Public Demonstrations

[La_Dolce_Vita]

What were they protesting about, taxi drivers I mean?

[Declan]

and, this surprised me, pro-birch marchers!! 

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well they're hardly likely to have a sit down protest are they?

 

There was pro and anti gay protesters at Tynwald a few years back.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Your right there!

 

Wish I was there for that one!

Would have like to have seen Peter Tatchell parachuting into Tynwald.

 

I never realised that there was never a Tynwald Day in 1917. That when the Keys were on protest.

 

Was it pay the taxi drivers were striking about?

[VinnieK]

It's easy to suggest that people happy to complain without actually doing anything about it, i.e. protest, are merely lethargic, but such a suggestion is a bit of a simplification.

 

People will do something when they have a strong enough incentive to do it, or when provoked to a sufficient degree. By not mounting a protest such people as those described in the previous paragraph are effectively saying "I don't like this situation, but it's not yet intolerable", which is fair enough. This is evident even in the protest movements themselves. Take for instance the protests against the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Many British people evidently found the idea of British soldiers spilling Iraqi blood personally intolerable, but are the same people to be found camped outside the Sudanese, the Burmese, North Korean, or the Zimbabwean embassy? Anyone remember any huge protests over the Rwandan genocide? No, and it's not as if it would be a token gesture either, since for the Sudan in particular, the British Government could be encouraged at least to take a stronger line with the government in Khartoum. The sad fact is that people, including many in the protest movement, whilst undoubtably finding the situations in these countries morally unacceptable in a kind of abstract sense, do not find domestic oppression in a far away land as provocative as British occupation of a far away land. That does not, however, mean that the lack of demonstration over the conduct of these governments indicates that all British people are lethargic when it comes to protests, as the invasion of Iraq and the fuel-tax protests demonstrated.

 

Of course, there are many other reasons as to why a person might not demonstrate over an issue, other than one of 'lethargy' or apathy: A belief that protests can only have a limited effect not worth the effort of protesting, other commitments, or not wanting to seem to endorse a protest movement that uses an issue to preach a certain ideology that they, whilst sympathising with the issue, do not agree with. All as valid and as worthy as the decision to march itself.

[P.K.]

There is always today's annual Mec Vallium speech. Oh joy. With all the shenanigans there has been over the last 12 months I wonder how over the top it will be this year? You never know, they might even come up with something that people can relate to - which would be a first....

[slinkydevil]

Was it pay the taxi drivers were striking about?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It was the issueing of more Taxi Licence plates for Douglas by the RTLC.

[WilDDog]

When was the last time there was a public demonstration on the Isle of Man? I have looked in the news archives and cannot find any reference to any. At what point do the the people on the island take to the streets to show their disquiet at corruption within the establishment?

 

When they tried to close a local hospital the people took to the streets and demonstrated (peacefully marched) against the closure.

[Speckled Frost]

Generally, most demonstrations seen in the Island are reactionary.

 

They are carried out by a few desperate people directly affected by a particular decision already made.

 

To have a more organised protest on a wider issue is far less likely.

 

You'd need enough people to care deeply.

 

If you organise a march with a miserable turnout it will backfire. You would, to put it bluntly, look like a laughing stock.

 

There are so many other avenues to go down and, with the Island being so closely-knit, there is little need for such a publicity stunt.

 

You also have to be sure the politicians at least have a chance of taking note........

[Lonan3]

Was it pay the taxi drivers were striking about?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It was the issueing of more Taxi Licence plates for Douglas by the RTLC.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That was the bottom line, but there were other issues involved.

There was the fact that the RTLC (another quango that is answerable to absolutely no one!) were making decisions that were in direct contravention of the intention, stated in Tynwald by the minister responsible, that there would be a five-year period during which there would be no additional licences issued while an attempt was made to establish whether or not there was a need for more.

In fairness, the legislation (The Road Traffic Act 2001) was so badly drawn up that almost everything within it was ambiguous.

The demonstration was partly intended to bring it to the public's attention, but mainly to try to concentrate the minds of the politicians and make them realise that this flawed piece of legislation was creating havoc within the trade and opening the door to profiteers in a way that it never had been before.

It was, however, only one part of a much wider, long-term strategy which has gradually borne fruit in that the Minister of Transport has now committed himself to initiating a full, independent survey of the trade throughout the island in order to establish future needs. And, just as importantly, the original 3 MHKs who supported the idea have now been joined by another dozen or so who are prepared to 'revisit' the original legislation.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

VinnieK- that was a very interesting way of looking at things. Never really thought of things that way. I imagine that with Iraq it is the case that so many demonstrations occurred because it was Britain that was being the oppressor and causing the war. Harder to put pressure and tiny countries like Rwanda when the only action that could be taken it around embassies.

 

Though would you agree the media are very selective about what they focus on and what they don't. Sudan has never hit the news in a big way. However, the situation in Zimbabwe has had far more publicity. Similarly Cote D'Ivoire is undergoing some seriously troubling times yet it has barely hit the news.

[VinnieK]

It's true that British demonstrations over the conduct of, say, the Sudanese government would have only indirect effects, but outrage is outrage, and any possibility of influence is surely better than none. Remember that during the South African Apartheid rallies and demonstrations did occur in Britain and elsewhere, encouraging governments to take a tougher line on the South African government, those demonstrators were not deterred by similar arguments as have been put forward as a reason not to protest over situation in Sudan.

 

Yes, the media is very selective, but not, in my opinion, to the degree that many believe. Often a lack of awareness can be put down to people being selective in the news they read, as much as it can be said to be the newspapers' fault. Here the Sudan provides another example: 'The Economist', which is a newspaper, despite the name, ran numerous stories, issued warnings, and fairly lengthy commentaries on what was happening and what was about to happen in Darfur up to a month or more before the broadsheets started covering it. Indeed, The Sudan can still occassionally be read of in the pages of that newspaper, in contrast to others. Similarly, I remember that immediately after 9/11, whilst other newspapers dedicated nearly every page to what had happened in the US, The Telegraph also ran stories involving escalation of hostilities between the Israeli Army and Palestinian groups.

 

It is easy, and, to a certain extent correct, to declare that the coverage of many newspapers is restricted by the ideologies and policies of those newspapers. Even so, most people, including those who complain about this state affairs, regularly look to a very limited range of publications or broadcasters for their news, despite them knowing, or believing, that what they are reading or watching will be biased and restricted in detail in some way or another. I would say that it is still possible to get a broad knowledge of what is going on in the world today, but it does require a little more reading, and from a broader selection of sources. Of course, then it could be asked why people don't do this, the answer to which is, in my mind, the same as why more people don't demonstrate, the incentive does not outweigh the effort required... which is not to say that such people are lazy, far from it, but perhaps it is the case that the aim in question (here to get a broader view of current affairs) is not as important to them as perhaps they would like to think, or perhaps they simply haven't got the time to do so, and so forth.

[Declan]

Good to see you round here Vinnie, where've you been?

[VinnieK]

Hey Declan! Thanks, and I'm not sure... although I'm hoping it was somewhere very exciting.

 

I suspect I was just dossing about though.

[Declan]

Well if you don't know, what about the rest of us!

[P.K.]

It is easy, and, to a certain extent correct, to declare that the coverage of many newspapers is restricted by the ideologies and policies of those newspapers.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I beg to differ that the coverage of many UK newspapers is to a certain extent restricted by their ideologies and policies. I would confidently argue that at the lower end of the market it is absolutely restricted by ownership ideologies. Unfortunately in the UK the lower end of the market now dominates circulation figures. Frankly the size of the readership of complete and utter rags like The Daily Mail simply beggars belief. I find it hard to believe that there is a large segment of the population that not only believes the rubbish they print but also identifies with it. As a state of the nation indicator their circulation figures are truely frightening. Sure they dump an awful lot of copy on Little Chefs, motel chains, private Health Clubs and so forth but even so....

 

I would say that it is still possible to get a broad knowledge of what is going on in the world today, but it does require a little more reading, and from a broader selection of sources.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree with this but always assuming you recognise the importance of a balanced view finding the time to obtain it seems to get more and more difficult. We now get most of our "news" from the telly. Snippets and soundbites. I read a broadsheet for opinion to try and get a balanced viewpoint. I am sure this is getting more and more unusual and more worryingly is viewed as less and less important in today's "instant" news environment. Soundbites are enough and shallow is easy. Depth has become elusive and not really worth bothering about. A sad loss.