Protest!

[Artemis]

Right now I'm in Sydney. I don't know how widely reported this is since it doesn't directly concern the UK, but there is a meeting of world leaders here at the moment, gathering to discuss mainly economic issues as part of the annual APEC (Asian Pacific Economic Co-operation) conference, this time held in Australia. Sydney has become a fortress, with ridiculously disproportionate security including a fence around all the good bits of the city keeping the public out or at least subject to intense surveillance.

Now. I have attended 'marches' and protest rallies before and have been put off by the simplicity of the chants, which fail to take account of the complexities of the various issues concerned, but out of principle I have decided to become involved with this, not least because Dubya's in town and I think it's important to remind him that the resistance for his war is still here.

So I have gotten to know the coalition of socialist and anti-globilization groups, been to one or two of their meetings and today I joined with the degenerate hippies and handed out leaflets in Sydney CBD (city centre). I declined to yell stuff down a megaphone, but I did find talking to people on the street, discussing ideas and issues and even being called a "fuckhead" who should "fuck off back to England" and "stop robbing Australians of their jobs" (which is ironic since I'm not currently working), an incredibly empowering and liberating experience. It restored my faith in excericising the right to protest; to voice an opinion in opposition to the government and the apathy of the status quo. It felt like the cutting edge of democracy; a thrill that came from stopping being part of the crowd and starting to live; to stand up for principle and express it publically; to discuss with those who agreed and those who didn't issues that are integral to the future of our world.

Like many people, particularly in England, I used to be a cynical cunt, quite happy to privately align myself with the general principles of protesters but also quite happy to sneer and smugly label those involved as ignorant, naive and short-sighted. Well some of them may be, but most of them are not - they are good but justifiably angry people; angry at the farce we call democracy, and they are willing to express a voice of dissent. I was quite moved today to watch an elderly guy who simply wanted to live in a better world: he was in the street, plaquard in hand, expressing his opinion. He was jeered, mocked and ridiculed by the suited herd who bleeted by, but he stood there regardless.

I have a new found respect for protesters and those willing to express themselves instead of nodding their heads into their Guardians. Good on 'em.

What's your experience of protesting? Have you done it? Would you do it? Under what circumstances? What form would it take?

[quadraspazzed]

I've been on and/or organised more protests than I care to remember, and am still involved (after a hiatus due to personal reasons and general demoralisation) whenever I can be.

The worst one I was ever involved in was of Wolfie Smith style incompetency - just two people standing outside a council building, a bunch of cops sneering and laughing at us, and having to explain to two local journalists why I thought no-one else had turned up ("these are objectively difficult times for the left in general and I think we're seeing that reflected here" haha!). Good lord it was embarrassing.

[Famous Mortimer]

Now. I have attended 'marches' and protest rallies before and have been put off by the simplicity of the chants, which fail to take account of the complexities of the various issues concerned

Good on you for attending, but comments like this wind me up a bit because they miss the point. Chanting isn't for getting across complex issued, because it's fucking impossible. Chanting is for getting people together, getting the communal spirit going and making a good loud noise. Meetings and speeches at the end of rallies and demos are where the complexities of the various issues get brought up.

[Ciarán]

I've been on and/or organised more protests than I care to remember, and am still involved (after a hiatus due to personal reasons and general demoralisation) whenever I can be.

The worst one I was ever involved in was of Wolfie Smith style incompetency - just two people standing outside a council building, a bunch of cops sneering and laughing at us, and having to explain to two local journalists why I thought no-one else had turned up ("these are objectively difficult times for the left in general and I think we're seeing that reflected here" haha!). Good lord it was embarrassing.

What were you protesting about in that instance?

[rudi]

"What do we want?"

"Well I'm alright actually, but if you were to push me I wouldn't say no to a blender."

[quadraspazzed]

What were you protesting about in that instance?

The Iraq war, about 3 days before it happened. There was supposed to be a school student walkout in Portlaoise so me being geographically closest I was assigned the task of going down on behalf of "School Students Against War" (haha! I was 23! - then again I also pretended to be a school student [my brother] when the Union of School Students was launched in 2001) with placards, leaflets, megaphone etc and whipping up a frenzy. But as I said, it never happened and I never found out why - the person who was (ahem) 'organising' it never answered their phone. I think it might have been a wind up from the beginning. I dunno if you know Oisin and Finghin from the Party, but one of them (can't remember which) was the other person.

[Artemis]

Good on you for attending, but comments like this wind me up a bit because they miss the point. Chanting isn't for getting across complex issued, because it's fucking impossible. Chanting is for getting people together, getting the communal spirit going and making a good loud noise. Meetings and speeches at the end of rallies and demos are where the complexities of the various issues get brought up.

Yes, that's a fair point, but 'marches' are designed to achieve several things, one of which is a public proclamation of where the protesters stand on things. If there's not a succinct way of putting it that accurately gets across the general position, don't bother because it's counter-productive.

[actwithoutwords]

The Iraq war, about 3 days before it happened. There was supposed to be a school student walkout in Portlaoise so me being geographically closest I was assigned the task of going down on behalf of "School Students Against War" (haha! I was 23! - then again I also pretended to be a school student [my brother] when the Union of School Students was launched in 2001) with placards, leaflets, megaphone etc and whipping up a frenzy. But as I said, it never happened and I never found out why - the person who was (ahem) 'organising' it never answered their phone. I think it might have been a wind up from the beginning. I dunno if you know Oisin and Finghin from the Party, but one of them (can't remember which) was the other person.

Heh, one of my friends in college turned out to be of the founders of USS. Heady days. Oh the afternoons spent standing on the main street of town demanding to be allowed to go to school. Proper rebellion it were.

[Artemis]

Heh, just found myself on Getty Images (I'm the one holding the banner):

[fanny splendid]

http://www.eztvefnet.org/index.php?main=tvnews&show_news=826

[Neville Chamberlain]

Heh, just found myself on Getty Images (I'm the one being roundly ignored by everybody):

Ah yes, I see!

[Blumf]

For those who have been on regular protests, how many have actually had any effect?

[actwithoutwords]

That's quite a smorgasbord of demands on that banner Artemis. Is it possible to pick n mix?

[Al Tha Funkee Homosapien]

STOP GLOBAL WARMING

Yeah let's all make Bush stop the climate from doing what it's done loads of time in the past.

[Santa's Boyfriend]

For those who have been on regular protests, how many have actually had any effect?

I don't know the answer to that, but I can tell you that the Iraq war demonstrations in the lead-up to the war really put the shits up the government at the time, and put about 10 years on Blair.  I don't think anyone truly believed that the war would be stopped because of the protest, but the fact that the country was not behind the war was very keenly felt by Westminster - which was ultimately the point.

EDIT:  I guess that answer is what I might refer to as a Norris McWherter answer.  (You have to be a certain age to understand that reference.)

[micanio]

Thought these were quite funny.....

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/09/07/australian-apec-protesters-attempt-mooning-world-record/

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/09/06/apec-fake-motorcade-carrying-osama-gets-10-meters-from-bush-hotel/

[Artemis]

That's quite a smorgasbord of demands on that banner Artemis. Is it possible to pick n mix?

I have; I know very little about 'Australian work rights' so I don't really say anything about that.

Yeah let's all make Bush stop the climate from doing what it's done loads of time in the past.

Are you one of those people who still think the jury is out on all this?

[Al Tha Funkee Homosapien]

Not really, just climate change has and happened in the past and it's probably happening now. The fact is what is causing it. If the placard had said 'Reduce Human Carbon Emissions That May Be Increasing the Rate of Global Warming' and also the fact that it was on a placard with 'STOP BUSH' on it, as if George W Bush has that much to do with it. I suppose that goes back your point of not being able to make detailed, nuanced points in protests, but you have to at least make coherent ones. I mean, how did you get to Australia again?

[The Region Legion]

I went to the big Iraq protest in London but yes, the whole thing is fairly pointless really. Pretty cool being around that many people who kind of agree with you on a lot of things but the reality is:

a) protesting is useless. Violence is the only thing these cunts would ever respond to now so unless the next Stop The War protest involves breaking into the Houses of Parliment and, with the assistance of the military, taking over the country then they can fuck themselves.

b) most of the people going are just twats looking for an excuse to be a twat in a public place. One particularly wankerish bunch in front of us that day were screaming "No Justice, No Peace, Fuck The Police" and threw AN EMPTY BOTTLE AGAINST A WALL. The radicals! Those cunts would be first people begging for the police to be around if what they chanted actually happened because they'd be first against the wall - and for fucks sake, what kind of cunt can actually say "no justice, no peace" as a desire they have?! Hanging's too good for 'em etc

[Artemis]

a) protesting is useless. Violence is the only thing these cunts would ever respond to now

I disagree. Protesting serves several crucial purposes. First of all it sends a message to Bush, Brown, Howard etc. that they are not going to be able to just do what they want without anybody noticing; the public taking to the streets actually sends a very powerful message to those in power that there are people willing and able to publically voice dissent and with the passion to take to the streets to do it. Obviously there's greater strength in numbers, but the principle remains. Secondly, it sends a message to the public, for those people who feel strongly about something but have no other means of expressing it - the Iraq marches in 2003 are a great example of this - there was an opportunity to be part of a movement, to excercise the right to peaceful protest, to be alive, god dammit! To stand for principle and do something about it. Finally, protests boost moral and comoradery among those attending. The 'Stop Bush Coalition' in Australia is a fairly new collective and events like the APEC march and rally yesterday are really good for boosting awareness among activist groups and enthusiasm that so many other people are involved and feel the same; it adds real strangth to the movement. I think to measure the success of a protest by whether or not the troops did come home at the end of it, etc., is a little short sighted.

Now, in terms of whether it actually makes any real, tangible and practical difference to do things like gather and march or rally, well - aside from my earlier point about putting governments and organisations on notice - I'm not sure it has the effect it may once have done. The tragedy is that governments are motivated by only one agenda: the creation and aquisition of money, apart from every four years when they launch their bullshit campaign to try and remain in power. You could reasonably argue that a few thousand people on a march isn't going to make any difference whatsoever. I disagree, for the reasons outlined above, but I also have no problem with anarchist groups, civil disobedience and the occasional incident of well-directed and focused violence.

b) most of the people going are just twats looking for an excuse to be a twat in a public place.

I have some time for this point of view. I'm also frequently turned off by the pushy way a lot of these groups attempt to recruit me, and look in horror when I tell them I think their chosen issue is a little bit more complicated then wearing a Che Guevara t-shirt and yelling socialist chants down a megaphone. They can also be entirely up themselves, especially at their often cringe-inducing meetings where they all propose motions and vote on things like whether to vote on having a vote about something in their next meeting (this actually happened at a meeting I attended this last week). I think what mosts irks me about a lot of the way these people can be is that ultimately they claim to be after a peaceful, harmonious world, but peace isn't the absence of war or a government or even capitalism itself, it's a inward realisation and the result of creating some kind of structure based on the peace we've found within ourselves. Some of the lefties I meet strike me as the least peaceful people I've ever met and not in a 'justifiably angry' way, I mean within themselves. That's not to discredit their principles or direction, which I commend and align with myself, but it's an interesting observation.

[rudi]

I'm always wary when someone claims to have intimate knowledge of the motivation of "most" of a crowd. The 6-0-6 Effect, I've christened it.

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

I suppose you could look at the Iraq protests in two slightly different ways. Yes, it's an example of a protest achieving fuck all, but it's also one of the prime examples of a government completely ignoring the majority will of its electorate (whose views they've been appointed to represent, let's not forget), and I think that's what people remember about it. Since then it's seemed that protest doesn't bring about change anymore and the most it can do is embarrass and annoy.

The internet should be great for mobilising people but it's also a great wash of apathy full of stay-at-home commentators who enjoy the comfortable position of being able to slag off people without neccessarily having to consider a political view.

[Blumf]

One of the things that bothers me is the knowledge that today's NuLab Thatcherite war mongers were (part of) the protest groups of the 70s. I can't help but look at today's protesters and think 30 years and a mortgage later they'll have dropped the fashionable slogans and will be planning their own power/oil grabs. Depressingly cynical I know.

[Ciarán]

Good post, Artemis - very interesting to read your thoughts. Do you like Noam Chomsky? He advocates "civil disobedience". I don't always agree with Chomsky, but he undoubtedly has lots of interesting things to say.

Personally, I'm unsure about protests - they register disaproval and they might provoke debate or be the effect of debate. But if you're protesting about something massive - if you're an anti-capitalist, for example, then you ought to realise that protest is encouraged by liberal democracy which itself upholds capitalism. your protest is effectively neutered. When people protested against the war in Iraq, the spokespersons for the White House and Number 10 just said "of well, think yourselves lucky you live in a democracy where you have a right to protest". Again, the protest was neutered.

[drberbatov]

The key to protesting is to get the right location, I remember in my student days protesting against the Iraq war outside The Forum library in Norwich. This was pointless as it received virtually no local coverage and obviously no national coverage. In truth I was only there in a 'Quagmire' role and my motivations were certainly not political

[Santa's Boyfriend]

if you're an anti-capitalist, for example, then you ought to realise that protest is encouraged by liberal democracy which itself upholds capitalism.

I would take issue with this, (assuming I understood what you mean by upholding capitalism) because neoliberalism (ie the modern form of global capitalism practiced in the UK) is actually considerably undemocratic in its nature, and goes some way to undermining liberal democratic principles by placing too much power in the hands of business and not enough in the hands of elected governments - to the point that (unelected and unanswerable) businesses are capable of swinging votes, neutering policies and forcing other policies through.

When people protested against the war in Iraq, the spokespersons for the White House and Number 10 just said "of well, think yourselves lucky you live in a democracy where you have a right to protest". Again, the protest was neutered.

I don't agree that this neutered protest, because what Blair et all seemed to be implying was that protesting the war was in some way against the principles of democracy, and that we should be grateful that he allows us any freedoms at all and stop questioning him.

I know what he was actually implying was that he was trying to bring the same qualities of democracy to Iraq, and in a perverted kind of way he has (ie a pretense of democracy where the ruling party just does what the Americans want).  But it's incredibly arrogant, because what he was actually saying was "I'm right and you're all wrong."  I guess we should expect that from someone who so passionately wanted this war, but saying that people who protest should be grateful for living in a democracy rather implies that they aren't grateful about it already, which is in my opinion shockingly arrogant.

[Ciarán]

I would take issue with this, (assuming I understood what you mean by upholding capitalism) because neoliberalism (ie the modern form of global capitalism practiced in the UK) is actually considerably undemocratic in its nature, and goes some way to undermining liberal democratic principles by placing too much power in the hands of business and not enough in the hands of elected governments - to the point that (unelected and unanswerable) businesses are capable of swinging votes, neutering policies and forcing other policies through.

I'd go along with you there I think. I would say that "democracy" as we know it (i.e. as it is seen to work in Europe and the US certainly) is tied up in economics. So, as you say, ultimately capital rules. We do have some sort of democracy of course, but money makes a bit of a lie of it. Ireland (or the UK) could not afford to upset the US diplomatically, it needs what neoconservatives are fond to referring to as "the unobstructed flow of capital" to get by. 

I don't agree that this neutered protest, because what Blair et all seemed to be implying was that protesting the war was in some way against the principles of democracy, and that we should be grateful that he allows us any freedoms at all and stop questioning him.

I know what he was actually implying was that he was trying to bring the same qualities of democracy to Iraq, and in a perverted kind of way he has (ie a pretense of democracy where the ruling party just does what the Americans want).  But it's incredibly arrogant, because what he was actually saying was "I'm right and you're all wrong."  I guess we should expect that from someone who so passionately wanted this war, but saying that people who protest should be grateful for living in a democracy rather implies that they aren't grateful about it already, which is in my opinion shockingly arrogant.

Whilst I agree about Blair's arrogance and the effect of the (paradoxical and ironic) comments he made, I still contend that the protests against the war in Iraq did little to affect government policy with regard to that war. In fact, Bush and Blair (or the powers/forces they represent) decided that history would absolve them in the face of the protests. So I don't think the protests were just an irrelevance, but strictly in terms of power, well they were rather ineffective on that point. The public unrest did register on some level with those responsible for taking the decision to go to war, I'd imagine. But not much more than that.

[Artemis]

When people protested against the war in Iraq, the spokespersons for the White House and Number 10 just said "of well, think yourselves lucky you live in a democracy where you have a right to protest". Again, the protest was neutered.

I don't agree that protests are automatically neutered because capitalism allows for them. As has been argued elsewhere, capitalism in it's present form is hardly 'democratic'. This is best illustrated in the example you indirectly allude to above... remember at one of Blair's Labour party conference speeches, when somebody (not the old guy - that was a year before) protested mid-speach about Blair's argument for the Iraq war? He was literally mandhandled and dragged outside, while Blair, without even a hint of irony, declared that he should be grateful he lived in a democracy where he 'could' protest. But could he really? The guy was being dragged outside, effectively disqualified from protesting and we all know why: because it didn't look food for Blair. What kind of democracy allows protests only to the extent that it doesn't detract from the person running the show? It's a farce and to suggest that capitalism neuteurs protests due to the fact it allows them also fails to appreciate the extent ot which governments are going balls out to try and remove as many civil liberties as possible. This is happening to the extent that we're now seeing business follow suit (see: BAA vc Climate Change last month).

[Ciarán]

Good point, Artemis, I accept what you're saying about the conferences to some extent. A lot of people looking at the same situation would say "there's a difference between protesting and just being a bloody nuisance", though, and to heckle someone (while it is an excercise in the right to protest of sorts) does also have an air of censorship about it. So Blair, or Brown and Bush should be allowed deliver their speeches uninterrupted too. So I think a lot of people would remain unconvinced by your point of view, although I've a lot of sympathy with it myself.

I'm thinking more of active political parties or lobby groups (like the Socialist Party of Irealnd which I'm a member of) who have the right - in a democracy - to gather and discuss issues and try to drum up support and run for elections and all of that. But over and above that they run into the fact that the press/media - ideology - is controlled by the people whose political and economic interests are upheld by the status quo. Is that still democracy?

[All Surrogate]

The guy was being dragged outside, effectively disqualified from protesting and we all know why: because it didn't look food for Blair.

So we're agreed that Blair isn't a cannibal?