When does a cause become a be-cause [we can]?
Tom Shields is a journalist who ignores, or more accurately, pays sensible respect to the politically correct lobby and writes as he finds.
His light-hearted article in the Herald about the disintegrating Occupy demonstrations strikes a chord with me. Perhaps it's a generational thing, but he does - perhaps inadvertently - make a serious point.
Demonstrating these days is 'by consent' from the powers that be - in other words politicians and police. The police must be notified of any protest intended and consent for the 'gathering' must be given. This modern ruling is suppression, camouflaged within Health and Safety rules. Of course, back in the 60s there were no Health and Safety police. People usually used common sense when on protests and police were bystanders - observing from the shadows and ready to help if it was needed.
We protested without the use of modern day police tactics, yet in those days all were there for a cause and not be-cause it was something to do. Having carefully followed the Occupy London protesters, I've yet to know their reason other than they are anti-capitalist.
The be-cause element has unfortunately crept into 'modern' protests; people who follow any protest because that is how they spend their time. Genuine protesters can do without Be-causers as they detract from the main message and that's what has happened to Occupy London or Occupy Glasgow perhaps.
Allowing those who are 'professional' protesters does nothing for those who strongly believe in a protest's message, yet Occupy London allowed these people to takeover their genuine argument against the banks. A close friend of mine visited the Occupy London site the other weekend and found many he spoke with spent their lives flitting between various groups who wished to make a statement. He was impressed by their organising skills but felt they were overshadowing the people who were there because they truly believed a change is needed in the disparity of incomes in this country.
Do the Be-causers help when they invade protests? Perhaps, with their skills, they have ensured demonstrations are too civil as Mr Shields suggests.
Posts
6 comments:
I wonder what the pay and benefits are for professional protesting. It sounds like a growing industry.
That's something I've yet to discover Michael. The 'core' group of be-causers don't seem to have any form of work.
I think these core protesters find a circular irony in that their anti-establishment activities are funded by the establishment they seek to depose.
This kind of protest no longer works though, its been legislated out of existence.
No idea what would work, I think perhaps cooperatives might be a way, mass action coordinated online, boycotting things, moving bank accounts en masse etc.
Trouble is, people are lazy, they can see whats going on but for them to do something, you'd need to deprive them of X factor or that Celebrity jungle dancing on ice.
Not sure if you have seen these links.
The tax haven in the heart of Britain
Protected by HM Government as the two have direct links.
WhistleblowerIRL revealed.
Watch the video 26 mins long and wonder how much longer we have to put up with the QE which devalues the pound in your pocket and gives the banks free money to carry on gambling as they cannot lose.
It's true it doesn't work pa_broon and you give the right reason. We need to modernise protests as you say instead of street marches and sit-ins.
I tend to agree with your last sentence.
CH, I know quite a bit about the City of London - since the downfall of Kaupthing, Singer and Friedlander in the IoM. The rich look after themselves and they have, not only politicians onside, but the law.
Post a Comment