Onus (not anus)

2003-01-24 - 4:54 a.m.

People are worried about war. Not just here in Toronto where, last weekend, ten thousand people held a peace protest, but all over the world. France and Germany have decided to take a stand, Turkey is torn between its Islamic ties and its wish to eventually enjoy the benefits of the EU, the entire Middle East is holding its breath, governments and populace combined.

The movement is growing: more and more people are expressing their concerns, their questions, their outrage at the possibility of a war that, to many, seems questionable at best.

But there are people who say the war is necessary. They ask if the peace protestors would rather have Hussein continue to run a corrupt government that oppresses its people, or if we'd have liked to see the Taliban continue its ruthless rule in Afghanistan. A march for peace is a march for injustice, they say.

In a lot of the debates I'm seeing, the peace movement is being forced to defend its position. It's being compared to the world sitting back and doing nothing while Hitler killed Jews en masse. At best, the movement is considered naive or misled, at worst, we're threats to the safety of our home nations.

I don't mean to simplify the debate, but could someone tell me why it's up to us to find reasons -against- going to war? When did "war" become a default option? Why is it that when the majority of the public is against war, it's like pulling teeth to get that machine to stop? When was the onus of proof for necessity (of peace or of war) fall to those wanting peace as opposed to those wanting war?

If there's a good reason for war on Iraq, the government(s) is (are) doing a very poor job at explaining it to the public, which is a very dangerous state to be in. People don't know -why- we need a war, and to most of us it's not as simple as "Well, they're the bad guys."

At the very least, the public, when it gathers in protests or demonstrates its concern through polls, editorials, letters to the government and the editors, is asking for an explanation. If we aren't getting an explanation (and frankly, I don't think we are) then what we're getting in our twenty-four-hour news channels and government press releases is propaganda.

And while it would be hugely inaccurate to compare Western society to what's going on in Iraq, and in other nations with human rights violations, I think propaganda is something I don't want to find in common.

There, that ought ta hold you politicos.

Cheers,

The Magus

previous - next