Talk:Criticisms of globalization

Merger

I merged anti-globalization movement. Thoughts? Sam [Spade] 03:32, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Bricker Amendment

At the suggestion of User:Dandrake I wanted to make a note here--just a sentence or two-- about the Bricker Amendment as the anti-globalization movement has same concern over international organizations that prompted Bricker's proposal. But where in this would be a good place for it? PedanticallySpeaking 21:56, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

Paragraph

This paragraph was removed, it needs some NPOVing:

Some, by analysing those claims and rationalizations, and what the word anti-globalization suggest, see in it a cover for the emergence of new forms of political nationalisms and economic protectionism, and for the idea that economic development and scientific and technological progress would be contrary to the true human goals.

In particular weasel term "some" needs to be clarified, who is "some"? Also, just because the term "anti-globalization" is applied to members of this movement, does not mean that those members are pro-protectionism or opposed to "economic development and scientific and technological progress". As noted elsewhere in the article, the majority of people in the "anti-globalization" movement dislike the term and disagree with what that term implies and in fact are not explicitly against globalization per se (of course there are some that are). The title is inherently non-neutral, but for better or worse the term has stuck, and so according to our naming conventions we title the article accordingly, which means we must be extra vigilant to not let the "word anti-globalization suggest" anything. --Lexor|Talk 16:20, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

anti war = anti glob

In 2003, the movement showed wide and deep global opposition to the war in Iraq. Following the most spectacular show of numbers on the weekend of February 15, when about 10 million or more anti-globalization protesters participated in global protests against war on Iraq, the New York Times dubbed the movement as the "world's second superpower".

---> I don't htink there is any relation between the Anti-gloablisation movement and the rejection of the USled war in Iraq. Needs NPOV-review. Those 10 mio people were not an anti-globalisation movement.

Furthermore there are other non western groups which also reject globalisation such as muslim extremists, this has to be mentioned as well.

don't think there is any relation between the Anti-gloablisation movement and the rejection of the USled war in Iraq.

No? Saw what I wrote on the page European Social Forum! Perhaps a NPOV version should say: antiglob. constituted an important part of the broader pacifist movement... It's sometime difficult to say if a political mobilitation is made by antiglobalists or not, since none of the organizations which forms the antiglobalization movement (except perhaps ATTAC) was founded with the explicite aim to fight globalization. The article is perhaps a little bit "US-centric", since in Europe the connection between antiglobalists and pacifists was very tight and evident. juliet.p

World and European Social Forum

I'm sorry for my bad English (I'm Italian actually). This voice seems to me rather incomplete. It doesn't speek about Social forums, which have been the most important meetings of the so-called antiglobalization mov. Furthermore, for me there is no doubt (at least for what concerns Italy and Europe) about the connection between antiglob and pacifist mov. At the first European Social Forum (FSE) in Florence there were just two conditions for the acceptation of an organization: 1 to be against the war 2 to be against neoliberalism. The most important Italian pacifist association (Emergency) was one of the partecipant of the forum and its president one of the most popular speecher. Juliet.p

If you feel a change is needed, feel free to make it yourself! Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone — including you — can edit any article by clicking the edit this page tab at the top of the page. You don't even need to log in, although there are several reasons why you might want to. Wikipedia convention is to be bold and not be afraid of making mistakes. If you're not sure how editing works, have a look at How to edit a page, or try out the Sandbox to test your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. &#0xfeff; --fvw * 10:13, 2004 Dec 23 (UTC)

OK, I put another paragraph and changed the errors in the paragraph about Genoa (thank to God just a demonstrator was killed, not three!). Hope my English is not too bad! juliet.p

The article, it is a changin'

I hope everyone likes my new addition to the article. I also forsee many more changes to the article so it more accurately reflects a quality NPOV Wiki article and not an advertisemtn for Indemedia. Ciao. TDC 07:44, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)

Antisemitism and antiglobalization: a dishonest charge

I'm sorry but your addition doesn't seem to me NPOV at all. Protest by anti globalization organization have been filled with comparisons of Israel and Nazi Germany, glorification of Palestinian terror tactics, and other openly anti Semitic imagery. During a by anti globalization protest in Milan Italy, an counter demonstrator carrying an Israeli flag was severely beaten by several of the marchers.. I'm from Italy, I symapathize for the movement (I wrote the paragraph about Social Forums), I've been to a lot of demonstration and I've never seen anything of this. I saw instead Jewish oraganizations ("ebrei contro l'occupazione") at our demonstrations, I've been at meetings, organized by the antiglob mov. with Israelian pacifists and I read interwiews with Israelian pacifists on the mov. magazines. Maybe a very very little portion of the people at the demonstration has cried stupid slogans, not because they are antisemitic, but because some extremists hate the US and see Israel as an instrument of the US. The opposers can have used these very little episodes to charge the movement with antisemitism. But I have to remind you that everybody who opposes Israel, Jews and Israelian included, has been accused of antisemitism. The position of the movement toward Israel is not very different by that of the United Nation's Assembly or the International Court of Justice, which has recently condemned the "wall", and by the position of Israelians who oppose the occupation. In Italy there has been a strong antiglob. movement, but no episode of antisemitism, except for those carried by the neofascist right, that has of course nothing to do with the movement. In France antisemitic assaults had been carried by Northafrican and Arab young immigrates, often apolitics and with no connection with the antiglob. movement.

Anyway, I remember that the problem of antisemitism has been discussed by Naomi Klein in an article appeared after the exploit of Jean-Marie Le Pen in France a few years ago. In the article she told that the movement (her included) had underestimate this question, giving for grant that antisemitism was so unpopular and confined to little groups of fascist extremists that didn't worth to protest against it. She told that the movement should do some addictional efforts to achieve the trust of Jews, whose fear of antisemitism was exploited by Israelian right. I don't now if this article is still reperible.

I think that is not NPOV to dedicate a whole paragraph to this charge. Perhaps it could be mentioned in the paragraph "critics", together with the charge of anti-americanism , which is a little bit more grounded, since many people in the movement see globalization as something sostantially ruled by the US and in the interest of the US.

If you want to discuss this questions with me you can write to me at my page of discussion on the Italian version of wikipedia. I don't understand why in on the Italian version somebody has accused me of anticommunism while here I feel a little bit the dirty communist of the situation! juliet.p

Wow! I found Naomi Klein's article almost immediatly. It was first published on The Globe and Mail the 24 of april 2002. The english version is available on no logo.org. The Italian version (maybe nobody is intested at it, but I am!) is on internazionale's web page!Here's the web page of jews against the occupation

I reorganized a little bit the article and I put some parts that seemed to me to speak about the same things together erasing repetitions. I put some addictional sentencesin the introduction and changed the paragraphs about "antiempire" and "antisemitism" in a way that seem to me NPOV now. I didn't make changes at nothing else. I don't know if I can't remove the NPOV advice at the begininning of the page! Ciao!

I restored my version. I'm sorry for having done this, but TDC had restored his version not taking in any consideration the addictional information I furnished and my objections to his modifications. I think that my version is more neutral anyway. I have to stress that I didn't censore his photo, nor his quotation of José Bové. I would please TDC to discuss on this page his objections, rather then to put back the article on a version that seem to me to report only the point of view of fanatic critics of the movement. I hope somebody shares my view and is going to back me! Juliet.p

I think that you removed way too much material from the article. The section on anti-Semitism in the anti-globalization movement is almost notable enough to have an article all to itself, let alone a subsection in this particular article. I have no problem with you editing my additions, or posting a reply (so long as it is done in moderation) but I must object to the deletion and reincorporation in the general criticism subsections. I also have to stress that it is not your prerogative to censor anything, much less a photo or a quote. TDC 20:24, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

And you removed everything I had written! I didn't censore anything! I hope that somebody would prevent you to go on like this! (anyway, your behaviour doesn't wonder me very much, considering that you believe in the struggle of good against evil...

Heavan forbid I should beleive in something as silly as that! Viva la Capitalisme ! TDC 17:24, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

Vive le Capitalisme if you wanted to write in French, or Viva il Capitalismo in Italian...

senatnce needing verification

During a by anti globalization protest in Milan, Italy, an counter-demonstrator carrying an Israeli flag was severely beaten by several of the marchers.

Please provide a cite for the above, since it is disputed. Sam_Spade (talk · contribs) 13:22, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I made some little changes (for examples, I replaced the "glorification of Palestinians terror tattics" - that I've never heard - with "Palestinian reistence", explaining that the expression is ambiguous), and I added two paragraphs about what people in the movement think of these charges! I would like to stress that real antisemitists as Le Pen or (obviously) Hitler have never denied to be antisemitic. The paragraph seems to me now quite balanced, but I don't know what other people can think--Juliet.p 16:58, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The anti-Semitism section should be deleted...

The entire article purporting to link the so-called "anti-globalization movement" with anti-Semitism is a ridiculous joke. The slander and conscious distortions belong in a different section. What's proposed is guilt by association: sure, there are anti-Semites in the movement for global justice, just as there are anti-Semites in every movement. Many of the people involved in the pro-life/anti-abortion movement, for example, consistently compare abortion to the Shoah. Such a comparison is a sick insult to the Jewish victims of the Holocaust; nevertheless, arguments against legalized abortion have nothing to do with anti-Semitism, most of the people involved in the anti-abortion movement do not make those statements, and so the charge that the anti-abortion movement is anti-Semtiic is absurd on its face.

The author of this piece is guilty of defamation, plain and simple. The section constitutes a grotesque attempt to link critics of unregulated global capitalism to images of the Nazi extermination camps. The author's conduct is absolutely reprehensible: it cannot be justified in any imaginable way.

There's plenty of debates on this issue (see above). The first version of the paragraph was far worse... I agree with you, but since there are people who accuse the movement perhaps we should keep the paragraph. The stupidity of this charge and its clearly defamatory intention qualify themselves these people. TDC could at least cite some of his sources (if they are so many) or say who are all this people that accuse the movement of antisemitism... juliet.p

Of course it can be justified. There are more than enough sources for this allegation to make it noteworthy. This and this alone is the primary reason I included it. If you don’t like it, tough. TDC 14:04, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

That seems a little arbitrary and ridiculous. If you are going to include a whole section on a fairly serious and damaging allegation, then you are resonsible for providing proof of said allegations, or modifying said area to include the fact it is only and alleagtion. You do not have the authority to just say "tough" because you believe it. If you continue to mainain that position, you are responsible to include citations. Any links, citations, or quotes form any Neutral source would be more than adequate. -Luke A.F.

Wikipedia encourages us to be bold. So for once, I will be. If there's anyone other than TDC who thinks that the section should be there, speak up. Otherwise, wikipedia isn't your own personal pulpet, when you have a serious version of it, with proof, then you can bring it here, we'll discuss it, and see if we should put it in. Till then, I don't see why we should keep it there.--Che y Marijuana 11:59, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Not to throw a wet blanket on your boldness but you are out of line with the deletion my little red one. Now onto the meat of this bitch fest.

How do you all want this sourced, and why cant you take it at face value? If you google anti-semitism and anti-globalism you will recieve about 80,000 hits for it, so clearly people other than myself are taking about the relationship between the two, even Michael Kozak, Acting US Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy and Human Rights [1]. The arguement I have added are all general ones, and If you want me to me more specific about who to attribute them to, I can be. TDC 16:56, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Riiiiight. If you want to cite the declarations of US government officials, please cite them, but attribute the citation. Obviously, the Bush administration has an objective interest in drawing links between the "anti-globalization movement" and alleged antisemitism. David.Monniaux 19:14, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

hows about the thousands of citations from Google? [2], or even Wikis own article on Modern_anti-Semitism Do you people really live in such a bubble that criticisms like this never make it to you?

Or a short list might suffice (dont worry, I wont be like Adbusters adding a star by the names of the Jewish ones)

Mark Strauss, Senior Editor, Foreign Policy Magazine [3]

Christopher Caldwell, Senior Editor, The Weekly Standard

Natan Sharansky, Soviet dissident, Israeli politician and an author

Daniel Pipes, author and historian

TDC 04:08, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

Please read WP:NPOV and Wikipedia:cite your sources. This is not a question of "living in a bubble", but of attributing opinions to those who utter them. If you are to cite US government officials, then please do so, but please attribute the citation. Ditto for the four people that you cited. Phrases like "critics say..." are weasel words; their use is discouraged.

One problem with the José Bové quote is that there does not seem to be an original quotation to be found. This may allow considerable distortion of what he said. David.Monniaux 08:33, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The quote is from an interivew Bove gave on Canal Plus. What he said:

after a pro forma denunciation of anti-Jewish violence, informing viewers of the TV channel Canal Plus that the attacks on French synagogues were being either arranged or fabricated by Mossad. "Who profits from the crime?" Bove asked. "The Israeli government and its secret services have an interest in creating a certain psychosis, in making believe that there is a climate of anti-Semitism in France, in order to distract attention from what they are doing. [4] TDC 05:59, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

Truncated quote. For all we know, he could as well just be saying that Israel had an interest in blowing incidents out of proportion, and had engineered publicity with this goal. I'd appreciate if one could get hold of a full quote. I'll look on Canal Plus. David.Monniaux 08:49, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In Italy only some right-wing Jews have accused the movement of antisemitism because they identify opposition to Israel with antisemitism. I'll see if I can find this "famous" interview with Bové. From the citation it doesn't seem to me that he directly accuses the Mossad of having fabricated antisemitic attacks. He just says that the opponents of Israeel have no interest in making antisemitic attacks. I don't understand why the google results should be a so definitive proof. --Juliet.p 12:12, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC) P.S. Thank you, David.Monniaux for having correct my language errors!

...and actually here you are some quotation of Bové on antisemitism. It seems to confirm my view, that Bové has actually said only that antisemitic attacks damage the Palestinian cause:

Pour en revenir à l’impact de votre action en France, comment réagissez vous lorsque des représentants de la communauté juive de France ou des intellectuels issus de cette même communauté fustigent votre discours et vous accusent même d’attiser les « ressentiments » voire « l’antisémitisme » parmi la communauté musulmane de France ? Souhaitez vous leur opposer un démenti par voie de presse, par exemple ?

J.B :Bien sûr, si on me donne l’occasion de contredire publiquement ces accusations infondées, je le ferais volontiers. Je ne suis malheureusement pas surpris de ces prises de position que je réprouve bien sûr. Car ces mêmes représentants de la communauté juive de France se gardent bien de dire que j’ai condamné toutes les agressions commises contre tout lieu de culte que ce soit et considéré à cet égard que l’attaque de synagogues ne peut en aucun cas servir la cause palestinienne. C’est justement leur attitude qui est déplorable, elle déforme volontairement nos propos et le sens de notre action. Ce genre de comportement malhonnête sert justement le communautarisme. Nous sommes dans une optique complètement inverse. Le combat que nous menons est celui de tous les gens épris de paix et de justice quelle que soit leur communauté d’appartenance.

Pour vous donner un exemple, à Rodez dans l’Aveyron, des Chrétiens se mobilisent pour dénoncer les massacres commis contre la population palestinienne, ils jeûnent dans la cathédrale pour dénoncer cette injustice. La communauté musulmane est venue aussi en nombre pour leur exprimer son soutien. C’est ainsi que les communautés s’associent pour dénoncer le pire. Les représentants de la communauté juive qui contrefont le sens de notre engagement vont à l’encontre de ce message de paix. Mais ce n’est guère étonnant car leur discours camoufle en réalité un soutien déguisé à Sharon, une solidarité qui, eu égard aux crimes de ce gouvernement, me paraît insupportable.

If there is supposed to be something anti-Semitic in this call for peace and unity, I would call the accuser's sanity into doubt. Chamaeleon 15:00, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, its nice to read that Bove has a snuggle bunny side to him, but this is not the same interview Caldwell sited in his piece. An interview which my local library will be able to get for me in about a week or so, so we can include the entire statement. But why does it surprise you so that Bove would say something like this, or does it surprise you at all?

Or a better question, why the obsession with Israel? We live in a world full of wars, civil wars, dictatorships, oppression of indigenous peoples and occupations. Why so much emphasis on Israel?

After reading your latest revision, I wanted to add a few more names to our list, and once again no stars by the Jewish ones like they do in Adbusters.

Robert Kagan, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

Oriana Fallaci

Anti-Defamation League

Victor David Hanson

Even Salon.com did a rather sympathetic piece on it

TDC 16:19, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

Look, I don't want to quote policy at you, but just stop the childish ad hominem, simply because it is getting tiring. I don't know much about Bové, and don't care. I was just saying that if that quotation was supposed to support your view, then it didn't. If you have any more Bové quotations, post them here and I will read them. If they are anti-Semitic, I shall say so, and if they are not, I will also point that out. Chamaeleon 17:05, 14 Feb 2005 (UTc)

And why your obsession against the antiglob movement and antisemitism? Well, you cited Oriana Fallaci has an authoritative voice. Can I add here, for non-Italian reader, that Miss Fallaci is viewed by many Italian as a fanatic and a racist, and that in France antiracist organizations had even thought to bring her in court for instigation to racial hate? I wrote something about Fallaci's view on antiglob on the page European Social Forum. She predicted catastrophs for the ESF in Florence and, of course, absolutely nothing but pacific demonstrations happened. Well, right now there are four people that think that the antisemit section should be deleted, against a single person that wants to keep it!--Juliet.p 19:33, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Guess what sweet cheeks, Wikipedia is not a democracy. If I have fulfilled the requirements for an addition to an article, guess what, it stays. Thankfully Sam Spade has added his 2 cents and it is now 2 against 4. I could seriously give a flying funk what a bunch of whiney bitches think about Mrs Fallaci. She has a point, and a valid one at that, and some people are so disinterested in hearing it that they want to shut her up by any means possible (sounds like what is going on in this article). I wonder if she will end up like Theo Van Gogh or Pyn Fortyn? Seems like Europe has a problem keeping dissident voices alive. TDC 03:34, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

No, sourcing is not enough. Otherwise, you could add Nazi opinions to every article. Chamaeleon 04:40, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Who are the "whiney bitches"? Are you alluding to other editors? And what are we supposed to understand from this generalization to "Europe" of two murders committed in the Netherlands? David.Monniaux 08:15, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I furthermore think that you have misunderstood Wikipedia's policies. Having one's edits or references kept in Wikipedia is not some kind of right that is guaranteed once one has fulfilled the "requirements for an addition to an article"... because these requirements are largely community-based.

Apart from this, I don't see myself anything wrong with keeping Oriana Fallaci's quote, provided that it is properly attributed, with a link to the author's page on Wikipedia. David.Monniaux 08:25, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Actually I asked for the intervention of Sam Spade as a moderator, and he forced you to leave behind your charge about an alleged antisemitic attack in Italy. I don't understand how you can cite him as your supporter! About Miss Fallaci, she's got all the interest to represent herself as persecuted (or maybe she suffers of persecution mania) but the thruth is that the Italian government adore her and she's no dissident at all! About you calling me and the others bitch, no comment...--Juliet.p 14:44, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Attn: whiney bitches w sweet cheeks

Please review Wikipedia:Civility / Wikipedia:Wikiquette. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 08:47, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Why we must have clear attributions on this issue

This is a heated topic, where there are two marked camps, each of which has a clear interest in presenting its own vision of the issue:

the camp of the current US and Israeli administrations has an advantage in painting everybody contesting US and Israeli policies in Palestine as antisemites; (note: I did not say that they created anti-semitic incidents just to be able to paint their opponent in a bad light; but they do have a clear interest in focusing on such behavior and publicizing it)
the camp of the anti-globalization movement has a clear interest in minimizing the publicity of the involvement of possibly antisemitic groups in its midst.

I remember a controversy when Tariq Ramadan, an Islamist, had been invited to an anti-globalization meeting. The anti-globalization movement seemed fairly split on the issue, with many wondering why people of the like of Ramadan should be invited.

So, do not use weasel words. Quote the names of the people precisely, give links to their page, so that people can appreciate from which position they speak.

Thank you. David.Monniaux 09:00, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree strongly with David.Monniaux, and would point out that the reason why people read encyclopedia articles is to learn about just these sorts of phenomena. It is very confusing for many to discover that the Christian right overwhelmingly tends to support Zionism, whilst many on the left who oppose the Iraq war and globalism do not. This has created odd bedfellows all over the place, regardless of the desires of those involved. The accusation of anti-semitism against anti-war and anti-globalist protestors (the two of which having a great deal in common, BTW) is quite well known and noteworthy, I not too long ago saw an hour long news program discussing views and concerns on the subject. If it is fair or true or whatever is not really our job to determin, we are here to give a NPOV depiction of the citable views on the subject. What we are not here to do is bicker amongst ourselves and violate Wikipedia:Policy. Please keep calm, and focus on our goal: providing our reader with a high quality, neutral information source. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 09:19, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. BTW, Sweet cheeks was an insult, and I should apologize for it. As far as the Whiney Bitches comment goes, I was referring to continental critics of Fallaci, not any of the users here. TDC 17:15, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, that says alot in my book. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 21:05, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If someone said "the Christian right overwhelmingly tends to support Nazism, whilst many on the left who oppose the Iraq war and globalism do not", we wouldn't find that "very confusing". So, if one finds this confusing, one has not understood the situation.

Anyway, let's have the absurd anti-Semitism section, but make sure it doesn't mislead people. Chamaeleon 21:25, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I still don't see why, it's quite clear the intentions of the parties involved here. Referring to the movement as "anti-globalist" is an attempt to immediately connect them with third positionism, who are Neo-Nazis basically. Yes, they oppose corporate globalization, but are not a part of the alternative globalization movement for obvious reasons. I don't see any reason why we should put this crap here, it would be like going to the Republican party article and saying "many people in the republican party are white. Hitler was white too." Or "the republican party supports modern American Nationalism. As do all the White Power movements there." It makes no sense, and I see no reason to indulge this pair of protest warriors.--Che y Marijuana 22:16, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Wow, thats nutty as hell. I doubt I even know what your talking about. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 23:47, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid these people have Wikipedia by the balls, so we'll probably have to allow a certain amount of their bullshit. However, if a majority here want to keep this section out, then I'll support that. Chamaeleon 23:32, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Majoritarianism is wrong. Polls are evil, Don't vote on everything, and in conclusion, Voting Is Evil. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 23:47, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't want that section, and especially not the part of it that clearly states that there's no empirical evidence. Why cite something that has been refuted?--Che y Marijuana 08:44, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

Here's the argument for it: certain people will claim that we are not being neutral if we don't include the section (it is not enough to prove categorically that the allegations are lies). Now, if we are to include it, then what better way to prove our point than to let the liars choose and quote their advocates (Bergmann), and then for us to go in and destroy their argument by pointing out the obvious flaws? I agree that there should be no such section (it is nothing but a slur; we may as well say that the movement has been infiltrated by witches and they all need to be burnt at the stake); however, if its is to stay, then we should probably keep the bit about Bergmann, because it makes the liars look so stupid. Chamaeleon 13:08, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thats not very nice, but thank you for announcing your intentions. If you disagree w a given allegation or not, it goes in the article if it can be verified. End of story. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 16:47, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No, not end of story. Not every bit of crap said about an issue necessarily goes into the article on it. This is called editing. We are all editors here, and what happens is that we discuss things and decide what goes in the article. There is an argument for including certain transparent lies, and an argument against. I am open to discussion on the matter. Chamaeleon 18:27, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No Chamaeleon, what you are attempting to do is cram your version of this article down my throat because you feel entitled to do so. After all, nearly all the contributions to this article have been made form sympathetic editors, and so far on the talk page you outnumber me greatly. This addition, unpopular as it may be from the choir, still meets the basic qualifications for an encyclopedic wiki article. I understand how you see this a all a pack of neo-con cabbalist lies, but seriously, are all the individuals I cited a part of this conspiracy to piss on the "good name" and solid reputation of the anti globalization movement? Certainly a man of your intellectual wit must have a better argument (naturally one that can be sourced if it is to be include it in the article) than "its all lies and smears". TDC 20:34, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

The idea that these are "lies" is clearly my conclusion, not my argument. If you want an argument, I'd point to the lack of sincerity in the allegations. For example, you added the Bergmann quotation along with the name of the EUMC to lend credibility. You neglected to mention that the very organisation that commissioned the report couldn't use it because it was nonsense. In your heart of hearts, you must know that these are lies, but you will do anything to try to discredit progressive movements. If you could find a source that said the movement were all fat, or Martians, or whatever, you would put it in as part of the hate campaign that I have seen you wage in articles such as Noam Chomsky. I didn't let you smear Chomsky as anti-Semitic, lesbian, or anything else of equal plausibility, and you won't do it here either. That said, silly allegations can be made, just as long as they are made to look silly, and do not occupy an unreasonable amount of space in the article. Chamaeleon 21:20, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wow, I always thought you were good, but now it seems that have some form of clairvoyant ability to see the farce that is my sincerity and motivations! As you can see below in my response to DM, that the issue with the EUCM report is a tad more complicated than your assertion that the report was not released because it was craptacular. As far as my source being from mars, how Chomskyesque a reply from you. Kudos I say! I will repeat my earlier statement that the sources I have put forth in both this article and the Chimpsky are serious arguments from legitimate sources. Non legitimate sources usually have no place on Wiki, and I tend to stay away from them. As far as your belief that you courageously stood alone in my assault on the Chomsky article is pure masturbatory bullshit. Above your objections, working with other serious users, and meticulously sourcing my material I was able to add all kinds of nuggets and sections into what was otherwise a leftist fluff piece. Don’t believe me? Compare the versions from when before I stared editing the article most recently and now. Face it, you lost and worse yet you cant hang with TDC. Its not necessarily a bad thing, it has happened to men whose intellect and physical prowess far exceed yours and will, good Lord obligingly, happen again.

TDC, if you are to reinstate this quotation, you must definitely also reinstate the explanation by EUMC that they couldn't publish the report because it contained no hard facts. David.Monniaux 21:33, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The EUMC said a lot of thing about why they did not release the report, which although I have not pointed out in the article simply provided ammunition, justifiably so or not, for critics of its position. Aside from the issue of "poor quality and [lack of] empirical evidence" cited as one of the “official” reasons, the report's authors responded by saying their findings had been shelved because criticism of Muslims, not even mentioning elements of the left singled out in the report, did not fit in with the EUMC’s agenda. Bergmann also says the EUMC “repeatedly asked for the draft report to be changed to soften its conclusions about young Muslims. Alterations were also sought when it linked anti-Semitism to both anti-Zionism and criticism of Israeli politics”. The Authors stand behind their work and say proposed changes to it are based more on political niceties rather than any real or perceived quality issues with the report. [5].

So there are many facets to this story. I believe as do many, that the people at the EUMC, like all good EU bureaucrats, want to be seen as doing something productive with their budgets without having to produce anything which might offend certain groups. TDC 21:53, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

In other words, the report has racist overtones against Arabs, so the EUMC shelved it. Look, you can't attempt to use the EUMC to prove your lies when the EUMC doesn't support them. Another thing: the paragraph about Bové mentioning "psychosis" doesn't identify the "critics", or say what the criticism is actually supposed to be. I shall delete the paragraph unless at least one of those two points is remedied. Chamaeleon 22:17, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No in other words the EUMC shelved it because they claim (very subtle now) the report has alleged racist overtones against Arabs.

It goes like this. EUMC report claim anti Semitism in report, EUMC claims report is no good, authors of said report claim report was shelved because EUMC is bowing to PC pressures.

I can just hear that squirrel cage a churnin. TDC 22:34, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

Whatever. Basically, your source has been discredited. If you find others of more repute, I will simply counter them by adding quotations from people like Jewish Voice for Peace. Then, like superpowers negotiating an arms race, we will see that the section is ridiculously long, and chop it down to size again. The result will be the same as if you had just accepted a short summary of accusations and refutations in the first place. Chamaeleon 00:57, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I am no friend of the anti-globalization movement but think that this critique is both disproportionate in length and inappropriate. The presented evidence that the movement is ant-semitic is very weak. I see it primarily as anti-capitalistic and mostly a new name for socialism. As such, their critique is certainly disproportionate against capitalist states like Israel or the US in Iraq. Very little is said about for example China in Tibet, Syria in Lebanon, Sudan in Darfor, India in Kashmir, Turkey and Iran in Kurdistan or Morocco in south-west Sahara. In general, relatively little critique of the directorships, genocide, persecutions and lacks of rights in states not capitalistic. The movement should not be criticized for antisemitism but for almost exclusively focusing on possible crimes by the most capitalistic states while mostly ignoring the usually much larger atrocities committed by other states. Ultramarine 00:36, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, it is an anti-capitalist movement, so you have to expect it to concentrate on criticising capitalist states. I mean, you don't hear the movement complaining about animal rights or how nobody opens doors for people any more, but that is not a deficiency in the movement. The very same people "wearing different hats" are quite likely to complain about those very issues. Indeed, I have been to a demonstration protesting the Moroccan occupation of Western Sahara, and the people were just the sort that you might see at an "anti-globalisation" demo on another occasion. Chamaeleon 00:57, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Another factor is that, supposedly, France, Israel, the US etc... are democratic countries with a rule of law. As such, they are supposed to uphold the values that they display. Not doing so is seen as hypocrisy. Furthermore, as they are democratic countries, one can suppose that enough civil dissent may result in their changing the course of their actions.

In comparison, China, Syria etc. are dictatorships that pay little to no attention to the opinion of their own people (within certain limits), let alone the popular opinion in other countries. Whatever number of demonstrations you do against it in Paris, New-York etc., the Chinese government will not alter its policies.

I note, however, that there are often protests directed not so much against the governments in those countries (well, the protests are directed against them, but these governments don't care), but against the governments of the democratic capitalistic countries that have trade etc. links with them. I remember for instance some outrage in France following from the state visit of the Chinese leader (and it went far beyond the anti-globalization movement – some conservatives were outraged at the good reception France did to the leader of a dictatorship).

In short: it does not make sense to march in a protest against Iran. It would make sense to march in a protest against our governments seeking deals with Iran without paying attention to the human right situation there. David.Monniaux 10:58, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you. And I don't see as China could be seen as a non-capitalistic country. China is capitalistic. And the other nations named are capitalist too. When Italian president Carlo Azeglio Ciampi went to China and told that Italy would be favourable to abolish arms embargo against China, far as I know the only Party that has protested in Italy has been Communist Refoundation. In India, which is a democracy, the antiglob movement is very strong and there are always initiative. About Turkey in Kurdistan only antiglobalists have tried to drive some attention, while the US have always seen Turkey has one of their best alleys. So the charge doesn't resist at the analysis of the facts.--Juliet.p 11:13, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I extremely resent the notion that the most capitalistic democracies should be judged by a higher double standard. The dictatorships usually promise to respect humans rights and rule of law in their constitution and cannot somehow claim to have an excuse for doing human rights crimes by not being hypocritical.

Well, you can disagree with David Monniaux on that particular point, but it is not the main one. Chamaeleon 13:42, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I did not say that there are no protests against the less capitalist states. But it is extremely disproportionate against the US and Israel. You point out that a dictatorship may not be impressed by a protest but also that they may be affected by sanctions and boycotts. So why is not the movement demanding sanctions and other actions from their own governments against the countries doing most of the human rights crimes in the world? And why is the movement not organizing boycotts on their own against the imports from these countries? Why so much effort on the US and Israel so little on the worst offenders against human rights?

Why do you think that nobody protests against or boycotts any other countries? Note also that you have now slipped in "the US" after I pointed out that it gets more flak than Israel. Before, you were claiming that Israel was the big victim. The fact is that a range of countries in the world have governments that do bad stuff, and a range of people protest against them. If you feel that there is a particular régime getting off lightly, then organise a group in your local area to step up the protest. Unless of course, and I hope that this is not the case, you are not sincere about fighting oppression in those countries, but instead wish to cynically use them in a straw-man argument to attack the global justice movement. That would make you a hypocrite and invalidate your line of argument. Chamaeleon 13:42, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, Amnesty has shown that even dictatorships care about public opinion even without economic threats.

Here are the worst human rights offenders: Burma, China, Cuba, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Laos, Libya, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Vietnam. [6]

Those are the worst in your opinion. Others would disagree. Note how those are official enemies of the world superpower. Régimes that the US government has actively supported, such as Indonesia and Israel, are conspicuous by their absence from that particular list. Chamaeleon 13:42, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Have you read my next paragraph?

I note, however, that there are often protests directed not so much against the governments in those countries (well, the protests are directed against them, but these governments don't care), but against the governments of the democratic capitalistic countries that have trade etc. links with them. I remember for instance some outrage in France following from the state visit of the Chinese leader

I often see criticism in the French press about relationships with China, including from the alterglobalization movement.

As for North Korea, they don't care what we think, and many Western countries don't even have formal diplomatic relationships with them, and certainly no economic relationships.

What you are right upon, however, in my humble opinion, is the complacency with which many in the European left consider Cuba. My impression is that Cuba's resisting US "regime change" counts a lot in this. (Though I see many people criticizing Cuba for being a dictatorship.) David.Monniaux 13:23, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ah yes, I hate it when certain people on the Left are uncritical of Cuba. I suppose it is the inevitable consequence of Cuba being the underdog. Chamaeleon 13:46, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Chamaeleon, you mistake me for TDC. I mentioned the US in my first post. Regarding the worst countries, it is not my opinion but that of Freedom House. See the link.

I saw the link, your source. It is still your opinion, and not objective fact. Chamaeleon 16:05, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Again, you miss my main point. The critique is disproportionate against Israel and the US. Boycotts and sanctions would have an effect on many of the dictatorships. But most boycotts are against Israeli goods or even academic exchange.

So it's not good enough that we protest against the guys on your list, but we have to protest even more to satisfy you. Or would you really just prefer there not to be criticism of Zionism? You miss my point on sincerity and hypocrisy. How much activism have you personally undertaken against Sudan, for example? Unless you are active, you cannot attack people who at least do something against some régime. Chamaeleon 16:05, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, Amnesty shows that the most dictatorships care about public opinion.

Show me the text where Amnesty says that dictatorships care about (marginal) public opinion in far-off countries that are their official enemies. Chamaeleon 16:05, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Now this could be acceptable if the movement openly explained that they are anti-capitalist and mostly interested in protesting against capitalist states and the capitalist system. But to claim that it is protesting for "global justice" in general is misleading as long as the main focus is the comparatively minor human rights crimes by Israel and the US in Iraq.

The movement has no unified name. Sometimes it is "global justice", sometimes "anti-globalisation", sometimes explicitly "anarchist". It is very diverse. As for the idea that the movement is not for global justice because it focuses on Israel and the US, I fear you are constructing a straw man. The focus of the movement is not countries (the point is that nations are being made irrelevant) but corporations. Read No Logo. It's not about Israel; it's about Nike, McDonalds, factories in China and Mexico, advertising strategies, etc. And again, if you wish the movement to attack Uzbekistan more, then join your local group. Chamaeleon 16:05, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Here is another extremely important list. http://www.genocidewatch.org/genocidetable2003.htm Ultramarine 14:33, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

About the "academic exchange" bit: one must have some more background on this. The European Union has some special agreements with Israel on some issues, and research programs are one of these. Essentially, Israeli institutions, though they are not in Europe, can participate in EU research programs. Some criticize this as discriminatory (why Israel and not some other countries?).

Still, I essentially agree with you that they focus on "capitalist", First World states, while they conveniently ignore the crimes from some other sources. David.Monniaux 14:55, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The activists that we are talking about are mainly citizens of the developed countries. It is normal for them to focus on what they know. I don't think most of them ignore crimes of other states, except perhaps Cuba, which Leninists adore. It's just that North Korea etc are condemned daily on the TV news by the likes of Dubya, so it seems a bit pointless to repeat what is mainstream. And yet again, I say to anyone who thinks a certain régime/corporation/individual is not getting enough flak, join your local group and make a difference, unless your criticism is insincere. Chamaeleon 16:05, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I am doing my part for a better world by spending considerable time writing in Wikipedia. The naive activists who supported communism supported states who killed over 100 million people. Meanwhile, the corporations you seem to despise where the ones who actually improved the world. The world is rapidly getting better thanks to globalization. Doubling of life expectancy in the developing world, halving of poverty and reduced income equality for the world as a whole. No Logo is one of the worst "science" books I have read, only some anecdotal evidence. And directly dangerous since it is against the very system who right now are improving the lifes of the poor in the developing world.

That Amnesty year after year gets results for their prisoners is proof that dictatorships care about public opinion. That the activists do not protest against the many dictatorships because they do not know that they exist or think that the capitalists are somehow more dangerous is not a justification, just ignorance. That they are against capitalism due to ignorance makes them the enemy of the poor in the developing world. Ultramarine 20:12, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

And yet you don't even have an account apparently. Look, you are coming here with the baggage of prejudice against activists, so there is not much more we can say to you. If you want to add something factual to the article, do so; otherwise let's just drop this. Chamaeleon 19:59, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Despite all that, I think that is a reasonable, and measurable criticism against the movement. I would support replacing the flimsy anti-semitism section with a criticism of the disproportionate focus on Israel and the US. Anyone else?--Che y Marijuana 20:04, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

I am obviously for it. If TDC does no object I think we can replace the anti-semitism section with a paragraph discussing disproptionate activism against Israel and the US. Ultramarine 20:12, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well I certainly would not and will revert to prevent it from happening. Toodles. TDC 00:22, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Right now the anti-semitic section is longer than all the other critique together which is ridiculous. How about reducing it to one paragraph? (Or two). The presented evidence that the anti-globalization movement is anti-semitic is extremely weak. Some individuals may be, not the movement in general. Especially when looking at other countries than France. Ultramarine 07:46, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Right now the entire article stands at roughly 15 pages. The anti-Semitic criticism section stands at about 2 pages with about one page of material devoted to the charges and one page to countercharges. One page out of 15 for critical content is seen as too little? How, exactly is the material weak? I could include more photos other than the yellow star stamped Sharon and Rumsfeld at Davos, but I though that made my point the best. Seeing as how the rest of the criticism section was written by usual contributors to the article, it is not much of a criticism section anyway.

Amnesty, capitalism, communism and human rights

Well, I'm an active member of Amnesty International which has been called in cause above, so let me say just a few words. Amnesty changed recently its mandate by the protection of civil rights and prisoner of coscience to a more spread conception of human right. This was done because, after the falling both of communist and anticommunist dictatorships (many sponsored by the US, as Chile or Indonesia), violations of human rights appears mostly to be violation of socio-economic rights or crimes that happens in conditions when the authority of a State falls (see Afghanistan or Iraq, for example). To think that violations of human rights are simply the product of "totalitarianism" it's ingenuous. That totalitarian regimes could care for public opinion is right, but a discrete, careful action (sending petitions, for example) is often preferible to a direct attack. See Cuba for example, or Saddam's Iraq. What years of sanctions have resolved? Millions of child in Iraq died of starvation. That's Saddam's responsability in part, of course, but is it the international community (US above all...) without guilt? Obviously the US are a democracy and the condition of their citizens is not bad as in authoritarian countries, but as the strongest country in the world have very big responsabilities in economic unjustice and lack of democracy in many parts of the world. About capitalism I would remind to somebody that when in Europe capitalism was unregulated there existed child labour (even in place as mines), 16 hours a day work time, absence of public health services, no state assistance, woman deprived of their right and often drived by their situation to prostitution and, even, no political rights for people that didn't possessed something etc etc etc. Is there somebody who would like to turn back to XIX century's capitalism? I would not.

Meanwhile, the corporations you seem to despise where the ones who actually improved the world. The world is rapidly getting better thanks to globalization. Doubling of life expectancy in the developing world, halving of poverty and reduced income equality for the world as a whole.

I could only add to this brilliant and totally undimonstrated sentences that in this world there is sufficent food for everybody, and yet in 2001 every 7 seconds a child under 10 years died of starvation. Not even Karl Marx has even denyed that capitalism has put in the hands of humanity a wealth never saw before. But capitalism is even this: unjust and irrational.

Talking about "The naive activists who supported communism" and "supported states who killed over 100 million people" in 2005 seems to me a good way to avoid the actual problems of our world. Our president of the Council of Minister Silvio Berlusconi is one who likes to do this old game when he has no arguments! (I would add that in 1989 I was 6... if somebody wants to put me between those activists...)

Perhaps the antiglobalization movement doesn't always have the answer to the problems of our time, but at last it poses the good questions, and would it not existe, one would have to invent it. --Juliet.p 23:57, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

... I agree, however, with the proposed substitution of the horrible section about antisemitism...--Juliet.p 00:12, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

P S: Freedom house, the source of this list [7] is a ONG that evaluates the countries only in respect of civil and political rights (freedom of speech, elections...). Of course Europe and US don't have serious problems of this kind. To have cited this report as a response to antiglobalist accuses, that cover another area of issues, seems to me not very fair. I would suggest, however, to cast a glance on Freedom House report on Israel. Notice that the score on civil right is only three, very bad for a liberal democracy. Are they antisemitic? [8]

Archive