Protests

[Cartman]

When I was a kid, my folks taught me that apathy was a sickness and that if something bothered me, I should get off my ass and do something about it. Protesting, in my view, is a democratic tradition that should be respected.

Having said that, I am explicitly not in favour of violent, destructive protesting as we have sometimes witnessed on the television.

My question is whether others believe that protesting is a useful democratic tool? If the government does initiate legislation without a mandate (i.e. not subjecting policies to voters B4 an election), then should people just shut up and apathetically accept the legislation or protest?

[caesar]

Peaceful protests do help get your point across. Too often we just shrug our shoulders and say "what can we do" and accept their actions.

[maplesyrup]

The most successful protest (civil disobedience) ever held in Canada was at Clayoquot Sound, BC over clearcut logging. As a result of the protest, led by women btw, logging companies were forced to change their logging practices on Canada's West coast. The protestors were peaceful, although the same cannot be said for the logging community.

I think you have to pick and choose your protests, and not protest every single issue you disagree with. It is important to effect change with your protests, because if you don't have an impact, the less committeed protestors will give up. If you want to have impact you need to do something that is going to be newsworthy. It all boils down to strategy, figuring out what works, and what doesn't.

[Cartman]

Do you think the protests around the world against the war in Iraq were successful?

[maplesyrup]

No.

I was going to say the protests against US involvement in Vietnam were successful, but am not so sure of that. I think it was the US death count that caused the biggest impact there.

I think the protests against Bush, APEC etc., are a wasted effort.

The demonstrations in the Ukraine appear to be working.

[Guest eureka]

Let me sya first that I don't think the French or the American Recolutions produced any benefir that would not have been obtained by their peoples eventually. I also think that there might have been better consequences in the nature of the societies that would have evolved in the course of time.

But both began as protests and the "patriots" of those countries would think they were very good things. The same could be said for the Puritans in England and the Glorious Revolution there though they were rather different in both cause and had much more beneficial effects in the long term.

Peterloo in England; the Winnipeg strike! Were they a waste of time. I don't think so as they produced delayed resulte that did make a meaningful change to the policies of governments that would not listen.

I would also argue that the protests around the world against the Iraq adventure were very effective. They may not have stopped the belligerents but they did convince many governments not to support the war. But for that, we might now be reluctantly following the Americans into Iran and North Korea.

We may have learned that governments can not go so lightly into war in the future.

Of course, there have been many less vivid examples of protest. some have made governments listen; some have not. Those that have not, when soundly based, have often galvanised political opposition and, electoral action that might not otherwise have appeared.

I can't see how protests are not a usefulpart of the foundation of democracy, particularly when, for whatever reason, governments are not responsive and the political opposition is weak. That could be as now when, in Canada and the USA but particularly the USA, governments lean heavily to one side of the political spectrum and a large part of the population is not heard.

There is evn good reason to argue that violent protests have an honoured place in democracy or national life at times. Not many of the philosophers who constructed a philosophy of government thought it was not. Even Hobbes approved of the possibility.

Most philosophers and political writers of the past argued in favour of Civil Disobedience - which is an exaggerated form of protest - where there was no response from government to citizen concerns. Usually, the caveat was made that the protesters must be prepared to accept the legal consequences.

I strongly favour peaceful demonstration and "dumb insolence." Unfortunately, it is not always possible to restrain the passionate who may start out with peaceful intention. The cause must be great and the stakes high to justify them - as it is with the present war protest.

I just wish that the protesters on the US would take a closer lok at the internal corruption of their society and protest that also.

[August1991]

Let me sya first that I don't think the French or the American Recolutions produced any benefir that would not have been obtained by their peoples eventually.

I disagree strongly, eureka. Why? Well, consider this:

The demonstarations in the Ukraine appear to be working.

Good example, MS.

You might say that Ukraine will eventually have democracy, and looking back, you might say that Hitler would eventually have been beaten.

But someone had to make it happen. It appears to us now to be a large collective effort but in fact, it is the actions of individuals, each making a choice.

Ukraine could have gone on forever as a despotic fiefdom. The French revolution was remarkable because it was the first time a despot was overthrown by ordinary people. They killed a king. If they hadn't, the regime would have carried on...

This is an interesting thread. I'll throw out two points: why is it mostly the Left that has public demos in North America? Second, will the Internet eliminate public protests in the streets?

[maplesyrup]

The left demonstrates for one very simple reason. They are the ones that are constantly getting screwed over by oppressive right wing governments. When has the US ever had a progressive government? Or Canada for that matter?

I don't think the Guandian principles of non violence, peaceful protests, would have worked to stop Hitler.

[August1991]

I don't think the Guandian principles of non violence, peaceful protests, would have worked to stop Hitler.

How many Polish Jews, or French, British, Russian mothers would have gone to Berlin in 1932?

Would it have made a difference? Call me naive, but I think so.

The left demonstrates for one very simple reason. They are the ones that are constantly getting screwed over by oppressive right wing governments.

Life is sometimes unfair. And the Left is abusing this method of protest. Now, no one listens.

Except in places like Georgia and Ukraine where standing in the street to protest is a novelty. (I note that protesters in Ukraine and Georgia are hard to classify as Left or Right.)

[caesar]

I don't think the Guandian principles of non violence, peaceful protests, would have worked to stop Hitler.

True; and they sure haven't stopped Bush and co. Sadly.

[Cartman]

What scares me is that protests become the norm or boring and violence becomes too common.

[caesar]

It is NOT just the left that protests. We in the center of the spectrum often protest vigorously, too. When the country or province becomes too right winged it is a majority of the people who suffer with low pay or unemployment to make the fat cat just a little fatter. BC is a good example where this has happened.

We, protest when the pendulum swing too far left, too.

We don't want to support every lazy bum that prefers not to work or thinks any job is beneath him. I would like to see those with genuine problems not of their own making would get more help; those in a temporary hardship get a hand getting their life back in order but we don't think we need to blindly support those who wish to waste their lives on drugs and booze. Get the mentally disabled off the streets and into secure facilities until they are capable of looking after themselves and without threatening others. Diseased addicts should be locked up where they do not impose a threat to others.

[Tawasakm]

I hope Cartman won't mind if I extend the question a bit.

What do people here think of strikes as a means of protest?

As to the question, Cartman, my personal view is that protest is an expression of democracy. If people were to stop protesting against those things they oppose democracy would die. I think protest has diminished somewhat in effectiveness due to stigmatisation. In Australia at least protestors are often seen as radical kooks by the 'mainstream' population. There is a perception of them as rabble rousers who attach themselves to any protest going because they are just unthinkingly anti-government. And they are unshaven, unemployed and often students with too much time on their hands. This is the way many see it. I think this is largely a media construct (or at least supported by the media) created by the way they reports such events and the footage they choose to show. Unless they can make a sensation out of police brutality. Protestors for many causes are seen as generic and ignored. Not all causes but many. So alot of protests are just ignored by many.

I think this is sad and not really representative of the majority of protests. But it is perhaps to be expected in a nation which enjoys civil liberties, a good standard of living, democracy and lots of creature comforts. In nations where there is alot wrong in day to day life etc then those things that people are protesting resonate more then with those living in comparative luxury. The higher standard of living may create a kind of apathy.

[Guest eureka]

Well expressed, Tawasakm!

I think that something that is overlooked is the automatic "Left" assumption about protesters. I would agree that the political left is more likely to form the bulk of any mass protest.

Why is that? It is because the Right is always closely identified with political and economic establishments and, almost without exception is the element that stands to benefit from a status quo or movement to further the interests of its own group.

Almost all reasons for protest are reasons for left leaning citizens to protest. There are, of course, some exceptions to this. The Rightists who would protest those exceptions are, often, in the position of decrying events (Iraq) while benefiting politically and economically. They tend to submerge their conscience to perceived interest.

The "Left" is vilified over public protests but this is largely a media creation. It is much easier to make a story of the appearance of protesters than to reflect on the reasons for protest. Photographs carry a powerful image and a negative one that is more sensational.

In the method used to quell protests from time immemorial, it is easy to appeal to authority and to raise fears about "the mob."