Monday, October 17, 2011

Protesting 101

With the Occupy movement likely reaching the peak of its trajectory, the time has come to take a serious look at the effectiveness of 'large gesture' protesting.

Especially in Canada, lately, we have seen some large 'statements' but their effectiveness is in question.
The Occupy movement boasted around 2 to 3 thousand in Toronto, 1 thousand in Edmonton and Montreal, 4 thousand in Vancouver, and even Charlottetown boasted 125 people. But with the object of protesting (businessmen) actively coming by to give verbal support and kudos, does it lose its sting? As I have mentioned previously, the disparity of wealth is much less severe than in the States, and so the aim of the movement is fractured between supporting the 99%, supporting the protesters in the states and protesting to have former president Bush arrested when he comes to visit. As is usually the case, the Onion has said it best regarding these cases. The largest sign that the protests are not being taken seriously is the fact that they are being allowed to stay. If the government perceived these protests to be a threat, and therefore effective, they would be taking steps to eliminate them, even as little as forcing them to pack up their tents. This protest has a set end date: the first snow-fall.

Remember the House page who stood in the middle of Parliament holding a sign that said "STOP Harper"? Despite the loss of her job, and subsequent job offer by American film-maker Michael Moore, it is arguable whether or not she achieved any sort of progress. Sometimes the goal of a protest is to draw attention, as we shall examine in a moment, but the bulk of her message was simply an opinion; that Harper is bad. Without an added fact to back it up, or draw attention to, such a stand will not sway anyone's heart or mind. This is reflected in the fact that she has since dropped off the radar, without so much as a tremor in the shield of the Conservatives.  

A better example of a large 'impact' protest is the recent Trojan horse that graced Parliament hall's front doors. It was built to draw attention to Canada's interest in the European Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, which they believe could erode Canada's sovereignty and put us at a disadvantage in negotiations. I must confess this whole thing has flown under my radar for eight talks, amazingly, and it is now in its ninth and final round of talks. I find it unlikely that Canada could benefit from tying itself to the European market right now, given that everyone is so anxious to be tied to us, but the horse's point was effective - I'm curious now. That's the way to do it.

The mark of effective protesting is walking the tricky line of not telling people what they should think, but perhaps what they should be thinking about. That way people are not being led or strong armed into an opinion, something that can provoke the opposite reaction so strongly that sometimes I suspect that page had been hired by the right to make all opposition look like nutcases (Not to imply she looked like a nutcase, but certainly that someone who opposes her message would feel she did).Given the limited time and attention people reserve for processing activism, we should really aim to maximize the air time available to present the most effective message.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Interesting post! Unfortunately, I had a little trouble following your argument in the beginning. Later in the post you really got rolling and everything made sense.

But with the object of protesting (businessmen) actively coming by to give verbal support and kudos, does it lose its sting? [What does this mean? Why is "businessmen" in quotes?]
As I have mentioned previously, the disparity of wealth is much less severe than in the States, and so the aim of the movement is fractured between supporting the 99% ... [less severe here, do you mean? and what is the 99%?]
Ahh, as I am writing these I see that the protestors made a human 99 to demonstrate that 99% of people are ignored by the government. Got it. If the 99% had voted, what then?
lol, mapa