This shit seems to be the general sentiment among Canadian honkies, at least if you watch the mainstream news. Tamils have the "right" to protest--we'll give them that because we are oh-so-generous and believe in abstract rights that cease to exist as soon as they inconvenience us--but said protests must conform to the tame and ineffectual standards of the impotent Canadian left.
Let's be honest here. White people in Canada, including the government, did not give a flying fuck about the plight of the Tamils until Tamil-Canadians escalated their protests. White people in Canada
still don't give a flying fuck about the plight of Tamils, so this concern troll talk about alienating Canadians and losing support is bollocks. They never had that support, or any hope of gaining it, no matter how saintly and impeccable their behaviour.
Some points need to be made, though they ought to be self-evident at this point. First off, the protesters are as Canadian as the descendants of pillagers and murderers who are currently whining about being held up in traffic, the poor babies. Secondly, the less dramatic demonstrations were met with utter indifference. I know, I was at them.
What it comes down to is that white people hold brown people to a different ethical standard than they hold themselves to. The death toll in Sri Lanka now stands at around 8,500 over the past few months, and Tamil-Canadians have responded with peaceful protests. When a few thousand or so Americans and a handful of Canadians died on Sept. 11, 2001, the response was anything but non-violent. It was a brutal, bloody rampage against the people of Afghanistan and Iraq (who, like the Canadian commuters, had nothing to do with the murders). We demand not only pacifism from our fellow human beings in the face of their suffering--though we, the pasty-faced we, are anything but non-violent ourselves--but worse, we demand utter passivity.
Royson James is frequently wrong, but he gets it dead-on with
this column. He seems to be a minority voice though, and it's increasingly frustrating to see the anguish of the Tamil community up close, every day, while reading largely unsympathetic coverage in the news.
Among the worst thing I've heard is the accusation that the LTTE (and from some fetid corners of Toronto, the Canadian protesters) are using "human shields." If it's okay with everyone, can we consign that term to the dustbin of doublespeak along with "homicide bomber," "freedom fries," and "collateral damage"? I've only ever heard it used by war criminals or those defending war criminals. What is a human shield but an innocent civilian who has gotten in the way of your bomb or bullet? These pundits and commenters, safe and secure in Canada, seem to envision some sort of gallant, quaint form of warfare, where two equally matched sides clash swords on a battlefield removed from the general population. War ain't like that, not anymore if it ever was. It's ghastly and asymmetrical. One side drops bombs on houses from the safety of airplanes and proclaims itself to be the good guys no matter how indiscriminately it targets its victims. The other strikes ruthlessly from the ruins of these bombed villages and cities. Yes, the targets and the victims live in the same places--why should anyone expect otherwise? In what bizarro-universe do these guys live?
Freedom of expression, freedom of protest--as immaterial and abstract as these supposed rights are, we in the West profess a belief in them. These rights, and every privilege that we enjoy, were not won by being polite and letting the flow of traffic supersede basic human dignity. They were gained through ugly battles that are seldom taught in history books. Some people in this country remember this, or understand it intuitively. Some people, I suppose, would gladly give it up so that the metaphorical trains will run on time.
Shorter
sabotabby: Fellow Hogtowners, grow the fuck up.