Newsroom: (541) 346-5511
Suite 300, Erb Memorial Union
P.O. Box 3159, Eugene, OR 97403
Email: editor@dailyemerald.com
Online Edition:
www.dailyemerald.com
Friday, May 2,2003
-Oregon Daily Emerald
C< >MMENTARY
Editor in Chief:
Michael J. Kleckner
Managing Editor
Jessica Richelderfer
Editorial Page Assistant
Salena De La Cruz
Anti-abortion
group distorts
message with
photographs
During the lunch hour on Wednesday, I nearly lost
what little I had in my stomach. No, it wasn’t from un
dercooked chicken or bad milk. Like many of you, I
walked by the EMU Amphitheater and was blinded by
blood and body parts of babies.
I’ll lay my stance down right now. No, I don’t agree
with abortion. No, I would never choose to have an
abortion. But it is the right of every woman in this
country to choose whether or not they have one.
When the anti-abortion group Survivors bombarded
the EMU with very disturbing photographs of aborted
babies, I believe they were taking away the rights of
many people — the right of whether or not they want
to look at these forms of expression.
Survivors director Dan McCul
lough said, “We are simply using
images to show abortion is wrong.
Our message is that abortion is
the murder of innocent children
and it needs to stop” (“Anti-abor
tion group repulses students,”
ODE, May 1).
Oh, so that was the message. I
thought it was how to lose weight
in 30 seconds or less —just look
at the pictures. This is a serious
issue; I’m not trying to joke
about it, but for me, their mes
sage was lost. How can you speak out when no one is
listening because of what you are showing? Next time,
get personal, not up in our faces.
What disturbs me is that I was not given notice.
There was no sign to warn me of graphic images. Yes,
I am adult. Yes, I could have looked away. But I would
hope that this organization, or any organization, could
use a little tact when trying to get its message across.
I commend the women who came out as part of
Survivors, having had abortions themselves, wanting
to be heard. We heard them, and we very surely saw
them. But I wonder if they got the reaction they were
looking for.
Yes, I walked by and felt sick to my stomach. Yes, I
didn’t eat for nearly three hours after seeing those im
ages, and yes, those images will haunt me for a very
long time because I did not get to choose whether or
not to see them.
However, the images won’t affect me in the long run,
not because I’m against abortion, but because I think
they lost what they were trying to say by shoving the
images of aborted fetuses into the eyes of any and
every passerby.
If I had children and they were walking by, would
I want them to see those images? No, I think children
and adults alike can be educated with words just as
easily as with pictures. Those pictures were worth a
thousand words, but mine were merely three: “Oh,
my God!”
I’m all about freedom of speech and expression, but
here on campus I think there should be more stringent
rules as to what kind of images students can or should
be affronted with.
Survivors, tell us about the comparisons you see
between “Hitler’s Holocaust and America’s Holo
caust.” Tell us your own personal stories, cry for us,
show us your pain. I would be a lot more willing to
hear your message without the images stabilized by
your feet.
I cry for the children in those images who lost their
lives. I cry for the women who felt they had no options,
or worse that abortion was their only option.
Mostly, though, I cry because the message that every
life is sacred was lost in a distorted picture of blood
and body parts.
Contact the columnist at salenadelacruz@dailyemerald.com.
Her views do not necessarily represent those of the Emerald.
Salena
De La Cruz
Say it loud
Peter Utsey Emerald
(vim DO YOU MEAN
l WE'RE LOST?
'HEY,. DON'T BLAME ME?\
BUML THE ROADMAP, J
r
Protesters impact leaders with voices
Guest commentary
In his guest commentary (“Protesters
must face reality in war times,” ODE,
April 18), Patrick Gilligan expressed his
disgust with peace demonstrators. As a
long-time activist, I wanted to respond.
Gilligan criticized protesters for con
tinuing to demonstrate after the invasion
began. To him, it’s a justified, declared
war — end of discussion. In fact, millions
of people on the planet, including the
Pope, believe it’s an unwarranted, pre
emptive aggression.
Unlike Gilligan, I don’t think our lead
ers exhausted every diplomatic possibili
ty to avoid war, nor do I buy their justifi
cations. I protest because I refuse to let
them mistake my silence for approval.
Also, despite some people’s belief
that the invasion represents a failure of
the protesters to stop the war, first, it
was obvious that our government was
determined to go in, no matter what;
and second, the worldwide demonstra
tions have clearly had a positive im
pact. For one, it forced our government
to at least go through the motions of
getting international support, which de
layed the attack.
Furthermore, knowing the world was
— and still is — watching made our
leaders more mindful of civilian casual
ties. We continue to voice our opposi
tion to policies we disagree with to af
fect the actions of leaders who pretend
to ignore us.
Gilligan was irritated by the “destruc
tion and chaos” caused by protesters in
San Francisco, but how did it compare to
that of, say, Baghdad? Similarly, he was
frustrated at the delays caused by
demonstrations. Imagine the desperation
of an Iraqi mother dodging cluster bombs
to get an injured child to a hospital lack
ing electricity and running water.
Another purpose of protests is to inter
rupt life-as-usual for those individuals
whose comfortable, insulated existence
prevents them from empathizing with
people half a world away in far more dire
circumstances caused, in part, by our
government. Ideally, these disruptions
spark critical thinking and compassion in
citizens willing to contemplate the con
sequences of our country’s actions.
Gilligan’s anger at the $1 million in po
lice overtime is woefully misguided and
his prediction of “economic disaster” be
cause of businesses closed by protests is
laughable. Compared to the #80 billion
price tag for the war (which doesn’t even
include the cost of occupation and re
building), it’s 80,000 times cheaper to
protest a war than to wage one.
He needs to put the figures in perspec
tive and direct his anger at the real cause
of financial ruin in this country: unbri
dled military spending. I also protest be
cause I believe it’s disgraceful that the
wealthiest country in the world squan
ders 50 percent of federal tax dollars on
the military while homelessness, hunger,
health care, elderly support and educa
tion go underfunded.
The reality is: The people in power real
ize they are outnumbered and their legiti
macy is derived from the complicity of the
masses. Protesters, especially millions of
them, who get citizens to demand a differ
ent agenda, threaten our leaders’ sense of
control. If the movement grows, they could
lose power. Thus, they do all they can to
marginalize, dismiss, discredit and even
criminalize actions that could “get out of
hand” and interfere with their plans.
I understand why our administration
wants activists to shut up and go home.
What baffles and disturbs me is seeing av
erage citizens like Gilligan adopt our
leaders’ antagonistic and undemocratic
stance toward dissent.
Char Heitman is an instructor in the
University's American English Institute.
Post-protesting arrest unjust, immoral
Guest commentary
I was the student arrested at the April
10 walkout and march (see related story,
“Protesting under the law,” by Caron
Alarab, ODE, April 17). Participants and
I marched from the EMU Amphitheater
to the Federal Building. On occasion, a
few individuals, including myself, spilled
into the bike lane. We were fully aware of
the oncoming traffic and made sure not
to block any bicycles or cars invading the
bike lane.
We arrived at the federal building after
being followed by a parade of motorcycle
cops and Officer Martes in her unmarked
vehicle. A discussion with a few speakers
and a “Circle of Peace” developed in the
courtyard. After a half-hour or so, my
friend Kelly and I walked back to campus
for our next class.
In a parking lot at Fifth Avenue and
High Street, Officer Martes approached us
from behind. She proceeded to say, “Ex
cuse me, ma’am! I need to write you a ci
tation for blocking the roadway! ” Stunned
and confused, I asked her what she was
talking about. She then began to grab my
arm and my backpack when I realized she
was the officer in the unmarked car from
30 minutes before. She insisted that I was
resisting and should be arrested.
I was read my Miranda rights, hand
cuffed and tossed over to another police
officer. I spent roughly an hour in the
Lane County Jail. Political science Pro
fessor Jane Cramer posted my $505 bail.
Professor Cramer had spoken earlier that
day in the courtyard of the Federal Build
ing and felt that I was being targeted by
Officer Martes since she holds a recur
ring record of arresting protesters.
My questions for Officer Martes are:
1. If the protest weren’t happening that
day, would I have been cited for commit
ting a similar “crime”?
2. Why did she wait 30 minutes until
the first person left the group to act on
such violation?
3. Why is it so ironic that Officer
Martes is a “peace” officer?
4. Is my First Amendment right to the
freedom of speech illegal if it goes against
a police officer’s political view?
5. Why is it every weekend night I see
some intoxicated student heckling and
stammering in the streets? Why aren’t
they cited?
6. Why didn’t anyone get arrested or
cited at the Peace is Patriotic Rally on
April 12?
I felt this arrest was a form of harass
ment. I was treated unjustly and morally
wrong for doing the “right thing,” in my
opinion. I believe passionately about my
country. After things like this happen, I
feel that my country doesn’t believe pas
sionately in me.
Angela King is a junior environmental
science major.