# Have you ever participated in a protest?



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

I haven't, for several reasons. But Im interested in what the experience was like.

I have to admit, im a little biased...based on what ive seen through the media, there seems to be an angry mob element that arises in may cases, even if that wasn't the original intent. And often it seems like theres more emphasis on disruption of ordinary citizens lives, rather than simply stimulating awareness, or generating positive support.

I wonder if its time for a new mechanism to induce change/show displeasure, that can be more on point?


----------



## Electraglide (Jan 24, 2010)

Years ago I was part of a little smoke-in in Vancouver. A bunch of us were sitting around getting stoned and trying to change the pot laws in B.C. and the powers that be didn't like it and sent in horses, dogs and guys with big clubs. It ended up being called the GasTown Riot. Damned police dawgs have sharp teeth.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

Yes, every day. It starts around 6:00 am and goes something like this. "Get up". "No. I said get up!" "Get up". "No. I said get up!" "Get up". "No. I said get up!"

I always end up losing.


----------



## bluzfish (Mar 12, 2011)

When I was in Jr high, a couple of friends and I organized a sit-in during afternoon classes to protest the Amchitka nuclear test in Alaska and support the first Greenpeace mission. We got suspended for a couple of days which was perfect. We had time to finish a new issue of our underground newspaper.


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

nope. i may not be the sharpest tool in the shed, but i'm smart enough to know that protesting is a complete waste of time and effort. best to leave all that in the 60's, with all the rest of the hippy fails.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

I was part of a group that marched to the U.S. consulate in Montreal the day after the Kent State killings ( the event prompting the CSNY song "Ohio"). Being near the back of the march, I was able to get out of the way when the fire-hoses were deployed. That's pretty much it.

Not keen on large groups. Collective intelligence tends to drop. I decline to be associated with a crowd proclaiming "Hey, hey, ho-ho, XXX has got to go" ad nauseum, or some similarly banal mantra.

That said, when something is wrong, ya gotta raise your voice.


----------



## Electraglide (Jan 24, 2010)

If you include standing on IWA picket lines on the West Coast, did that a few times too. These days, most protests seem to fizzle out because other than the protesters, most people just don't give a damn. And most of the protesters I've seen don't seem to have a hell of a lot of conviction. If you're going to protest something don't be a coward and cover your face. Better yet, be like the girls for PETA and don't cover anything. A couple of years ago here a young lady went out and protested for PETA here on a Saturday by our old place. -20 or so and snowing and there she was in the glow of the t.v. lights.


----------



## fredyfreeloader (Dec 11, 2010)

From what I've seen of the protesters here in the land of silk and money they are made up of three groups 1)Aboriginal "First Nations" 2) Welfare recipients 3) Paid protesters. The third group although they deny the accusation, are apparently funded by big American corporations. This is more apparent now during the current pipe line protests. 
Then there are the left leaning social engineering Professors from Simon Frazer University, these guys just can't stick to teaching they feel they must educate all of us regarding all the very bad things brought on the world by crude oil, although they all drive vehicles that use petroleum products. This is once again the old don't do as I do, do as I say BS.


----------



## Electraglide (Jan 24, 2010)

fredyfreeloader said:


> From what I've seen of the protesters here in the land of silk and money they are made up of three groups 1)Aboriginal "First Nations" 2) Welfare recipients 3) Paid protesters. The third group although they deny the accusation, are apparently funded by big American corporations. This is more apparent now during the current pipe line protests.
> Then there are the left leaning social engineering Professors from Simon Frazer University, these guys just can't stick to teaching they feel they must educate all of us regarding all the very bad things brought on the world by crude oil, although they all drive vehicles that use petroleum products. This is once again the old don't do as I do, do as I say BS.


As far as the oil thing goes; we have the crude and there's places and people in the world, including south of the 49th, who want the crude. The crude will flow. The paid protesters might be paid to protest other things, the welfare and EI recipient protesters might just have their funds cut off for a while and the "first nations" will be paid off as they always are.


----------



## Adcandour (Apr 21, 2013)

I've protested mayo with peanut butter recently. That's about it for me.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

I protest on voting day.

Other than that, I stay far away from angry mobs.


----------



## 10409 (Dec 11, 2011)

NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



except for just now


----------



## dradlin (Feb 27, 2010)

Diablo said:


> I wonder if its time for a new mechanism to induce change/show displeasure, that can be more on point?


Here's a thought... how about people write a letter to their MP/MPP, or maybe start by voting.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

dradlin said:


> Here's a thought... how about people write a letter to their MP/MPP, or maybe start by voting.


It's an Interesting idea, but remember, many protests arise because the protesters believe that their elected officials (or system) has failed them, or turned a blind eye to their cause.
and letters are easily ignored, and don't generate any publicity to the cause. It's a fairly silent approach, with little visibility.
voting someone else in, is a long process and doesn't guarantee any better results than the predecessor.

playing devils advocate here....but I do think the old school "write to your MP" plan, has some flaws.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

fredyfreeloader said:


> From what I've seen of the protesters here in the land of silk and money they are made up of three groups 1)Aboriginal "First Nations" 2) Welfare recipients 3) Paid protesters. The third group although they deny the accusation, are apparently funded by big American corporations. This is more apparent now during the current pipe line protests.
> Then there are the left leaning social engineering Professors from Simon Frazer University, these guys just can't stick to teaching they feel they must educate all of us regarding all the very bad things brought on the world by crude oil, although they all drive vehicles that use petroleum products. This is once again the old don't do as I do, do as I say BS.


Funny, I always hear Simon Fraser referred to as a "right wing think tank".


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

You're confusing it with the Fraser Institute. Different beast. A number of Canadian cities have a "2nd school" that ends up being the hotbed of social protest. Vancouver has Simon Fraser. Toronto has York. Montreal has Concordia and UQAM. Ottawa has Carleton. They're certainly not _bad_ schools, but for whatever reasons, they tend to accumulate more political unrest.

I sense a certain dismissive attitude about protests here. I will repeat: when something is wrong, you gotta raise your voice. I grew up watching the freedom marches in Selma Alabama on TV, and the Chicago Democratic convention (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Democratic_National_Convention). You can't persuade me that when something is just plain wrong you don't protest about it.

Of course, having said that, one needs to differentiate between productive and unproductive protest, between protest and obstruction, and between the original purpose of a protest and "appended activities".

A protest should be to make a point, and convey that the viewpoint is broadly shared. Once a group camps out somewhere, and decides they are going to hang around until they get what they want, you've moved from protest to obstruction. Sometimes that _*can *_be completely justified, if a secondary goal is to convey determination and commitment to those in power who believe it will all just blow over if they ignore it (see Hong Kong and Tian Nan Men). But in a lot of cases it tends more to reflect confusion among protesters about what to do next, and a lack of understanding about process.

We've also seen plenty of instances where the principal organizers of a protest have admirable goals and a clear vision, but the broader protest gets augmented by those whose goals may be otherwise. I suppose this first came to everyone's attention during the Seattle riots, and blossomed during the Quebec Summit of the Americas conference, when doofuses in black balaclavas started showing up to smash windows as "political comment".

Of course, the challenge often is that protests are put together on an ad hoc basis, rather than co-ordinated by a standing organizing group that has clear authority on what is going to take place. You don't see splinter groups attempting to add themselves onto annual planned parades, _because_ there is a standing organizing body. When nobody is acknowledged as being in charge of a protest, anybody can add whatever they want to it, and as we learned in Quebec, sometimes even the police will infiltrate and provoke criminal acts by protesters.

There are good protests, and there are s****y protests, and there are good protests that turn sour. I think we need to keep the these separate, rather than tar them all with the same brush.


----------



## J-75 (Jul 29, 2010)

Many, many years ago I went to an anti-seal hunt protest at city hall. The place got full of every kind of wacko you could imagine - just a bunch of people who are permanently pissed off and looking for any excuse to gather. They had no conscience about the particular cause at all. A lot of them 'looked' homeless. "Protest Groupies"? To my mind the negative attention this gathering created probably lost credibility to the cause. So, I vowed - never again (in Canada, anyway).


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

There's just something about the natue of a collective protest that I don't feel comfortable with.

It's similar to the idea (but for different reasons) of walking a picket line.

No way, no how would I ever walk around carrying a sign or chanting some mindless mantra / song.

It's just not in me to do things like that.


----------



## Mooh (Mar 7, 2007)

I attended several protests during the Mike Harris government in Ontario, marched at Queen's Park and elsewhere, and walked several picket lines. I was earning my living as a union negotiator at the time. A surprising number of the public sector employers with whom I had a professional relationship but sat on the other side of the table, agreed with the unions, but couldn't say so publicly without backlash. We had absolutely no problem getting people released from work to participate in protests. At the time I represented some workers from libraries, woman's shelters, municipalities, school maintenance, nursing homes, and hospitals. 

There is a time and a place for protests, and peaceful ones are the ones with positive impact. Trouble is, there are often goons who like to use protests as cover for their violence, criminal acts, and general thuggery and bullying. These people are to be shunned.

Nowadays I sign a lot of petitions, write letters, vote as I've always done, and protest in whatever way I can. I would still join a march if necessary to me.

Listen to some Pete Seeger, thinks I.

Peace, Mooh.


----------



## Moosehead (Jan 6, 2011)

Never been to a real protest. 

Marched down hwy 420 in Falls on April 20th when I was younger; Its a yearly march to protest the prohibition of pot.
A few people had signs but most were there to simply smoke up. Always goes pretty well, police dont really care and are just there to supervise.

A recent protest that was effective was the pipline expansion through Burnaby mountain. Non violent and a bit obstructive but effective. BC has a bit more of a protest movement throughout the province. 

I think protest has a very important role to play to keep gov't in line. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't but when there is something that hits close to home to go out and chant "Not in my backyard" is not beyond me.


----------



## hardasmum (Apr 23, 2008)

Canadians for the most part seem pretty complacent when it comes to politics. 

I wonder what it would take for us to actually stand up for ourselves? A poutine shortage? Banning hockey sticks? Tim Horton's closing?


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

I'm not sure that's complacency. It may be more of a cultural thing.


I just don't think marching does anything other than gain a little visibility. I doubt very much it changes anyone's mind on important issues,


I don't object to it, but my time is more valuable to me (maybe not to anyone else) to spend it travelling to a location and spending a day with no tangible target.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

Mooh said:


> Trouble is, there are often goons who like to use protests as cover for their violence, criminal acts, and general thuggery and bullying. These people are to be shunned.


That is one of the best reasons to stay away from any protests. You never know what you are going to get involved in. There are weapons being brought to these things now. Even union protests have turned violently ugly.

Another thing a person considering getting involved in a protest is to ask themselves, have they really changed anything in a major way that has made a real difference?


----------



## boyscout (Feb 14, 2009)

Mooh said:


> I attended several protests during the Mike Harris government in Ontario, marched at Queen's Park and elsewhere, and walked several picket lines. I was earning my living as a union negotiator at the time. A surprising number of the public sector employers with whom I had a professional relationship but sat on the other side of the table, agreed with the unions, but couldn't say so publicly without backlash. We had absolutely no problem getting people released from work to participate in protests. At the time I represented some workers from libraries, woman's shelters, municipalities, school maintenance, nursing homes, and hospitals.
> 
> There is a time and a place for protests, and peaceful ones are the ones with positive impact. Trouble is, there are often goons who like to use protests as cover for their violence, criminal acts, and general thuggery and bullying. These people are to be shunned. <snip>


Here's a perspective from the other side.

To the OP's question, I did participate in a protest once, in the early 90's protesting at Queen's Park against the Liberal government of the day. Ronnie Hawkins and some band-mates came and played a few songs to keep us warm... he still had something even then. It was completely peaceful.

A few years later, I was working in the Ontario government and Mooh's friends in the Ontario "civil" service were on strike. One morning while trying to step onto the large PUBLIC courtyard at Bay and Wellington, a runt about a foot shorter than me tried to bar me from doing that by ramming a hockey stick broadside against my chest. He wanted me to wait 15 minutes on the sidewalk before joining the line to wait another 15 minutes to be ALLOWED into the public building by the union goons at the door preventing employees from going to work. (I didn't wait on the sidewalk.)

A few days later we were aware that the unions intended to ramp things up that day. A few attempts to stage government-smearing incidents had backfired against them in the media and I guess they wanted to show force... people don't like seeing violence in their streets. The unions bused in hundreds of thugs from the auto workers and other trade unions, bringing them from all over with flags, sticks, heavy boots, thick clothing. A few wore masks, though this occurred before hiding their identities became a popular tactic of these leftist professional protesters. They created a big presence around the Ontario legislature building, maybe a thousand of them.

One of my staff members was an unusually gracious and graceful small woman in her fifties, would blush if someone said "damn", could get blown away in a breeze, couldn't tell a lie to save her life. She had to work in the Legislature building that day, so she joined a "15-minute" line against the wall outside to wait for the goons to let her in. Twice during the ~20 minutes they kept her waiting there, responding to some signal she couldn't detect, the goons moved en masse against the line of waiting employees, using their sticks and flags to press people very hard against the stone wall while screaming obscenities at them. She showed me bruises on her arm the next day.

Nice people you got there Mooh! Can't help but point out that there wasn't much "shunning" of "violence, criminal acts, or general thuggery and bullying" there unless "shunning" means the same as "encouraging". Also worth underscoring that the workers you got "released" from work to try to swell the size of your protests weren't on strike, so they collected full pay from the public purse to join those protests. No worries though, it was just the government's money, not ours.

This occurred nearly twenty years ago. There's an argument that in the public sector, 20 years later, the self-interested unionized "civil" service is even more uncontrollable than it was then. The hens are running the henhouse. (Tempted to reference Animal Farm, but the howls would obscure the point! )


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

hardasmum said:


> Canadians for the most part seem pretty complacent when it comes to politics.
> 
> I wonder what it would take for us to actually stand up for ourselves? A poutine shortage? Banning hockey sticks? Tim Horton's closing?


the most recent thing I can remember that had many up in arms was photo radar.
but eventually we capitulated.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

I think one ought to distinguish between labour strikes and protests.

I have distinguished in earlier posts between protests and obstructions. The contemporary labour strike all too often uses obstruction as its principal method. That is, if I can't make you yield by simply not being on the job myself, I will gain leverage by preventing others from doing_* their *_job. And, as annoying as that is, it is not the same as protest.

Let us consider the case of veterans, if for no other reason than it is a current point of political discussion. Certainly, veterans do not have any services they can withdraw, so there is no strike to be had. But they have a number of legitimate sore spots with the current federal government, the minister in particular, and the administration at Veterans Affairs. What should their course of action be? How do they move their situation from the back burner closer to the center of the stage, and be assured that it has done so, such that something gets done to remedy it? Would a petition do it? Would letters to MPs do it? Or is something with much greater visibility the optimal way to gather some momentum?

I don't think we're going to see a march by such individuals, if only because many are not in the best physical condition, whether by virtue of age-related frailty, physical handicap, or whatever. But some sort of continuing demonstration of discontent, in episodic form, will probably be perceived as being necessary.


----------



## Mooh (Mar 7, 2007)

Boyscout, your single anecdotal example doesn't make for good evidence. The vast majority of strikes and protests are conducted peacefully. 

Fwiw, my "people" (to quote you) were mostly healthcare workers who wouldn't hurt a fly unless it was to save a life.

No minds will likely be changed here.

Peace, Mooh.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

mhammer said:


> I think one ought to distinguish between labour strikes and protests.
> 
> I have distinguished in earlier posts between protests and obstructions. The contemporary labour strike all too often uses obstruction as its principal method. That is, if I can't make you yield by simply not being on the job myself, I will gain leverage by preventing others from doing_* their *_job. And, as annoying as that is, it is not the same as protest.
> 
> ...


Fair enough. Protests and strikes don't necessarily share the same paradigm, but an unruly crowd / mob is what it is and I avoid those like the plague.

In my opinion, the chance of positive things happening when you gather a large group of humans together is very unlikely.

And, inevitably, I always find myself asking, don't any of these people have to work?


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

Mooh said:


> Fwiw, my "people" (to quote you) were mostly healthcare workers who wouldn't hurt a fly unless it was to save a life.
> 
> Peace, Mooh.


Yeah I'm with you its amazing how these otherwise docile creatures can turn in to union thugs to try and extort their demands.


----------



## Guest (Dec 8, 2014)

Milkman said:


> In my opinion, the chance of positive things happening when you gather a large group of humans together is very unlikely.


Concerts being the exception?


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Even concerts aren't my idea of a happy place unless I have reserved seats and good ones at that. For me it's about the music and performance. Being a part of a sea of humanity is not something I enjoy. I've been there and done that, and survived it, but no, I'd rather see a band in a small theatre or other similar venue.



laristotle said:


> Concerts being the exception?


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

Milkman said:


> Even concerts aren't my idea of a happy place unless I have reserved seats and good ones at that. For me it's about the music and performance. Being a part of a sea of humanity is not something I enjoy. I've been there and done that, and survived it, but no, I'd rather see a band in a small theatre or other similar venue.



Exactly my feeling.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

Milkman said:


> Even concerts aren't my idea of a happy place unless I have reserved seats and good ones at that. For me it's about the music and performance. Being a part of a sea of humanity is not something I enjoy. I've been there and done that, and survived it, but no, I'd rather see a band in a small theatre or other similar venue.


Ya, I'm not much for crowds either. I tolerate them when I have to, but always feel a little stress.


----------



## 4345567 (Jun 26, 2008)

__________


----------



## Ti-Ron (Mar 21, 2007)

Too many. I can't even recall all of them. As a student in social studies it was part of my grades in University.

Add to this, I went to UQAM (left wing french university in Mtl.) This is where all protest starts here. Did some camping with many peoples downtown in Mtl, many greats stories and a lot of nice fellows!

Most of the time, things go well, but sometime some black block (all black dressed people with masks or full face) came to f#@& things up. This my signal to quit. I am all in for expressing opinion but I am also againt violence use!


----------



## boyscout (Feb 14, 2009)

Ti-Ron said:


> <snip> As a student in social studies it was part of my grades in University. <snip>


That's a very common circumstance. Professors in the humanities, a substantial majority of them left-leaning in their own point of view, make it clear to their students that if they don't show up to help swell the protest crowd destined to be seen on TV that night, their grades will suffer. Free speech indeed.

It's another of the many ways that resources paid for by taxpayers are used to advance the agendas of its left-wing minority.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

That's patently unfair of you to claim, and quite frankly it would be impossible for any faculty member to engage in it, both legally and practically.


----------



## ThatGingerMojo (Jul 30, 2014)

I was downtown Toronto during the G-20 riots. We were trying to protest down on Wellington but we were told the protests were being held up on Queen and University. When the stupidity broke out we left. Didn't get involved in moron riots.


----------



## Option1 (May 26, 2012)

boyscout said:


> That's a very common circumstance. Professors in the humanities, a substantial majority of them left-leaning in their own point of view, make it clear to their students that if they don't show up to help swell the protest crowd destined to be seen on TV that night, their grades will suffer. Free speech indeed.
> 
> It's another of the many ways that resources paid for by taxpayers are used to advance the agendas of its left-wing minority.


Bullshit.

Neil


----------



## boyscout (Feb 14, 2009)

mhammer said:


> That's patently unfair of you to claim, and quite frankly it would be impossible for any faculty member to engage in it, both legally and practically.


About 15-20 times in the 20+ years I worked in political organizations, conservative-minded young people reported to me some form of what Ti-Ron has also reported here. I was a bit player; likely others heard it more often. I should not have said it was "very common" - it is not - but neither is it extremely rare.

Whether by scheduling formal "field trips" or by exhorting students to attend events and then asking them about them afterwards, or in other ways, professors made the students feel pressured to attend events and that their marks would suffer if they did not. This at schools from Ontario to BC, including a high school once. Illegal maybe (I don't know) but for some law is a relative thing. Impossible? Nonsense!


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Then explain to me how one would take attendance. Does the prof designate a meeting spot at the site of the protest, and then show up with a clipboard?

I have no quarrel with the notion that academics have the luxury of being able to view things in terms of ideals, rather than practicalities or realpolitik, and also have flexible-enough schedules (not to mention a constituency with flexible-enough schedules) to be able to follow up on their ideals, and exhort others to do so. Indeed, one of the principle purposes of a university IS to be able to "hot-house" thinkers so that one can ponder matters without being burdened by the mundane (though try telling that to someone trying to get a grant proposal ready). That's a big part of how ideas move forward.

I was affiliated with a dozen post-secondary institutions from one side of the country (M.U.N., Mt. Allison) to the other (U.Vic., Vancouver Island U.), and many points in between (McGill, Concordia, U of O, Carleton, McMaster, U of A), between 1969 and 2002, and never witnessed or heard of what you describe. I did hear of Jim Keegstra giving higher high school social-studies grades to termpapers that called Catholicism and Judaism "gutter religions" (and lower marks to essays that spoke favorably of them), but you can probably check the _CAUT Bulletin _or _University Affairs_ as far back as you want, and you will not likely find any cases like that, because universities have a governance system to address such matters, and small-town high schools don't.

By the same token, I would expect any prof worth their salt to create a safe space in their classroom for students to express defensible viewpoints of ANY type, left, right, or outer-space. If the conservative students you speak of didn't get that, then some profs were not holding up their end of the bargain, when it comes to intellectual freedom.

Okey dokey, lunch break's over.

Do young impressionable enthusiastic people feel a certain peer pressure to participate? Sure. Do profs sometimes whip up enthusiasm for a "cause" that angers them enough they find it hard to shut up about it? Certainly. And if you teach those subjects where "causes" are part of the subject matter, it is only natural they come up. Is somebody teaching a course on the sociology of deviance or marginalized groups going to broach the subject of Rinelle Harper and TIna Fontaine in class? Probably. A good friend and I were discussing our interactions with students, and he found it difficult to imagine having the sorts of interactions with students that I had. I don't consider him any less empathetic than myself. I told him that, where HIS courses revolved around neurophysiology, and were very chemistry- and terminology-intensive, the subject matter of my courses (gerontology) had people recounting in class how they had to wipe s**t off a dementing parent; which of those groups do you think would have the impression that their prof could provide an ear for their problems after class? So, are humanities and social-science classes more likely to elicit interest in issues than calculus, organic chem, and mechanics? You're damn right they will.

But the very notion of any student getting any benefit or punishment in their grades, as a function of such participation is generally grounds for dismissal of the faculty member. See the case of former U of O prof Denis Rancourt as an example.


----------



## butterknucket (Feb 5, 2006)

I often protested eating my vegetables as a child....that never went well. 

I like vegetables now though.


----------

