Danijela Topalovic 
Nick Griffin’s scheduled appearance on Question Time inspired thousands of protestors to descend upon the BBC studios; angry, shocked and perhaps slightly bemused, the British public seized the opportunity to make their opinions heard.
Banners and signs depicted Griffin as little short of a Nazi, a fascist tainting the multiculturalism Britain has come to pride itself on. The general consensus was one of support for those who braved the cold and police to defend the values and practices of this country. However, the whole event brought back much harsher memories for myself and once again reinforced my belief that there is a massive over-dependence on protest marches, which are becoming increasingly ineffective in the face of international politics.
In the ’60s protests were all the rage; we only have to look at the Civil Rights Movement for affirmation of the courage and valiance of supporters, which eventually evoked real, positive change. These people became part of history; they made history; they stood up for their rights and they were rewarded with the power of equality. It was a landmark in the way people viewed their position in society and since then protests have become a popular way of showing public disapproval. We all remember the Iraq War Protest when 10 million people worldwide took to the streets; determined and spirited. But nothing was achieved and thousands of innocent civilians died instead. Did we do enough to stop it from happening?
I think we did enough to show that we care, but not enough to evoke change. In this day and age protest marches have become an ineffective way of manufacturing change; we are in a decade that has been blighted by terrorism and the erosion of human rights. It is not acceptable to think protesting will work and I have found myself angered by some of the protestors’ attitudes. As much as I have deep admiration for the majority of protestors, I also feel some anger towards the minority who will go purely for the status and recognition of being ‘radical’. They do not care about the people dying in countries; alone, destitute and angry at a world that stood by and let it happen. It is a lot harder than you think to overcome the barrier of “I can’t be bothered” and to go to a protest but there is also a line that we have to draw; vanity and self-conceit are tainting protest marches.
As someone who has come from the Bosnian War to Britain, I can offer a slightly different perspective on this. War is indescribable; one day you wake up and everything has changed. The neighbours and friends you once loved would now offer you as sacrifice to save their lives. You are forced to dig deep to uncover your humanity in the face of war’s lingering inhumanity. You are alone. You wait for the shot that will end your life. Now imagine sneaking in a newspaper or by chance catching a TV signal, a link to the outside world, and hearing that some people back in Britain were protesting about the war? Would you feel hope? No, because the sniper has no regard for protests, he does not care. In fact it is the vanity of the belief that protests will help which angers people because if you ask anyone in Bosnia, they understand that war is in the interests of the West and to then see the people of the West protesting seems unthinkably hypocritical.
To expect a protest happening thousands of miles away to fill one with hope in the face of war and persecution is deeply misleading, and it is one of false hope. This does not only apply to Britain; whilst the war was raging in Bosnia and Croatia, other parts of former Yugoslavia such as Serbia held student protests to campaign against the inhumanity of the war. I met a man who went to one of these, he is now in his thirties, the age many of the boys who died in the war would now be, and I asked him what he did after the protests to help. His reply was “nothing” because he was not willing to fight or go to help by providing food and aid. He just wanted to protest, with no real regard for myself or fellow Yugoslavs.
I say chuck out the non-believers, discover what war truly means and ask yourselves to what effect you can use protesting to implement change, because at this moment in time protesting is losing its significance. And next time you watch a broadcast about the protest, listen out for the British media’s concern over how many police were hurt, how much it cost the tax payer; listen for the lack of regard for the very thing you were protesting for. Ask yourself, has it really worked? Some of you will proclaim “there’s nothing we can do, this is the only way to show we care” but this itself is deceptive; you can always strive for change, but vanity and regard for you own life and well-being mean you are unwilling to try further. The world understands this; it’s time for the deception to end. It’s embarrassing.
November 23rd, 2009 at 15:28
This article is offensive to the people who try to do something to effect a change. The truth is that only in very rare cases does an individual protest bring about change – the vast majority of civil rights demos in 1960s America were not like the Birmingham bus boycotts or the March on Washington, they were marches and demonstrations by groups of angry and disaffected people who felt they had no other way to change the system. These demonstartions weren’t recorded in history, they did not go down as turning points in the fight for civil equality. But that does not mean that they were ineffective. They fostered an activist movement that was strong, clever and experienced enough that it could, when the time came, strike hard and gain victories. That is exactly what is going on now: the community of demonstrators and activists is gaining experience, so when this government really needs to be taken down a notch, we will be ready. And you will be so glad that we are.
Danijela’s point about the sniper having no regards for protests is very silly indeed. The point of the protest is not to change the sniper’s mind, it’s not even to change the mind of the people in whatever war-torn country the demo is about. It’s only realistic that people can lobby their own government to do what is in its power to change the situation. I as an individual do not have the power to change things in another country, but perhaps my government does. So, it only makes sense that I as an indivdual would lobby my government to use its power. If Danijela is suggesting that I fly over to Bosnia and take out the sniper myself in an Arnold Schwarzenegger-esque show of heroism then I will give it a go, but protests, letter-writing and general government lobbying seems to fit my demeanor more.
The truth is that, as an activist, one of the most common assaults on your character that you come up against is that you don’t do enough. Basically, Danijela’s argument appears to go something like this: your protest is not stopping the Bosnian War, so therefore you shouldn’t bother doing anything. Well, to be honest, I feel that if there is a one-in-a-trillion chance that a protest can stop a war then it is worth having the protest. Should the million who descended on London to oppose the Iraq War have all stayed at home that day? It may not have stopped the war, but it provided us with one of the most potent images of the recent anti-war movement, one that has shown that, at the very least, there are a hell of a lot of people in this country who are willing to tell their government that what it is doing is wrong. Danijela might not thin that is useful, but I do.
What is really offensive about this article is the assertion that I, as a Westerner, am a hypocrit for protesting against things which benefit the West. So I should stay at home, watch the telly and not question what benfits the West? What benefits the West does not always benefit me. Even when things do benefit me, that does not mean that I am happy about how those benefits come about.
I’m going to use a purely hypothetical example to illustrate this. Imagine our country had taken part in an illegal war in the Middle East to secure oil supplies. I know it’s far-fetched, but bear with me. Those oil supplies mean that we have cheaper petrol because demand is not as high, so the price of my journey on the number 42 does not sky-rocket. A benefit to me, no doubt. So I should not oppose the illegal war because my bus journeys are cheaper and it would make me a hypocrit? I should not manifest my anger about the government murdering people because it would make me a hypocrit? I should shut up and stay at home at risk of being labelled a hypocrit? You know what, it seems to me that the people who stay at home who are the vain ones, too scared to be labelled a hypocrit in Student Direct. Danijela, call me a hypocrit if you wish, I do not care. My principles are more important to me than people slinging mud.
Basically, it boils down to this. We as individual citizens do not have much power to effect change, other than lobbying our government and demonstrating our anger. This is a difficult thing to do, to drag yourself out in all conditions, to shout your lungs out and get blisters on your feet. It is made all the more difficult to rouse yourself to get out there because of the attitudes of the media, of some of your friends, of the people who seem to think the X-Factor is a more important TV show than the news. Nevermind the police harassment you have to put up with, being treated like a criminal for exercising your democratic rights, being pushed and shoved, being kettled and hit, being generally treated like you’re worthless.
It can be a difficult thing to be a protester sometimes, but I do it because I care. The last thing I need is somebody telling me I’m a vain hypocrit for doing it just because they don’t understand.