So everyone was at the anti-war march today, it seems.

After participating in a march of some of the protesters through Sydney streets, actor John Howard returned to Hyde Park to address the huge crowd and send a strong message to his political namesake.
He told the crowd that hundreds of thousands of Sydneysiders were out in force to demand the Howard government give up threats of war.
"There is no beginning and no end to this march," Mr Howard said.
"Every single one of us is a reminder to our prime minister that he is our representative.
"The entire CBD is surrounded."

Would it not be more appropriate, if you're opposed to John Howard PM's policies, to remind him that he is NOT your representative? Margo Kingston over at the Herald's Webdiary was wide-eyed with wonder at it all:

It's easy to get carried away at the sight of the people of Sydney reclaiming the city to make their point, but something this big has to have an effect. As does a turnout of 5,000 in the country town of Armidale - a quarter of its population.
It's now hard to see Labor finding a way to support the war if the UN doesn't endorse George Bush's war - even if only one country exercises its veto. Simon Crean wasn't scheduled to speak at any march this weekend, but it looks like the 150,000 people marching in Melbourne on Friday night changed his mind. This weekend could be one of those "turning points", where suddenly the earth moves, the mood shifts, and politics is transformed in an instant.

You were saying, dear?

A new United Nations weapons report and mass demonstrations in Australian streets would not alter Australia's support for a US-led military solution in Iraq, Prime Minister John Howard said yesterday.
Mr Howard dismissed a report by the chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix as "adding nothing to the debate", countering European suggestions it had dealt a serious blow to US preparations for war.

And I'm not sure if this is encouraging or not:

Australian soldiers and airmen will not be given orders that require them to fire on civilians in a war on Iraq, defence force chief General Peter Cosgrove has pledged. [...]
Australian military officers have been worried that fighter pilots and SAS personnel could be involved in missions that require firing on enemy positions close to non-combatants, such as anti-aircraft batteries on the roofs of hospitals, schools and homes.
They expressed their fears to a number of officers, one of whom contacted a senior journalist.
But, in an interview with The Sun-Herald General Cosgrove, when told some Australian pilots and soldiers might refuse to fire on civilians, said: "I hope so. You don't fire on civilians. Anyone who deliberately engages civilians would automatically be in breach of international law."

So are we to make of this that plans are or were afoot in some quarters to seek out civilian targets? Nice to know our boys and girls won't have to, but maybe someone else will... and I know the rightwards end of the commentariat would snarl, "So what? Those Arab bastards wouldn't hesitate to attack our civilians", but if we're trying to defend the glories of Western civilisation, do we need to descend to their level? I wonder, given the US' opposition to the International Criminal Court on the grounds that one of their boys and girls might get tried there sometime, if US soldiers fired on civilians and that was deemed to be a breach of international law, could those US soldiers be tried by the ICC if the US didn't subscribe to the ICC? That's probably a naive question, but I do wonder.

At any rate I'm not convinced about what a grand thing these marches around the world of late have been. Someone was crowing on aus.culture.gothic, posting the numbers of people who turned out for the various marches and saying "Get the feeling nobody wants this fucking war!", to which I could only reply "You mean apart from George, Tony and John?" No wonder Gary S-T's pissed off at the world lately, since it lends itself so easily to being pissed off at...

posted by James Russell | 10:34 PM