Yesterday, as Lord Mandelson, the British Business Secretary and former EU Commissioner for trade, arrived at a low-carbon emission summit in Central London he was approached and, in search for a better word, harassed by a young demonstrator. The demonstrator, the 29 year old Ms Leila Deen, is a member of the a group called Plane Stupid who works against the planned extension of Heathrow to include a third run-way. Ms Deen, after having exchanged a few words with Lord Mandelson, emptied a cup of what The Times describes as 'cornflower paste and green food dye' over the Business Secretary. The Secretary, having formerly been Secretary for Northern Ireland, reacted with initial perplexity before he disappeared inside to clean up and upon his return five minutes later described the incident as adolescent. He added
Three years ago, as a new centre-left (dubbed 'red-green') government had taken office in Norway, a young economics student showed is discontent with the announced policies of the new, and first, clear-cut socialist minister of finance, Ms Kristin Halvorsen, by planting a cake in the back of her had as she entered the Ministry of Finance building. Ms Halvorsen reacted by calling it an attack on democracy and claimed it was a step away from the openness of the Norwegian society, as she could no longer find herself able to walk to work. Police investigation commenced and the young student faced in a worse-case scenery up to 15 years of imprisonment for his 'attack on democracy". Lord Mandelson, on the other hand, reacts by dismissing the action against him as adolescent and states he is happy it wasn't paint. Scotland Yard, as well, unlike their Norwegian colleagues, downplays the incident, a spokesperson stating
My second comment is on the action in itself. I would assume that by stating my preferences for Lord Mandelson's reaction over those of Ms Halvorsen I have also given away my position on these sort of actions. In a democratic society violence by non-governmental actors have no place apart form in self-defence. We do not seek political aims by violent means. Both the cake against Ms Halvorsen and the cup of cornflower paste are harmless acts that pose no threat whatsoever to neither democracy nor the officials being the targets. Nevertheless, they have no place and they only serve to illuminate the lack of language and arguments of the 'attack's' proponents. We make decisions based on debate and information, not by physical means. These acts represents the mild extreme of a continuum which culminates in actions such as the 2005 Paris banlieu incidents, the Thessalonika 2008 demonstrations or the Seattle 2003 fighting, where masses of people, they be the 'mob', disillusioned and angry young men or well-educated middle-class youths with a need to rebel against their parents. In any case, any politician who gives in to whatever group makes the biggest uproar is weak and unfit for office. To seek to influence decision makers is legitimate. To meet with, have lunch with and by that trying to form the opinions of those in power should be encourage. These are all aspects of a vibrant, liberal, participatory democracy. Peaceful demonstration as a show of force and public opinion, as we saw in Europe in the winter/spring of 2003 against the Iraq war is yet another legitimate way of seeking influence. However, the moment any demonstration takes the step from being purely verbal and by presence, and enters into the territory of violence, however how insignificant, it has crossed a line and lost all legitimacy they once had.
“She was so busy throwing what seemed like green soup or something in my face that she failed to tell me what the protest was about but, as you can see, thankfully it wasn’t paint and I’ve come through it intact.”There are two thoughts that comes to mind when I read this. The first concerns Lord Mandelson's reaction, and the second the choice of activism.
Three years ago, as a new centre-left (dubbed 'red-green') government had taken office in Norway, a young economics student showed is discontent with the announced policies of the new, and first, clear-cut socialist minister of finance, Ms Kristin Halvorsen, by planting a cake in the back of her had as she entered the Ministry of Finance building. Ms Halvorsen reacted by calling it an attack on democracy and claimed it was a step away from the openness of the Norwegian society, as she could no longer find herself able to walk to work. Police investigation commenced and the young student faced in a worse-case scenery up to 15 years of imprisonment for his 'attack on democracy". Lord Mandelson, on the other hand, reacts by dismissing the action against him as adolescent and states he is happy it wasn't paint. Scotland Yard, as well, unlike their Norwegian colleagues, downplays the incident, a spokesperson stating
"It's not a murder, it's just someone throwing a bit of paint. There's no investigation underway and no arrest. We would not take action unless we receive a complaint."This comment, together with the Secretary's statement should probably leave Ms Deen, unlike her Norwegian counterpart, out of fear for judicial prosecutions from the judiciary. The Secretary, by his reaction, clearly demonstrated how little influence pressure groups such as Plane Stupid have when they resort to actions such as this one against high-power office holders. Unlike her Norwegian counterpart, Ms Deen has been reduced to ridicule, with her actions labeled 'adolescent', effectively excluding her from the serious public debate. Ms Halvorsen, unlike Lord Mandelson, only managed to ridicule herself elevating a cake in the back of the head to that of a threat against the system, gave the young student a bit of a status as a hero.
My second comment is on the action in itself. I would assume that by stating my preferences for Lord Mandelson's reaction over those of Ms Halvorsen I have also given away my position on these sort of actions. In a democratic society violence by non-governmental actors have no place apart form in self-defence. We do not seek political aims by violent means. Both the cake against Ms Halvorsen and the cup of cornflower paste are harmless acts that pose no threat whatsoever to neither democracy nor the officials being the targets. Nevertheless, they have no place and they only serve to illuminate the lack of language and arguments of the 'attack's' proponents. We make decisions based on debate and information, not by physical means. These acts represents the mild extreme of a continuum which culminates in actions such as the 2005 Paris banlieu incidents, the Thessalonika 2008 demonstrations or the Seattle 2003 fighting, where masses of people, they be the 'mob', disillusioned and angry young men or well-educated middle-class youths with a need to rebel against their parents. In any case, any politician who gives in to whatever group makes the biggest uproar is weak and unfit for office. To seek to influence decision makers is legitimate. To meet with, have lunch with and by that trying to form the opinions of those in power should be encourage. These are all aspects of a vibrant, liberal, participatory democracy. Peaceful demonstration as a show of force and public opinion, as we saw in Europe in the winter/spring of 2003 against the Iraq war is yet another legitimate way of seeking influence. However, the moment any demonstration takes the step from being purely verbal and by presence, and enters into the territory of violence, however how insignificant, it has crossed a line and lost all legitimacy they once had.
No comments:
Post a Comment