Talk:Quebec City Summit of the Americas
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Foreign relations, an attempt to provide information in a consistent format for articles about international organizations, diplomats, and international meetings. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. |
20 000 people? I was there in 2001 and I think there were more than 50 000 people. 20 000 people was the number used by the corporate media and since this isn't a corporate site but rather more of a site similar to indymedia maybe we should use their numbers which were closer to 50 000.
Fred
Nice job, Montrealais, but the Québec event was the third in a series of Summits:
- Miami (94) (when the FTAA idea was first taken on board)
- Santiago (98)
- Québec City (01)
(and there's a special one coming up this January in Monterrey &ndash can hardly wait).
Québec wasn't exclusively FTAA-related, either. None of them, really.
The homepage of the Summits process is here, if you fancy taking a look; broader context and all that.
– Hjr 05:22, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- If you would like to suggest a preferable title, please feel free to do so. Montréalais
-
- Third Summit of the Americas? Summit of the Americas (Québec City)? 2001 Summit of the Americas? Any of those'd give us room to cover past and future ones,too. Hjr
---
The Summit of th Americas is not that a fancy name for the General Assembly of the Organization of the American States, or it is a different instance?? Baloo rch 18:45, 24 Jan 2004 (PST)
- No -- different animals. For instance, OAS General Assembly is only at foreign-minister level; the Summits are for heads of state/govt. GA is annual; Summits are every 3 or 4 years. The Summits are not exclusively OAS events either -- there are other organizations involved. Etc. HTH, as they say. – Hajor 19:34, 24 Jan 2004 (PST)
___
-
- I was reading this story and the following paragraph jumped out at me as a bit POV (especally the first sentance)...
"Although initially justified, the police response became indiscriminate. Teargas and other confrontation was used on non-violent protestors as well as citizens of the city uninvolved in the protest. Teargas was fired so near the green zone that unaware shoppers in the city were suddenly choking. Teargas was fired into at least one home, where a resident struggled to get his 6 month old to safety."
"Although initially justified, the police response became indiscriminate." says who? is this from Shirley Heafey? (the Robetson complaint mentioned further on...) or is it the impression of someone who was gassed? I think an attrabution for this comment could help clear this up.
does this warrent an NPOV tag? Mike McGregor (Can) 08:39, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
___
-
- This cought my eye too:
"Police responded to the protests by firing tear gas canisters, water cannon, and rubber bullets"
Rubber bullets have been largly phased out in favor of plastic baton rounds. everything I saw on the ground and all the rounds my friend brought back were PBRs. I'm going to take some time to look into this.Mike McGregor (Can) 04:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Evidence of police misconduct
The Fifth Estate did a piece about this, and had video footage of police using excessive force against the protestors (ie: One protestor was peacefully sitting in front of a police line-up, and was shot with rubber bullets several times without justification) Thus, the statement on the main article, that protestors had no evidence to back up their claim of police brutality, is invalid. I do not have a link to the video, but if anyone wants to look for it, they can find it on cbc.ca , just look up the show "the Fifth Estate". And do a search on the Quebec protests.
