Well looking at the news report, here's my thoughts.
This was a T Shirt made up and worn of Stephen Downs' own chosing. He made it up and wore it because has those beliefs about the war. Whether you think he is right or not is moot. He believed he had every right to be able to make up and wear that shirt.
In wearing that shirt, Stephen Downs would have to know he might be set upon by right wing pro war supporters. And to some people, wearing a shirt proclaiming how they do not want a war is like wearing a shirt made of the American flag as a member of the Taliban.
The shirt had obviously been cause for distress for someone who was sensitive on the issue. Now, to say why this is important, think how on airlines, people have been arrested for making comments about bombs or the plane crashing into buildings. Some people would be uneasy enough, especially in America where the entire country was almost at battle stations, at orange alert. But to have talk of terrorism or talk of war would add to the stress. Yes, the shirt was one of peace, but it still might have been considered inappropriate because of, as I said earlier, it might cause conflict.
How uncompliant was Stephen Downs? Was it explained to him why he should remove the shirt? I know that a lot of anti war movement is cause for distress, and in fact they have only taken to the streets for the odd protest, not trying to push the message every day like they were. In Stephen Downs' case, he refused to follow the instructions of the mall, believing, maybe rightfully, that he was not causing any harm. And this was what led to his arrest.
Stephen Downs being ordered to remove the shirt, and the subsequent removal of Stephen Downs, may have been done to avoid conflict. The mall security may have been looking out for his own well being. Someone might have bashed his head in for his shirt. Hey, I'm not saying that he deserves to, he doesn't. But someone might have.
Remember the Mandarins? Tolwyn said how the Mandarins had gone from misguided pacifism to passive treason to outright colloboration. I feel that we have our own Mandarins if you were to follow these guidelines. Misguided pacifism, which was most clearly seen with the protest against fighting terrorism. Passive treason, breaking the law, such as when protests turn violent. Outright colloboration, human shields. In the most extreme, so extreme I wouldn't count it, but someone might, Stephen Downs showed misguided pacifism and passive treason. But to apply it in this sense I think is silly.
So what's my point? Hopefully now you can make a clear and concious decision, based on your education, beliefs and upbringing, whether or not Stephen Downs was right or wrong in his actions.
Originally posted by Pedro
No, it would never happen in the UK, I'd underline the differences between the two countries at present, however I think despite however many reasons there are to goto war we know bush is doing it for oil and blair is doing it to stay on his good side. This has been voiced numerous times, no ones stopping it, no one cares, we're just in general more comfortable as a country.
EDIT: Well people care, but its just talk and isn't escalated by excessive censorship.
Funny. I haven't heard in months that the war is all about the oil, and thought that people had given up trying to prove it. Is this something you have proof of, or your own opinion?