Dull, dull, dull! More ramblings of a would-be revolutionary.

2002-06-18 - 5:40 a.m.

(Coffee inspired entry...?)

Violence and protest is a thorny issue.

Does violence have a place in protest? If not, how can it be prevented? If so, how much violence? When and where is it most effective? How can we direct it toward those uses?

In Halifax, several hundred people protested the G7 Finance Ministers' meeting. Near the end of this month (my birthday!) people across Canada and the world will be assembling at Kananaskis Alberta to protest the meeting of the G8 - the world's most powerful nations. Other protests, including one in Ottawa, Canada's capital, to which I'm going, will be held at the same time.

Though, I should clarify that the protests aren't just "against the G8." Rather, the protests are against G8 policies which will be discussed, without the direct input of the citizens of the nations involved. Previous discussions have centred on increasing corporate power, exploitation of poorer nations, military issues. Decisions that have come out of these meetings have often led to increased corporate globalization, which, frankly, isn't a good thing (I'll debate anyone who disagrees...though, I'd be keen to hear some persuasive arguments).

The protesters aren't anti-meeting, but what they would like to see is a movement towards an global, egalitarian society, global justice, environmental protection, equal distrubution of global wealth, among other issues.

One of the main problems, which brings us almost directly to the violence question, is that much of the mainstream media is, to some degree or another, influenced by corporate entities. Whether it is through advertising revenue or through out-and-out ownership, most mainstream media stands to lose by promoting or encouraging an anti-corporate agenda. It would be nice if the media could afford to be neutral and unbiased, but that's not gonna happen for a while.

So, most media has to balance both providing enough news to keep subscribers/viewers reading or watching (or else risk losing advertising revenues) and keeping their corporate employers/advertisers happy (or else risk losing their jobs AND advertising revenues). Most often you'll find the bare essentials of news, often portrayed in as dramatic a way as possible (because it is still a competative market), and then quickly buried under "infotainment."

A Toronto newspaper describes the Halifax event as being made up of "over one hundred protesters." This is true, there were likely around 500, but gives a false sense of scale. (There are over ten MPs in all of Canada, you know. There are more than 50 grains of sand on that beach. The population of the earth is over one million today.) The story was less than two inches of column space, and was buried...which makes sense because it's a Toronto newspaper, right? Who cares about what happened in the city where the finance ministers of the seven most powerful nations on earth were meeting?

The protest I was in a few weeks ago, by contrast, got virtually no press at all. I was looking.

Sorry about the round-aboutness of this entry...I'm getting to a point, honest.

So, violence aside, this gives protesters a possibly larger problem. The only way to make change, especially in a democracy, is to have a well-informed public. It is annoyingly difficult to get the message out. Word of mouth, practically, is the most effective way right now. You'll never see a show on CNN or CTV dedicated to discussing what's wrong with corporations...though you do get the opposite: dozens of business shows, panels, discussions, all of them with at least one pro-capitalist voice, many of them exclusively pro-capitalism.

The news won't report peaceful protests. If it does, they're buried near the back of the paper as an aside, rarely, if ever, including a description of what prompted the protest in the first place.

The news -does- report violent protests. The readership would like to know -why- the police are hitting those masked people, why tear gas is flooding the streets, why there are baricades and dogs and heavily armed militia present. Plus, violence is flashy, makes a good headline, and lets the media put an instant spin on the event.

Ha! See? I told you I was coming to the point.

If a protester doesn't use violence, there's a good chance no one will know what happened. If I protester does use violence, there's a better chance folks'll know what's going on, though they'll likely be upset because of the media's spin (it's tough to be sympathetic to someone who just attacked someone else).

Bah. This entry is way too long. Unfortunately, I need to write this stuff down, even if it is kinda dull. I want to be sure that I understand what I'm doing by going to Ottawa, where I stand on these issues. I want to be prepared for dilemmas I may face...and the best way to do that for me is to articulate it, put it down in words...

Plus, if anyone slogged through that, they may have a better idea of what the heck I'm doing. Or they may think I'm a knob.

Cheers,

The Magus

previous - next