Since I posted the videos, photos and articles I wrote about the G20 policing protest, so many people have come forward either to share their stories or to express their thoughts to me about this event. I’ve also had several conversations about the nature of protesting, about whether or not protests are effective, about whether or not they should be violent or non-violent.
I’ve indicated in a past article that I don’t believe that protests are effective at changing whatever it is that they’re trying to change. I’m speaking to this from a Canadian point of view where most protests lead to media coverage of a few violent demonstrators, police action and eventually, images of the clean-up. And then life goes on. Policies aren’t changed or amended because a few thousand people spoke up. But, what protests are effective at is showing us how we react and respond to them. It serves as a test for police officers, for the government and for the public. What are you willing to tolerate as a Canadian citizen? As a politician, how will you respond to criticism? And as a police officer, will you be able to keep your cool when you have people yelling in your face?
The reason why this subject has dominated my blog as of late is because it’s something important to think about – the quest to understand certain human behaviours, certain government policies and to further understand the role of policing in our society.
Personally, this issue isn’t big enough for me to become a protester. I’ll continue to write about it and document events here and there for as long as it’s relative to my understanding of activism. And I am learning about activism. I’ve spoken with a lot of current and former protesters who have so many various thoughts on the kind of tactics to use during a protest. You have those who believe in violence and who believe that it is effective in encouraging change. There are those who will push the police until they snap. There are others who accept all forms of protest and who are just proud to be a part of a movement. And there are others who firmly believe that non-violence is the only form of valid demonstration.
But let’s set all of that aside: what is really concerning me is the lack of humanity in this entire process.
While editing the videos that I took of the G20 rally in front of the Ottawa Police station, I had to listen to all of the slurs and names that were directed towards the police officers that were standing there. “Pigs!”, “Facists!”, “Fuck the police!”.. one protester even went as far as to assume that they had all sexually assaulted women. I know that there were some horrible things done to some of the protesters in Toronto and I fully support the investigations of these charges. But to place all cops into the same category? Isn’t that rather hypocritical?
Other concerns I overheard was that the police had called the detainees names like “rats”. That they had used slurs against gays and had belittled women. That they had treated all detainees like they belonged in the same group: trouble makers.
Doesn’t that ring familiar? If you’re to protest particular incidents of abuse, why would you employ the same tactics used by some of the people that you feel have wronged you? Why would you express anger and aggression towards officers that a) may not have been at the event, b) might actually agree with your cause (personally) and c) simply because they’re wearing a uniform?
I am learning that it appears that protests do not work well because there’s no uniform strategy amongst demonstrators. And when an effort is so fractured, the message is lost. And when the message itself is fractured, then there’s absolutely no chance at public support. In my opinion, the only chance that a protest has to evoke change is to influence public support in a big way.
Without it, the cycle continues. Us vs Them. Pigs vs Rats.
Printer-Friendly VersionRelated posts:
3 Comments
Someone who puts on a uniform, a police uniform in this particular sense, is a traitor to social change. By taking ‘the Man’s’ money and implementing policy designed to preserve the status quo, one is marked. An extension of this philosophy would be to say that anyone who marches, wears black, screams out “fuck the police” at the top of their lungs (as I am wont to do at these gatherings of unrest) is equally marked. I do not seek concessions with state oppressors. I wouldn’t expect a puppet of capitalism to be able to differentiate between a rock-throwing anarchist and a peaceful protester; how could I? Puppets have no brain. Rather, I welcome the coming struggle for freedom on a planetary scale; I think that to cut off all the heads of Hydra will require a diversity of tactics: peaceful protesters to legitimize the ends we strive towards, and black bloc tactics to get the dirty work done.
I assure you, no one with a riot shield and a baton shares my beliefs and therefore it is no risk in alienating them. If they did, they’d either take off their uniform and join the side of social justice, or shoot themselves in the heads.
It very much is Us vs. Them, but I wouldn’t liken the struggle to rats and pigs (although the Orwellian imagery brings a smile to my face). More properly, what we have here is a struggle of mammals vs. dinosaurs. Diversity and the ability to adapt won that war, and it will win this one as well.
Very strong statements. I do, however, wonder about your use of the word ‘traitor’: it could just as easily be argued that anarchists/protesters are ‘traitors’ to social stability. But that doesn’t seem like a fair label either. Reminder: just because someone doesn’t share your beliefs, it doesn’t necessarily mean they are brainless or puppet-like (though, as a puppet enthusiast, I resent that term being used in a derogatory sense!)
In theatre, as in most things, there are two main schools of action: continuity and disruption. Those that believe in continuity tend to produce classical plays and to maintain the cultural conventions that people understand as drama. Those that aim for disruption tend to create their own work that challenges the status quo, whether in content or form. Both schools are important because without the latter, the former would flounder; and without the former, the latter would not exist.
I suppose what I’m trying to say – in some convoluted way – is that, as much as it may be frustrating to deal with them, we need people (like the police and the government) who represent stability and the status quo in order for those that belong to the class of “disruption” to know where they stand, what they must change, and how to go about it.
In short, resistance provokes the desire for revolution.
Thanks for your comment, Jessica – I especially appreciate the theatre analogy.