Posted on 04/30/2003 7:41:22 PM PDT by fight_truth_decay
BRUNSWICK - A discussion on political dissent held Tuesday at Curtis Memorial Library was entirely free of dissent over the question of one's right to voice opposition to war.
Yet the two-hour discussion revealed that even as the war in Iraq winds down tensions remain high between those who continue to speak out against the conflict and those who supported the U.S. decision to attack.
"There is a lot of tension in our community. I think that tension centers around support for our troops," said panelist Rosalie Paul of Peace Action Maine. "I protest loudly as the best and most patriotic support for our troops."
Paul, along with fellow panelists Jack Bussell of Maine Veterans for Peace and John Moncure, an attorney and former member of the Navy's Judge Advocate General's Corps, all touted the right to free speech. In fact, the library was unable to find a panelist to speak against one's right to wage political protest.
The approximately 40 people to attend the discussion entitled "Political Dissent in American Democracy: Traitors or Patriots?" also agreed.
"Dissent is great. Dissent is awesome and everyone agrees with that. If this was (advertised as) a discussion about "Iraq yes" or "Iraq no" this room would be overflowing and we'd be talking all night," said Greg Menard, the one audience member to state his support for President George Bush's decision to go to war. It was to this issue that the discussion quickly turned.
The library sponsored the discussion after several community members voiced concerns over the contents of a display case in the library's lobby. The display, which was put up April 4, contained photographs of war protests, newspaper articles about peace protests and brochures from a variety of peace organizations. Several community members, including Menard, expressed anger that the library would permit what he called a "one-sided" display.
Library staff agreed that the display did not meet its original goal of informing the public about dissent in general, and seemingly took a position on the war. The display was dismantled April 8 and replaced April 10 with one containing quotations on political dissent from historical figures.
"We don't do that generally, offer one side over the other," said Steve Podgajny, the library's director. "I feel we misplaced our responsibility as a public institution in this case. It was our mistake."
But to some, the library's decision to dismantle the case squelched the political viewpoint that was being expressed, especially when no one stepped forward to offer display materials in support of the war.
"What part of peace is it that frightens so many people?" Bussell asked.
Paul said that as a peace protester she encountered hostility as she expressed her convictions.
"There's never a way of telling me they disagree with me that has any humanity involved. Why do people who don't agree with us have to be so violent about it?" she asked.
Another woman said she feared her anti-war protests would harm her business. Yet another audience member said he feared his right to dissent was threatened by the Patriot Act. One woman said she was told not to express her views in the classroom.
"I was personally taken aside and told I was not allowed to speak about the war," said Gorham High School English Teacher Janet Caldwell. "Yet programs were put in place for letter-writing to the troops."
To Menard, however, this treatment is to be expected.
"I think there is a common thread here," he said. "You feel threatened. The whole issue there is that you're in the minority. There are a lot of people that feel what we're doing is right, though that's no excuse to get harassed."
To John Loyd, moderator of the panel discussion, this raised another question about the nature of dissent.
"Should a person who is dissenting be entitled to do so comfortably? It seems to me that the definition of dissent is that you are going against the grain. How do you go against the grain without getting a splinter?"
That is why I felt it was "unpatriotic" (aside from how vile the comments were about Bush and Republicans in general) Anti-Semitic signs and calling Bush a Nazi are not thoughtful discussion.
This was not genuine, concerned dissent with policy... the bulk of it was knee-jerk partisan politics with our National Security being placed at risk for power-hungry Democrats and Progressives. They are all for war when it serves their own agenda.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.