Serving protest-lite — now with less impact!
Sun column dumbs-down dissent for suburban consumption
Nick Ternette
In his Aug. 7 Winnipeg Sun column (“Critical Mass protesters
to critical”), Gordon MacFarlane missed the raison d’être
of Critical Mass.
While MacFarlane is correct in suggesting Critical Mass exists
on one level to raise awareness of alternate forms of transportation
— namely bicycles — the group is also clearly
out to challenge the ‘car culture’ notion that
vehicles are somehow constitutionally protected from bicycles
and pedestrians.
Roads are publicly owned by all citizens, but, as MacFarlane
suggests, cycling in Winnipeg is only slightly less dangerous
than cycling in Beirut.
This implies to me that car owners feel cyclists and pedestrians
have no right to roadways.
MacFarlane seems to be critical of people who have a vital
point but who express it in a fashion which alienates people.
The fact is, even if the cyclists were polite about the way
they express themselves, bicycles would still be the enemy
of car culture. Cyclists will incite public anger regardless
of how they make their point.
Simply put, those in Critical Mass are opposed to cars, and
this creates a conflict between motorists and cyclists.
This conflict is unfortunately reflected in the manner in
which the police have been dealing with Critical Mass. It
seems that those who were arrested during the May 26 Critical
Mass ride were released after agreeing to certain conditions
— some of which stated they are not allowed to ride
a bicycle downtown and that they are not allowed to associate
in any way with Critical Mass.
Talk about signing away human rights.
While some people respected their release conditions and walked
with the group in solidarity, some ignored their release conditions
and rode in the July Critical Mass rides and were consequently
re-arrested for violating release conditions. As the officers
themselves admitted, every one of the riders had been videotaped
so as to be identified.
Another example of MacFarlane’s shortsightedness came
when he suggested that booing Public Works Minister Michel
Fortier at Montreal’s OutGames was self-indulgent.
This is beyond my comprehension. What gays are obviously concerned
about is that the Conservative government is going to once
again open up the issue of gay marriage. While MacFarlane
feels people have a right to speak their minds about what
they believe in, the suggestion that they are not entitled
to castigate those who disagree is absurd.
Try telling that to a Lebanese-Canadian whose family home
has been destroyed or who has lost a family member in Lebanon,
or try telling that to an Jewish-Canadian who has lost a family
member to Hezbollah missiles.
Do you think those two sides are respectful when protesting
each other?
MacFarlane’s suggestion that most Canadians are moderate
and tolerant and can recognize the validity of a well-made
argument misses the point altogether. Those moderate and tolerant
Canadians don’t have a political position on any issue,
don’t feel strongly enough about anything and don’t
participate in any form of public demonstration.
Those who do protest are making a point and see themselves
as being both part of the problem and the solution.
Nick Ternette is a community and political activist, freelance
writer and broadcaster. |
Uptown
Magazine - Winnipeg's Online Source for Arts, Entertainment & News
