Why do people go on marches?
1)To gain support, by walking down roads and talking to passers by, handing
out leaflets we plan to get a few sympathisers to join our cause or show
support through beeping horns and waving with peace signs etc..
2)To gain publicity, through obstruction and simply blocking roads the main
stream press are attracted and put info about us in the newspaper, TV show
or other media. It also gives a chance for the 'leaders' of the movement to
give interviews offering some reasons for the alternative perspective on the
issue be it war, privitisation or anything else we march on.
3)To show strength/popularity/public support and (hopefully!!!) affect
government/company/social policy in a positive way.
4)To show solidarity, sometimes we admit to ourselves that marching wont
stop whatever it is at the time that is going on but for example with the
stop bush stuff we are showing the american people (and others) that bush
and blair are isolated. Apart from blair and his cronies the rest of the
populous do not like bush.
5)To communicate with each other and others in the public, by having
speakers and chants we are communicating with others that arent sure what
the cause is about.

I suppose my point is that i happen to think there were some problems with
the stop bush saturday 15th demo. I thought the numbers were not huge but
they were quite good for an issue that people sympathised but with thoght
was abit pointless because bush was going to come here anyway and he would
be miles away so us protesters wouldnt get close.
My first point is the route and the police, i thought it was well over
policed (and when i asked a copper about it he said they had a good few more
in a police van at the edge of barkers pool). The police also seemed quite
imposing and this had a knock on effect on some other peoples behavoir (ie
people fell in line because of it). The route seemed to me to be abit short
and going up and down a load of small one way streets (i dont know how the
route is chosen but i wouldnt mind finding out). It is much more effective
going down the larger roads because more people can see us there.
Secondly i wasnt sure about some of the speakers, it sounded to me that
one was practicly advocating war with north korea instead of iraq
(personally i have a hatred of all wars and i still havent discovered a good
war yet!!).
Thirdly: tolerance, I am happy to march with people i disagree with and i
was wondering what was the case with the kids that got a telling off for
having a mask that looked abit like sadam. Was that not party line? Of
course I hate sadam hussain but i was wondering what happens to people that
step out of line at these protests? For example one person at the demo
seemed to be offended by my hair i wouldnt want to turn up one day and find
that devient hair was frowned upon and also i did shout into an interviewers
microphone the words "fight the power" (is that also frowned upon?). After
reading this (on UK indymedia)
 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2003/11/280525.html about the grassing up of
such groups as Ya basta. Arent Ya basta a non-violent direct action group
and i for one would be happy for such groups to take part. I was wondering
do the StWC actually have a position for dealing with dissidents in their
own ranks? (i thought we were all dissidents anyway)

The Demo was not all bad by any means, there were some definate good
points for example:
the speaker on cuba solidarity campaign made a good speach broadening
peoples outlook from a purely muslim/arab position to one that includes
bush's atrocities in latin america. Also the Tikriti guy made a very good
speach about human decency, human justice and he definitly persuaded me to
go on the hunger strike.

Sorry for being so pessimisic but for my own piece of mind i have to ask
these questions.