I’ve always considered that any article which starts out with a disclaimer, or sentence which contains a phrase along the lines of “I’ve nothing against… but…” to be inherently suspect and likely to indicate a certain weakness of argument. Which is why I’m somewhat hesitant in writing this as it can to an extent be boiled down to: “I’ve nothing against people protesting but I do wish they’d think about it and do it well”.
Recently a “protester” decided that throwing custard over Lord Mandelson would be a rather good idea to make some sort of point about the building of the third runway at Heathrow. This was a hugely ill thought out protest and thoroughly examined by “And there was me thinking“, though I think one of the key points was made by Lord Mandelson himself who observed that the lady concerned was so busy throwing custard over him that she forgot to say why. Whilst there has since been lots of press coverage on the assault, it hasn’t really moved on the debate about the runway, most people who’ve seen the news will have seen previous news about the peace camp and other related protests. What it has achieved is to give the government an easy out when talking about Heathrow protesters as they can all be lumped in with the custard thrower, and an excuse to keep ordinary people even further away from those in officialdom. So really quite a own goal.
Which is my problem with many demonstration, and I expect many more to come as the problems with civil liberties impinge further on the public conscience and the bandwagon gathers momentum. I suspect that, especially with the popularity of flash mobs and other oh so amusing internet organised events, there is a huge potential for many such own goals. So assuming that we’re not talking about direct action or civil unrest how best to avoid giving the powers that be excuses to ignore us? Note I’m not asking how to make the demonstration effective nor suggesting that we can in anyway get the powers that be to pay attention, I’m just considering how to avoid scoring too many own goals.
So in no particular order:
- Be accurate and precise about what you’re protesting about.
Obvious I know but worth restating, if nothing else there’s no point in telling people you’re protesting about Act A when you mean Act A1, or section 42 when you mean section 47. Likewise if protesting a certain law make sure it actually says what you think it does, “You can’t shave goats” is not the same as “You can’t shave goats except between the hours of 4 and 5”. - If breaking, or skirting with, a law to prove a point make sure that’s the only law you run a foul of.
Again this prevents the message being side tracked. “Of course there was no problem with the demonstrating outside the ministry, unfortunately they hadn’t tethered their goat in accordance with the relevant by-laws so the police had to move in”. - Stick to one simple point, the simpler the better.
The more complex the message the easier for someone to make it seem to be all about some tiny detail that wasn’t that important. - Make sure people know what you’re complaining about, as noted above the custard throwers protest was rather hampered by her not telling Lord Mandelson why he was having custard thrown at him
This issue is of course more complicated for “events” held within the exclusion zone around parliament. As chanting, banners and the like are all illegal, so such things really have to be about coverage and being photogenic. - Don’t piss off people you’re trying to persuade to support you.
This is one of my big problems with “critical mass” rides. Yes, they show there’s large numbers of cyclists but as many of them don’t keep to the highway code they just irritate and alienate other roads users (including cyclists) and pedestrians. Much with breaking laws, if you’re going to inconvenience people it’s important to be precise in who you inconvenience, how and why.
There are probably quite a few other points that could be added to this list, and I’m sure quite a few people will disagree with the above. The key point which I hope will be less contentious is that as we seem to be dealing with a government that is eager to dismiss any dissenting view on the flimsiest of grounds and is potentially itching for an excuse for a bit of agro; then with that in mind protests and demonstrations must be accurate, easy to sell to the media and be very careful about what laws if any should be taken lightly.
Update: just thought I’d link to a post by The Appalling Strangeness concerning a specific example of ill thought out vague protesting… without lattes.
