I don't know how many people have been following what is happening with the G20 currently going on in Toronto, and quite honestly I haven't been paying rapt attention... but personally- if protestors really want to be heard, this really isn't the way to do it. In the 50's and 60's and 70's, when the only way to make a movement was the be there in person then more power to the people who faught tooth and nail to do so. Such is not the case anymore. We live in a time where mass movements of people are not heard. There is already a premptive strike planned and a clash is bound to happen, no matter what any organization says. This age answers to the mass media, not the mass physical presence. The hoards aren't ignorant, but neither are the opposed- and resorting to yelling in the streets seems to be very similar to beating sticks against a computer. You have to fight the way your opposition does or progress will never be made.
Could you imagine if the police randomly threw rocks and bricks into the crowd? Or if the candidates set fire to a home of an innocent bystander? Why is this acceptable for protesters? Ohhhhhh- right, because they're 'protestors'. You know what else goes along with that stigma? Rash, unorganized, ignorant, petty, selfish... shall i go on? Don't get all pissy on me- I have faught for causes I believe in. And I do believe that protests serve a purpose.
However- when you have candidates representing countries all over the world coming to your country, your city, is this really what you want them to experience? Do you want people to be awed by the level of maturity your protesters bring to the fences or do you want them to be appalled by the terrifying behaviour and the vacant streets?
This was brought on my the break news bulleten of protesters lighting a police car on fire...
And you think this is going to make them take you seriously?