Dear Mr. Stapp,

Re: your column in the February 2000 Jet City Maven, which ended with "some questions about the WTO strike."

As one of the "good" protestors, I feel I must protest again your implications about many of the other WTO protestors.

Most confounding to me are the remarks I've seen from others, claiming that protestors should never have blocked people from attending the WTO meeting.

While you don't say that explicitly, it seems that you agree given your distinction between "good" and bad protestors.

I believe the blocking protestors were following in a tradition of civil disobedience, which includes the sit-down labor strikes of the early part of the twentieth century, Gandhi in India, Rosa Parks, the protestors at segregated lunch counters, and other people who fought for civil rights in the 1950s and 1960s. I know very few people who would deny that most of these historical actions was justified, despite the fact that they inconvenienced many "innocent" people, just as the WTO delegates were inconvenienced in our city.

The question, then, becomes not whether the tactics are admirable, but whether one believes the cause is just. It's fine to argue that no, the WTO is not on a plane with colonialism, unfair working conditions, or segregation.

But if so, one should argue on that basis, not make blanket statements condemning forms of protest that are widely hailed when performed by others.

Of course, you didn't quite say this. You asked, "Why would the protestors espouse free speech for themselves, but deny it to the WTO members?"

I didn't watch any of the meeting, but I sincerely hope that no one was arguing that their free speech rights allowed them to sit in the middle of an intersection and not face arrest. In fact, the groups behind the blocking protests were expecting to be arrested, just as sit-down strikers have been in the past.

Apparently the Seattle Police decided not to arrest them, for reasons that haven't yet been explained.

The protests over free speech seem to me to stem from the next day, after Mayor Schell called for a 'no-protest zone' downtown. I have a friend who is a lawyer for the ACLU, and he can list many egregious free speech violations, from people who were not allowed to enter the area with a placard, while others without placards were allowed to pass, to a man who tried to distribute copies of the First Amendment, and had them confiscated by police. I hope you agree that these are clear violations of the First Amendment, and should be protested.

In reply to your other questions: "Why blame the police; you wouldn't behave well if you were outnumbered 50-1?"

Because we expect more of the police than we do of civilians like me.

If a civilian were in a situation where a person with a gun was threatening someone else, the civilian would probably run and most people wouldn't complain.

But if the bystander is a police officer, we instead expect them to stay around and try to defuse the situation. The police are endowed with more rights than the average person like you or me. With these rights come responsibilities, especially the responsibility not to use their powers against the innocent.

Now, one could argue that we are asking too much if we put our officers in situations where they are outnumbered 50-1. I would add that, regardless of the numbers, I think the Seattle police during WTO were asked to do too much on too little rest and food (working around 16 hours a day).

If so, then the blame lies higher up, which brings us to the next question:

"Why try to drive Stamper and Schell out?"

The buck stops with them, and it's clear that, regardless of the actions of individual police, the situation was not well-planned. Even if nothing happened, there were too few officers and they were asked to work too much.

Most galling were statements like Schell's that "no one could have foreseen this would happen." This statement baffles me, as the previous WTO meeting in Geneva, along with the previous G7 meeting in London and the previous APEC meeting in Vancouver B.C. were all marked by large crowds marching in the streets, doing far worse (torching cars, for example).

Of course, one could argue that people still haven't learned, as the leaders in Davos, Switzerland (site of a global economic summit a few weeks ago), were saying they couldn't imagine why anyone would show up in their sleepy village to protest. And of course people did. And now Bangkok is guaranteeing no protests for their global economic summit.

I suppose we'll see.

And personally, I find Schell's statement that "You've made your point, now stop protesting" insulting.

It is not his place to tell me when I've fought enough against an unjust organization, particularly as someone who has pledged to uphold the Constitution of the United States.

"Why is it okay to break windows, loot stores, etc.?"

I don't think it is, but a small number of people do. Note that the targets were nearly all large multi-national corporations (Starbucks, Nike, USA Today). I'm not saying you should buy what these people say, but recognize that it wasn't random vandalism; it was purposeful vandalism.

"Why did the protestors claim 'We won!' when they'd alienated so many Seattle citizens."

Because the protest wasn't about Seattle. First of all, nothing happened at the WTO meeting, and whether you credit this to the protestors or not, this is certainly what the protestors wanted.

Second, U.S. public opinion was changed, or perhaps more precisely, public awareness was raised. The WTO was pretty much unknown in the U.S. in October, and by December 2, it was on everyone's mind. And regardless of what people thought re: cops vs. protestors, it was hard to avoid thinking about what the WTO is and what it means to us as Americans.

Furthermore, press coverage about the WTO before Seattle nearly always included a line such as "Of course, there is no alternative to the WTO." Now, post-Seattle, the WTO no longer has that air of invincibility.

Finally, let me note that I am somewhat disappointed with the subject of your questions; they seem less like a discussion and more a meta-discussion.

Sort of like all the pundits Sunday morning discussing whether such-and-such was a good move by Clinton, or whether George W. Bush had a good week.

The WTO is an important topic, and we ought to be talking more about it, and less about the tactics of the police/the mayor/the protestors/the anarchists.

- GREG BARNES, Wedgwood