I got some Facebook traction on this topic, and I'll address it here.
Michael said: "I think this post talks more about protesting effectively, more than criticizing the act of the protest." That's exactly what I was going for. I'm not saying that there's no place for protest, but thinking that any of the protests at the #G20 would be effective is naive. Direct protest to your MP or MPP is an effective thing to do, because MPs and MPPs have a vested interest in keeping the populace happy. This is the level at which protesters need to focus if they want to have an effect on politics.
Having worked in and around the University of Guelph for 10 years, I see a lot of what I would term "stupid" protests. People get together and make signs protesting for the rights of some people in a country on the other side of the world, and they take those signs up and parade around Branion Plaza. This is a misunderstanding of many things, not least of which is potential audience. While it is admirable to feel bad for those in these terrible situations around the world, it is stupid to protest against terrible things in this way because it displays a clear lack of understanding of your potential scope. Nothing good will come from a protest like this. Those who are perpetrating that which is being protested don't care that an affluent kid from Ontario thinks that they suck. Those who are the victims get no help from your protest. It's worse than just being ineffective though; it actually robs any of your good points of their legitimacy. The problems in Darfur are horrible but having a demonstration to protest them is not going to anyone involved a lick of good.
Things that are effective to protest happen on a local level. Protest the fact that there's going to be an extension to Walmart. Protest the fact that the buses don't run full schedules in the summer. Protest the increasing amount of destitution in downtown Guelph. Do it in the area that these things are happening in. Demonstrate. Be effective. These are all admirable things to organize and do.
The #G20 protests were nothing like this. I'm not saying that people didn't have the right to protest; I'm just saying that those who exercised their right on those days did not make an intelligent or effective choice in doing so. I fear that they misunderstand what protest is for, and how it can be effectively used as a political tool. They also don't understand that most people are either apathetic about their cause, or will look on extreme civil disobedience as a mark against them. If you get arrested, then in the estimation of most people you lose a significant portion of your credibility.
Leanne said that she had written several letters and not felt that her voice was being heard. I've written several letters to my MP (most recently regarding Bill C-32, to which I am opposed). Maybe I'm just lucky (I think we in Guelph have a great MP, Mr. Frank Valeriote) because each time I got a response that was at least ostensibly from Mr. Valeriote, which directly addressed the concerns that I had. While I don't necessarily agree with what he wants to do in all cases, I feel like he is effectively representing me and the constituency to the best of his abilities.
As for it taking money to get into politics - I have several friends who have done so, some to greater effect than others. None of them are well off; they were just willing to put in some time to ensure that their voice was heard. Getting into politics at any level will immediately get you more involved and will immediately grant you more clout in all issues political - you don't even have to be a politician! Start of as an aide to someone. Volunteer. Get involved.
I'm not saying that I am a paragon of political involvement. I write letters (yes, by hand letters). I've attended town meetings, but I've never risen my hand and taken part. I have not gotten truly involved in local politics. But if I felt as passionate about some issues as those who went to the #G20 protest purported to bed, then I would get more involved.
And I'll bet I wouldn't get arrested while doing so.
By James M July 1, 2010 - 8:47 am
In an open society who cares what is effective or whether or not one person thinks anothers choices in speech is intelligent or not. As long as a protest isn’t violence, doesn’t damage property, obstruct traffic or sidewalks or violate noise bylaws, I’m all for it. Protest anything you like. The ability to protest is a hallmark of a free and open society. We need to defend the rights of people to have free speech especially if we don’t particularlly agree with them; because one day, I’m certain someone might not agree with us.
The protests you describe have had some effect in the past. Anti-apartheid protests were effective in bringing the attention of apartheid to people who hadn’t heard about it, to politicians who would not otherwise have cared and to a largely apathetic international community. The civil rights protests in the 60′s, these are of the same ilk as the G20 protests (largely peaceful which occasionally turned violent), won rights for minorities, including the right to interracial marriage. And this was before the Internet age, now coverage of your local protest or vigil about Darfur might rank high on a search engine; might influence someone who could actually do something. True it’s not as effective as volunteering with an NGO and going there to do some good, but not everyone has the means to do this. And just because you favour protest on causes you are passionate about or can understand doesn’t amount to much. This is exactly what governments, especially the opressive kind, want; to narrow what people will support a protest about. It’s beyond arrogance to tell someone what they should and should not protest about.
And please don’t confuse “extreme civil disobedience” with the act of protest. The largest danger of the result of the G20 protests is the crinimalization of dissent. It’s not a crime to disagree with the government. It’s not a crime to say so, vocally. And the overwhelming majority of the protesters at the G20 were non-violent, did not damage any property, did not riot, did not confront the police, etc. etc. The folks that did should face the music for that.
[By the same token the overwhelming majority of the police and SIU did nothing wrong. And for full disclosure I knew folks on most sides of the protests: police, journalists and non-violent protesters.]
My experience on writing my MP is pretty much opposite yours. I find it’s worse than tilting at windmills, because the windmills won’t insult you. Form letters that basically say, yeah, I know what you and others are saying, but I’m going to do what I want anyway. The whole consultative process around copyright reform is a great example of politicians acting directly against the stated, obvious will of the people.
Politicians might have noble ideas to start, but they quickly and cynically turn to thoughts of getting elected, imo, by their second or third election that is all they think about; how to get elected and they will say anything that will further that cause. And worst, it’s not public, they can ignore each and every letter without anyone knowing (unless you post yours).
I might not like what a particular group of protesters are saying, maybe even how they are saying it, but I’m sure glad to see them out. I scares me when peaceful protesters are rounded up (moreso when violent protesters are not), when public officials try and criminalize dissent, when journalists get arrested or beaten, when public officials lie and mislead folks about the law, and when officials lie about arrests because it affects all of our collective right to disagree with the government and with the majority.
By aphoenix July 1, 2010 - 10:57 am
Maybe I’m not being as clear as I could be.
I believe that we should and do have the right to protest. Saying that it is “beyond arrogance to tell someone what they should and should not protest about” might be true. But while I’ll never claim that I’m not arrogant, I wouldn’t say that I’m telling other people what to do; this is my blog and my place to voice my opinions. I’m writing about what I think would be a more effective way for people to actually have an effect and make some changes. If people choose to listen, that’s great, and if not, that’s great too.
My biggest gripe is with protests that waste time and money. In a situation like the #G20 it was known quite early that there was a hefty security bill and that there were going to be extra police officers on the scene. If we really think about it, we can also assume that those police officers, being humans, are going to be a bit edgy and nervous. I don’t know about anyone else, but I would rather not be around someone who has a gun while they are edgy and nervous. It only takes one mistake for things to go wrong, so it’s not really an intelligent situation to put oneself in.
Lastly, while I do believe in the right to hold a protest, I certainly do not believe in the right to do things that are illegal while holding a protest. The right to hold a protest is great, but what about my right to not have my theoretical shop in downtown toronto looted and burned? What about my right to safety?
I’m not as scared to see peaceful protesters rounded up when they’re mixed in with people who are burning police cars. I don’t feel as if the media or officials are criminalizing dissent so much as… crime (burning cop cars, smashing windows, etc). I feel like the sort of things that were done by police were a tad over the line, but not in any way indicative of an emerging police state.
My bottom line is this: those who chose to protest at the #G20 achieved negative results. Is that really what they wanted? Probably not. I’m suggesting that there are better ways to achieve the changes that these people want to see.