By: Straight Goods Publisher, Ish Theilheimer, with Mel Watkins and Kathy Eisner
QUEBEC CITY, APRIL 22: The tear gas is settling. Canadians are struggling to understand the meaning of and reason for the events of the weekend. They're wondering what could justify the massive police response to what may have been provocation from what was certainly a small number of protesters. A lingering question is the paradox of uncivil disobedience.
Since Ghandi and King, citizens' movements have mostly followed the model of non-violent civil disobedience. Breaking the law without doing violence to persons or their property gives protesters a moral advantage. The public spectacle of non-violent protesters being arrested or abused by police sends a powerful message that can motivate the public to pressure politicians and thereby make change.
In our current media culture, this time-honoured formula no longer seems to work. Confrontation and violence attracts the most media attention. Frequently much larger non-violent demonstrations get little or no coverage compared with smaller ones involving violence. Last spring's clash at Queen's Park in Toronto between a few hundred anti-poverty activists and police was Page 1 news. Later that month there was a giant peaceful demo in the same place on the same issue. Thousands of people circled the Legislature, holding hands in silence - it received scant media coverage at all. There was no blood.
 |
|
Media concentrated on mayhem and tear gas, leaving the People's Summit and the huge march with scant coverage |
In Quebec City last week, dozens of hitherto-unrelated organizations from across the Americas came together to talk about policy and alternatives at the People's Summit. Considering its modest resources and the loose relationships between participating groups it was a marvel of organization. It was also a terrific source of public information about trade alternatives - or it might have been.
On the weekend, tens of thousands of people thronged the streets of the old city to peacefully voice their concerns and frustration. Yet the People's Summit and the huge march received scant media coverage. The main thing most people learned from their news media was that there was a lot of mayhem and tear gas. Canadians are still trying to get their heads around why so many people demonstrating or simply gathering peacefully outside the security fence got tear-gassed just for being there.
Starting with Seattle, media coverage of protest mayhem appears to have done far more to generate public opposition to trade deals than peaceful protest has. This almost-unquestioned notion poses huge and difficult dilemmas for both sides of the free trade debate. The problems for the Pro side are obvious. They are taking a hammering in the court of public opinion and are on the defensive as a result, attempting to spin their trade talks into a crusade for democracy.
But the dilemma for the Con side is difficult too. What happens when "civil society" groups accept or benefit from uncivil behaviour? Does it hurt them with the public? Does it damage their moral position? Does the end justify the means? Can there by a real convergence between those working within the system and those who reject every component of the system as corrupt and unresponsive to democratic concerns?
|
|
Civil society groups may need to form human walls between angry youth and the police who threaten them |
The democratic left has much to ponder here. Its forces have been in disarray and retreat for 25 years. Now, suddenly, opportunity presents itself. Millions of Canadians are questioning corporate dominance. Labour, political and interest groups that have been at each others' throats for years marched together chanting "So-so-so, Solidarité". People are becoming "politicized", as left activists like to say, who have never been political or who gave up years ago.
But how to resolve the questions of uncivil disobedience? Do we accept that extreme injustice justifies uncivil acts and that people cannot be prevented from acting out their rage and fear? That's what José Bové and other French farmers did to protest GE crops and the threat to their way of life. Their actions raised international alarm. Were they justified?
Or is the organized left leadership - parliamentary, union and NGO - obligated to take leadership, to say to young radicals who are legitimately angry that an uncivil approach will sully the movement and make us like our adversaries?
It's time for civil society groups to take leadership. There is a crisis of democracy and also a huge opportunity. Leaders on the left must seize the moment and confront this question directly. What would this look like?
It would begin by openly renouncing violence of any origin. But that's just the first step. What must come next is an open engagement between leaders of the civil society movement and the new cadre of activists to talk about alternatives to violence that will achieve the same effect as organized mayhem has.
This will not be an easy road. It will call on civil society groups to actively bear witness to the abuse of power - police, military and economic. It will likely require massive civil disobedience, possibly forming human walls between angry youth and the police who threaten them. There are tremendous risks in this proposal, both physical and political.
Is there another choice that goes anywhere for the left besides over the cliff of marginalization?
Ish Theilheimer is Publisher of the Internet news publication Straight Goods. He and economist Mel Watkins, a Straight Goods director, maintained a Quebec City bureau throughout the People's Summit. Kathy Eisner is a Quaker educator.
The Straight Goods Report is a new weekly column being distributed to newspapers, web 'zines and portals, and radio stations all over Canada. You need not ask permission to reproduce it in your print or web publication, but please include our URL and let us know where you are posting it.
- Ish Theilheimer
- Killaloe, Ontario
- April 23, 2001
- ish@straightgoods.com
[ Front Page ] [ Summit Home Page ]
