thing, but couldn't put it into words appropriately.

I still don't get why the US keeps getting dragged into this.  You are telling Canadian soldiers not to go on a Canadian operation. The op may be in support of a greater NATO mission, but it is still a mission we (as Canadians) have supported.  Claim all the polls you like, if Canadians did not support us in Afghanistan, we would have the NDP in power We don't. Polling is garbage; just look at recent elections where the polls were way off actuals.

The military is controlled by our democratic government. If you feel our democracy or our government isn't working, then by all means, please, protest away.  But protest in the streets, in Ottawa, to your MP. Convince your fellow citizen, because my friend, votes actually do matter in Canada.  If you aren't able to get the vote to swing your way, perhaps its because your arguments just aren't convincing enough.

What you are doing right now is trying to argue that it is ok to allow individual soldiers to decide which wars to fight in, and which wars not to fight in, with absolute disregard for the government (and thus the people) of the country they are representing. It would appear you are doing this because you haven't been able to raise a solid enough argument to convince a majority of average Canadians to vote out a party who does not support your beliefs. Instead, what you are doing is putting added strain on the individual soldier, for absolutely no reason other than the ineffectiveness of your own platform.

 

[Bigmac]

  Valcartier 2007,  you didn't answer my 2 simple questions? Why did you leave after I posted them? :

 

[The Bread Guy]

Thanks for the detailed breakdown, as well as the time to give your position in more detail.  I doubt if we'll ever agree, but always good to exchange information in a civil manner (and let's all keep up the civil tone).

We’ve addressed the issues around Franciso Juarez in two previous posts.

You make the claim that Juarez was released from the Canadian Forces because he couldn't oppose the war in Afghanistan.  I have read information to the effect that he refused to follow an order during training, which led him to be released.  If you have evidence that Juarez wanted to participate in anti-war rallies while serving in uniform, or that he wanted to wear anti-war t-shirts, buttons or other paraphenalia, and was released specifically for that reason, we'd be happy to see it.

You say soldiers should be thinking and not necessarily following orders blindly, that they should be thinking about what they're asked to do.  Others have addressed the "we're not automons" point, and SeaKingTacco points out an excellent scenario about counseling soldiers to disobey orders, but I'm going to try a slightly different situation.

You and your family are visiting a foreign country, when suddenly war or internal conflict breaks out (think Lebanon last summer as an example).  Canadian soldiers are dispatched to help get you home.  Some of the soldiers, though, knowing your opposition to Canada's participation in the war in Afghanistan, say, "I don't agree with the cause of rescuing people who oppose what we are doing elsewhere, so I refuse to serve in this case."  Would that be reasonable?  No.  I can't speak for everyone who participates here, but I'd be surprised to hear any serving members say they would not do their best to get the job done in the above situation just because they disagree with the people they're helping.

The same principle could be applied to dealing with any state-run protective service - police, fire or ambulance services.  If you work in these organizations and don't agree with the (in this case democratically elected) governance structure's policies or approaches, you have two options - you carry out the orders of those the general public chose to govern, or you leave.  On the other side of the coin, as others have said better than I can, if you're a voter who doesn't like the policies or approaches, tell the politicians, and try to convince enough voters to get rid of those you disagree with.

You also question our interpretation of General Leslie’s comments back in 2005. One of our references is the following:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2005/08/08/Canada-Afghanistan-050808.html
We are not misinterpreting Leslie. He honestly admits that the Afghan mission will mean killing.

To be fair, I didn't say you were misinterpreting, I was saying there are other, equally valid interpretations to the comments cited.

We’re curious: How do people on this forum feel about Leslie promising that the Afghan mission will take two decades, that we’ll be killing people, but that every time we kill an angry young man we create 15 more? That’s a disaster in the making! And you, on-the-ground soldiers, will be one of the victims of this disaster.

No doubt that there are specific “reconstruction” or “development” projects ... all the better to sell the Afghan mission. Again, development and reconstruction are useful smokescreens. It’s what’s done under modern-day COIN doctrine. There have been similar “hearts and minds” efforts in all wars, including in Iraq right now, and in Vietnam.

Based on these two points, my understanding of your premise is that there will be nothing but killing for 20 years, that there will be nothing but a huge increase in people to shoot at, and that conditions for average Afghans will never improve.

I concede that killing one creates 15 more opponents, but can you concede that if living conditions improve enough for everyone, there's more to be gained by working with those improving conditions than by those destroying moving forward?  If this is the case, people will realize that overall, experiencing progress is better than killing those trying to bring the progress on.  If this is the case, then there will be progressively less need to deal with those opposing improving Afghans' quality of life, hence less need to kill people. 

Yes, the mission is under ISAF, but ISAF is led by NATO. Check out the ISAF website -- http://www.nato.int/isaf/ --  its banner has the NATO logo.  Plus, let’s be practical here: ISAF is a smokescreen (kind of like the “coalition of the willing” in Iraq); you soldiers know just as well as us anti-war activists that the Afghan mission is led by the United States, thru NATO, with Canadian, British, German and other soldiers playing specific supporting roles. The US leads this thing via NATO.

NATO may lead, but it does so with the support of the United Nations and, because of that, the world.  If you don't believe UN Security Council resolutions don't mean there is at least a level of international sanction for the mission, then are other resolutions (like those indicting Israeli actions against Palestinians) just as meaningless?

You ask for evidence for the Canadian military being used as a smokescreen for American-led imperialism in the Middle East. 2500 Canadian troops in Afghanistan, as part of the US “War on Terror,” gives credibility to that war. Do people seriously think otherwise? That’s the whole point of so-called “coalitions”. For a longer answer (about US imperialism in the Middle East since WW II), we'll have to defer to a future post (but many of you probably know this history really well). The Taliban is the "blowback" of those previous policies.

I presented evidence of development going on to improve the lives of Afghans, and asked for evidence that this is "cover" for anything else.  Saying "yes it is" to my "no it's not" isn't evidence.

We oppose the Taliban; moreover, like RAWA, we oppose all the fundamentalists and warlords, whether they’re Taliban, or in the Karzai government that Canadian troops are defending. We come from social movements that are feminist, anti-patriarchy and queer positive. Obviously, we have nothing in common with thte Taliban.  Here’s a quote from one of our pamphlets: “We reject the false choice between either the Taliban, or fundamentalists like Bush, Cheney and Rice.”

I agree that your dichotomy is not the choice to make -- the choice is between what the Taliban and other bad actors have perpetrated in the past, and improving the quality of life for Afghans in general. 

I'm glad you mention feminist and "queer positive" ideology, since both these groups suffer under the Taliban.  I'm also pleased you make the distinction between "in the Karzai" government and the Karzai government as a whole (which was selected by the people of Afghanistan).

  "I'm interested in hearing details on your organization's alternative - how do we make Afghanistan a better place to live?"  Great question. Important question. Long answer. We will answer that one shortly (ie. not today), because it can’t be answered quickly (and we’ve already posted a large amount for today!) Your question needs a “big picture” answer that we hope to provide on this forum really soon. That answer will also reply to similar questions posted by davetee, fascistlibertarian and others.

Looking forward to it.

- edits to clean up grammar -

 

[George Wallace]

PS: Would like to ask “George Wallace” again, is that a pseudonym, or a real name? You probably can guess why we’re asking: is your name an homage to the famous George Wallace?

That is none of your business.

One could also ask to which 'famous' George Wallace' you may be referring to?

George Wallace

George Wallace

George Wallace

George Wallace

George Wallace

or dozens of other real and fictional people who have that moniker.

Edit to fix profile link. We are no longer all George Wallace.

 

[Meridian]

That is none of your business.

One could also ask to which 'famous' George Wallace' you may be referring to?

George Wallace

George Wallace

George Wallace

George Wallace

or dozens of other real and fictional people who have that moniker.

Also has absolutely zero to do with the topic at hand.  Again, going back to the sophist-style "let me attack the poster or get at his emotions, rather than post substantive arguments".

 

[Valcartier 2007]

1.    What is your political affiliation? (Be honest with us!)

Here's how Block the Empire-Montreal is self-described: Block the Empire-Montreal is an anti-authoritarian, direct-action collective opposed to war and militarization, and their roots and manifestations: colonialism, imperialism and capitalism. We seek to expose the links between capitalist globalization and patriarchy, racism and all forms of oppression, both here and abroad. Our work locally aims to disrupt and directly impact the interests of those who are actively complicit in these systems, from companies who fuel and profit from war and occupation, to the supporters and outposts of US Empire and the Canadian state. We endorse the People's Global Action (PGA) hallmarks, and we act in direct solidarity with all those on the frontlines of resistance and struggle against occupation and exploitation - from those resisting the racist "War on Terror" in the Middle East, Latin America, Africa and Asia, to the struggle for indigenous sovereignty here on Turtle Island (occupied North America).


2.    You are planning a protest on 22 Jun in an area where le Royal 22ème régiment is scheduled to parade the streets.  You chose this venue for obvious reasons. Is your group planning to jeer at these soldiers and or plan any other negative actions against these troops?

We make a clear distinction between soldiers and their families, and the senior officers and politicians who are behind a war and mission we consider unjust. We don't plan to jeer at individual soldiers or their families. We might try to hand them a flyer, or talk to them. We plan to protest Canada's presence in Afghanistan, and focus that protest on the politicians and senior officers.

There's been a lot of fear-mongering about our protest, especially by the notorious right-wing talkradio hosts in Quebec City. Don't believe the hype.

For a sneak preview, here's one of French slogans we'll most likely be chanting:

"Ramenez l'armée, envoyez les députés!"

(It rhymes in French, but the rough English translation is: "Bring home the army, send the politicians!")

---
INFO:
www.valcartier2007.ca
info@valcartier2007.ca
418-208-7059

 

[armyvern]

Also has absolutely zero to do with the topic at hand.  Again, going back to the sophist-style "let me attack the poster or get at his emotions, rather than post substantive arguments".

Give it up Meridian.

Valcartier2007 has asked this question directly twice now. Apparently they are interested in the answer. George has given his response and that should now be the end of it (although I'm wondering why, when I click on his last posted famous "George Wallace" link ... I am taken to my own profile)!!

 

[The Bread Guy]

Valcartier2007 has asked this question directly twice now. Apparently they are interested in the answer. George has given his response and that should now be the end of it (although I'm wondering why, when I click on his last posted famous "George Wallace" link ... I am taken to my own profile)!!

We are ALL George Wallace, in one way or another - you are he, she is he, he is we..... 

I saw my own profile too on that link - just PM'ed GW on it.

 

[Mike Bobbitt]

Some excellent discussion folks. One thing that strikes me about Valcartier 2007 is that they chose to quote General Leslie, and what they took away from that was that the Afghan mission was doomed to failure. pbi did a bang-up job of correcting that misconception, by pointing out that Leslie was merely speaking the truth... we expect this to be a long, hard and costly mission. The military has no illusions about it, nor are they trying to pull the wool over anyone's eyes (including the public, but especially the soldiers who must do the job).

Had Leslie proposed that this would be a quick bloodless mission, I expect Valcartier 2007 would still be quoting him, in much the "Mission Accomplished" light we've seen in the US. It seems to me that there is nothing we can say to make Valcartier 2007 and his peers consider a more moderate approach.

Had the military lied, Valcartier 2007 would have (rightly) exploited that to question our motives and approach. However as pointed out, Leslie, Hillier and many many others have been publicly vocal about the difficulties this mission faces. This honesty is now turned back against us. When we say it will be a long haul, the left gets queasy and considers this proof positive that the mission is doomed to failure.

It's the soldiers - not the social activists - who consider the reconstruction of Afghanistan important enough to work for. These soldiers are committing themselves to a long and costly process, not just because it's their job but because they know it's the right thing to do. The only "personal benefit" they will see from this is to witness a crumbling nation come back from the brink of medieval oppression, but they are willing to pay a high price for it.

I'm sure I'm not the only one who finds this imbalance of 'social conscience' ironic.

P.S. George's name is his real name. He hides behind no pseudonym as he has the courage to publicly stand behind his convictions. His name is no more an homage to an old South racist than yours is an homage to our military base.

 

[Valcartier 2007]

So that’s it from us for now. We’ll try to check-in later this weekend (either Saturday or Sunday night). Can only be online so much, especially in the summer.

Thanks to everyone who sent along their comments and critiques. Again, we appreciate this opportunity to dialogue and debate with CF members.

We’ve tried as best as we can to answer all your questions (and have deferred answering the big question in point #6 by Milnewstbay until later). But, if you feel we haven’t answered a question, let us know. There have been a lot of posts, so it’s hard to keep up! We'll continue to answer, and also pose our own questions.

In closing, for today, just wanted to make a few points about the people involved in activist networks like Block the Empire-Montreal and Guerre à la Guerre:

We are not necessarily pacifists. Many of us believe that you often must fight for your principles, and for what you believe. We are part of social movements, and social justice struggles, with an understanding that to obtain true justice and dignity, you must fight (in various and diverse ways).

One war, for example, that many of us would support (as anarchists) was the fight against Franco and the fascists in Spain.

In closing, we wanted to address another issue. ArmyVern wrote the following: “you will find that many of us here have vast 'boots on the ground' experience in aiding those members of society less fortunate than we here in Canada. That's right, Canadians have it pretty damned good. Most Canadians, in fact, would find it a huge wake-up call if they were required to spend just one week overseas ...”

We also have another kind of “boots on the ground” experience. Many of the people actively involved in the social justice networks of which Block the Empire is a part (and who were responsible for the “Open Letter to the Soldiers of Valcartier”) have extensive experiences in areas of low-intensity conflict, war and extreme poverty.

Collectively, in the past several years, we have first-hand experiences in place like Palestine, Lebanon, Iraq, and the refugee camps on the Afghan/Pakistan border. We have experiences in other conflict zones in Latin America (southern Mexico, Colombia, and elsewhere), India, Pakistan and more. We haven’t been to these zones as soldiers, but as social justice activists, in various roles. We’ve seen extreme poverty, witnessed various traumas and atrocities, and worked in solidarity with progressive social movements from those areas. Our solidarity work also occurs here in Canada.

It’s those experiences that inform our anti-war position, and our position against Canada’s complicity in George Bush’s “War on Terror.”

Importantly, some of the people in networks like Block the Empire come directly from these zones of conflict, or our parents do. We are not simply armchair critics of war. We don’t presume to have a full understanding of any geopolitical situation (who can?), but don’t take us for naive, pampered “Canadians” either; some of us migrated to Canada. Our website includes an appeal made directly by an Afghan living in Canada (http://www.valcartier2007.ca/qaderi_eng.htm) We try to root our analysis in the progressive anti-imperialist movements of the Third World. We also are active in social struggles in our own communities (against poverty, homelessness, ecocide, deportations and more).

Finally, we also root our analysis in understanding the colonial nature of Canada, where there are places that do suffer from Third World and Fourth World-like conditions, conditions that are the direct result of Canada’s genocidal policies towards native peoples. It’s important to share that part of our analysis as well. You might disagree with our premise, but it does give you an idea of where we're coming from.

Anyways, let’s continue to break down some barriers between “anti-war activists” and “soldiers”. Look forward to reading your replies. And will respond again. Enjoy your weekend.

---
INFO:
www.valcartier2007.ca
info@valcartier2007.ca
418-208-7059

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Ohh boy.  You guys are all over the place and wayyy too in love with labels like "anti-imperialism".

How did you ever equate Afghanistan and Canada's First Nations? Have you ever heard of "Selection and Maintenance of the Aim"?  I'm not sure what you stand for except (vaguely) against anything the United States is doing in the world... 

 

[George Wallace]

(although I'm wondering why, when I click on his last posted famous "George Wallace" link ... I am taken to my own profile)!!

Sorry about that.  There is a glitch in the program.  I have asked for another member to send me the proper url, as what I have showing up is the code that gives anyone linking to that "George Wallace" a look at their own personal profile.  

Just another problem, being sent up to Mike on another means, that he may want to check out.

 

[Mike Bobbitt]

It's by design... http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/index.php?action=profile is a generic link to "your" profile. To go to a specific user's profile, you need to specify their account ID, such as: http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/members/2507

 

[armyvern]

I'm sure I'm not the only one who finds this imbalance of 'social conscience' ironic.

No Mike, you're not.

I mentioned it in an earlier post of mine as the point where "their" and "our" philosophies take separate paths.

I, for one, am willing to fight and die so that others (in this case the people of Afghanistan) can move forward into a brighter and more promising future. Sometimes, dying is the cost that must be paid so that others can prosper in a free society. There are many of us out here who believe that cost is worth it, and have seen the improvements made for the Afghan people and their society at cost of soldier's lives. We have experienced the loss of our fellow soldiers in that betterment. We have been witness to it just as we have been witness to those improvements the MSM and the anti-war lobbies tend to ignore in their writings. I would rather have died trying to make that difference, than simply talking about making a difference, or putting forth ideas of talks of peace for example with an enemy who cares not about the value of anything but absolute power over the people. An enemy who intentionally targets an innocent civilian populace because they dared send their daughters to school, or dared to teach females, or dared to hope for something better for their future.

Yes indeed, some things in life are worth fighting and dying for and, for me, the people of Afghanistan and it's society's future are two of them.

 

[Bigmac]

1.    What is your political affiliation? (Be honest with us!)

Here's how Block the Empire-Montreal is self-described: Block the Empire-Montreal is an anti-authoritarian, direct-action collective opposed to war and militarization, and their roots and manifestations: colonialism, imperialism and capitalism. We seek to expose the links between capitalist globalization and patriarchy, racism and all forms of oppression, both here and abroad. Our work locally aims to disrupt and directly impact the interests of those who are actively complicit in these systems, from companies who fuel and profit from war and occupation, to the supporters and outposts of US Empire and the Canadian state. We endorse the People's Global Action (PGA) hallmarks, and we act in direct solidarity with all those on the frontlines of resistance and struggle against occupation and exploitation - from those resisting the racist "War on Terror" in the Middle East, Latin America, Africa and Asia, to the struggle for indigenous sovereignty here on Turtle Island (occupied North America).


2.    You are planning a protest on 22 Jun in an area where le Royal 22ème régiment is scheduled to parade the streets.  You chose this venue for obvious reasons. Is your group planning to jeer at these soldiers and or plan any other negative actions against these troops?

We make a clear distinction between soldiers and their families, and the senior officers and politicians who are behind a war and mission we consider unjust. We don't plan to jeer at individual soldiers or their families. We might try to hand them a flyer, or talk to them. We plan to protest Canada's presence in Afghanistan, and focus that protest on the politicians and senior officers.

There's been a lot of fear-mongering about our protest, especially by the notorious right-wing talkradio hosts in Quebec City. Don't believe the hype.

For a sneak preview, here's one of French slogans we'll most likely be chanting:

"Ramenez l'armée, envoyez les députés!"

(It rhymes in French, but the rough English translation is: "Bring home the army, send the politicians!")

---
INFO:
www.valcartier2007.ca
info@valcartier2007.ca
418-208-7059

Thank you for the response to my questions. So in a nutshell:

1.  Your group are Anarchists.  You do not believe in any government authority. You are willing to escalate your protests to a physical level if necessary.

2.  Your group does plan to harrass the troops marching in the street. That is a bad idea as the troops and their families will not be very receptive to you. If you truly want to be heard by the general public I would suggest you stick to verbal protests. If you intend to increase your protests to include more physical confrontation you will only gain a more negative view by the public and especially this forum.

 

[armyvern]

2.  Your group does plan to harrass the troops marching in the street. That is a bad idea as the troops and their families will not be very receptive to you. If you truly want to be heard by the general public I would suggest you stick to verbal protests. If you intend to increase your protests to include more physical confrontation you will only gain a more negative view by the public and especially this forum.

Let there be no doubt in anyone's mind that although the troops on parade may not agree with Valcartier2007's philosophies or handouts, those soldiers will act professionally. It is what soldiers do.

Let the anti-war movement do what they wish (they will anyway), but I predict they will be ignored by those they wish to target, the soldiers will march on ... their heads held rightfully professional, high and proud.

 

[armyvern]

Valcartier2007,

Please, feel free to log back in to view the thread openly vice coming on as a guest. Really, we don't mind at all.

Guest (216.144 ~ Remainder of the IP removed by Vern)  11:40:38 Viewing the topic Peaceniks Try Direct Mail on Vandoos Destined for AFG.

 

[Kendrick]

Took me forever to read the whole thing, and I'm pissed that I've been missing out on this thread for a while now.  Being a french speaking reservist from Montreal serving within a Vandoo platoon of which few members have received the letter, I feel like throwing in my 2 cents.  

First off, to address Juarez's deal of not wanting to go to war, or not agreeing, I believe it has been adressed a few times, but a few points to add; reservists actually COMPETE to get on mission.  They ask for volunteers in reserve regiments, people raise their hands, and the better ones are sent off.  Never is anyone forced to go.  And as far as getting thrown out of the forces because he disagrees with the war, I know a few people in the reserves that still disagree with the war, and just don't volunteer to go, and nobody forces them towards the door.  The man is a liar, a coward, and a miserable failure.  

The more I think about what I feel like saying, the more I know it will not be constructive, and as a good friend just mentioned to me, would turn this into a non-necessary slugfest.  But what comes to my mind, is more a compilation of feelings that have been brewing for a while.  A mix of rage and shame.  I've been catching up on this thread all morning, and I'm definitely boiling inside now.  And so I choose not to bring new arguments here, but I feel like I must share these feelings.  

I believe in the mission.  I believe in what we can do to help the Afghan people.  I also believe those in charge perhaps aren't doing the right things all the time, that more should be done.  I also believe that the problem is not from Afghanistan itself, but from the wished instability in it that has been fueled for countless years by neighborhing countries, over tribal and ethnic diversities, over wanting a "buffer" zone, over a long gone Cold War.  I believe it is time these people be independent.  But this is not news to anyone here, and I digress.  I also believe that those extremists, or "parties" wishing this instability, know that they cannot win by fighting, and as such are exploiting any propaganda issue possible.  And I also believe that people like the ValCartier group is playing right into it, and doing the work of such extremists group for them, possibly unwillingly.  I also believe that people are mostly blinded sometimes by what they choose to believe, and most times by mere ignorance.  In this case I very strongly believe that people are so blinded in anti-bush, and anti-US feelings, that they are blinded by it anytime there is any US involvement, and see nothing else but US running the show everywhere and trying to dominate and impose whatever they want.  No matter if they are right not, they choose not to see our actual mission, our actual involvement, and our actual doings.  To them, we are but pawns of Bush.  

I chose to do what I am doing.  I chose to go over.  I have a university education myself (oddly enough, probably from the most anti-war school in the province, and I am sure I know some of you guys in your group), and thus I know how it works, and what kind of people are part of it.  My family supports me.  They did not believe in the war.  Nobody believes in war.  As I read book after book after book on the country, the politics, the situation, I became more and more informed, and tried to pass on the information, and came to believe more and more in the potential of the mission.  So did my family.  No one wants to see their sons and daughters go to war.  Go to danger.  The real bravery is from those who accept it, and support it, for the right reasons.  Whether they be right or not is somewhat irrelevant.  They support me.  They support my decision.  They now support the idea, and the potential of the mission.  These people are in need, and backing out of it before the job is over, would just be abandonning them.  That would be the coward way out.  That would be the way such groups as that ValCartier bunch wishes.  The going is getting too tough, people are dying to help people in need, so it's too much for them.  Would you want nobody to help you should you be in the same situation as they are?

 

[Valcartier 2007]

Back on for a minute -- Just posted something en français ... A open letter, in today's Le Devoir, from a brother to his sister who'll be deploying to Afghanistan with the 22nd. You can read it on the French side. But, we wanted to make a quick reply to the following ...

Thank you for the response to my questions. So in a nutshell:

2.  Your group does plan to harrass the troops marching in the street. That is a bad idea as the troops and their families will not be very receptive to you. If you truly want to be heard by the general public I would suggest you stick to verbal protests. If you intend to increase your protests to include more physical confrontation you will only gain a more negative view by the public and especially this forum.

In a nutshell: your comment is very unfair. We wrote clearly saying we don't intend to jeer average soldiers, but focus our protest on the politicians and senior officers. Moreover, we may try to talk to people, as well as offer people flyers. We even shared a chant: "Ramenez l'armée, envoyez les députés!" That's not a "plan to harrass the troops." That's democracy.

---
INFO:
www.valcartier2007.ca
info@valcartier2007.ca
418-208-7059

 

[George Wallace]

In a nutshell: your comment is very unfair. We wrote clearly saying we don't intend to jeer average soldiers, but focus our protest on the politicians and senior officers. Moreover, we may try to talk to people, as well as offer people flyers. We even shared a chant: "Ramenez l'armée, envoyez les députés!" That's not a "plan to harrass the troops." That's democracy.

It depends on how you were to go about doing this.  You may claim that it is "Democracy", while the person you are 'assailing' may call it "Harassment".  One is a 'freedom', the other is a 'Criminal Act'.