In defence of peaceful protest
Posted by Theo Zhang on January 28th, 2009
Photograph from the Occupation Cambridge Facebook group
Of imminent importance at the moment is the student occupation of the Law faculty, and CUSU have called an emergency motion to debate the issue tonight.
In brief, a number of students have staged a non-violent sit-in on the ground floor of the Law faculty, and won’t relinquish their position until the university acknowledges their demands.
These demands are as follows:
We demand that Cambridge University issue a statement which condemns: Israel’s action in Gaza; the Israeli blockade of Gaza; and the continued Israeli presence in Gaza and the West Bank. This statement is to be issued in solidarity with international peace movements, in particular those in Israel and Palestine.
We demand that Cambridge University provide academic aid, particularly books, computers and financial support to universities in Gaza.
We demand that Cambridge University commit to a day of fundraising for humanitarian aid in Gaza within the next two weeks, as part of an ongoing commitment to financial support for the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.
We demand that Cambridge University grant a minimum of ten scholarships to Palestinian students every year.
We demand that Cambridge University and its colleges disinvest from the arms trade in cooperation with the existing Cambridge (and colleges) Against the Arms Trade movement.
We demand that no student will face punishment or repercussions, legal or otherwise, for participating in this demonstration.
This is as part of a wider network of university sit-ins, aimed at raising awareness of the humanitarian and political issues involved in what has been a massacre of civilians (over 1000 Palestinians and 3 Israelis).
The issue I would like to address in the blog post is not that of the arguments put forward by either side, but the concept of peaceful protest. Liberal politics has created a framework by which we resolve conflicts through debating a plurality of arguments. One of the conditions for this is the right to peaceful protest.
Because there is a humanitarian crisis involved, the issue is of immense importance to those directly involved, and those protesting view themselves in solidarity with the people whose lives have been wrecked by the conflict.
Throughout history, non-violent protest has proven to be an effective way of raising awareness. One of the most profound forms of minority influence is when an unaffected minority argue on behalf of the oppressed majority. This is because people view such people as appealing to a more rational basis than one of emotion or identification.
It has almost invariably been the case that it has required such solidarity movements to instigate social change, and this is the motivation and justification behind such protests. In the African-American Civil Rights Movement one of the most important sources of support was the Christian network in Europe, who donated to the NAACP.
Historically university protests have frequently triggered or contributed to changes in policy from below. Examples are as diverse as the 1905 Russian Revolution, increased accountability of the Chinese Communist Party after 1989, and changes to university policy in France and the United States in 1968. Not only are the demands of the Gaza Solidarity movement significantly less ambitious, they have been realised in universities as diverse as the LSE, Sussex and Oxford.
So in summary, the protests are not “pointless” as many suggest, they form what is an important aspect of the political framework, and uphold the tradition of student politics, which has historically been crucial to social change.
Click here to participate in a poll about your views in the proposals:
http://www.srcf.ucam.org/ffsc/poll
References:
http://cambridgegazasolidarity.blogspot.com
Filed under: Uncategorized on January 28th, 2009
Peaceful protest is okay. I only want to point out than an obstructive sit-in at a University faculty, making political demands of the University, is a slightly different ballgame.
I also worry about Clare Politics being seen as a mouthpiece for this movement. To clarify: it is not.
I wasn’t coming down on either side, simply illustrating the principle of peaceful protest. From what I’ve heard they aren’t being obstructive at all, they’re keeping their voices down and protesting in an entirely civilised manner.
In any case, the views expressed on the blog are those of the individual writers and not those of Clare Politics, Clare College or the University of Cambridge
Because is it’s a sit-in, I hear the faculty has inevitably had to rearrange lectures and instigate ID checks on the door. So it’s a bit obstructive.
Peaceful protest outdoors in the cold? Fine.
Peaceful protest where you want space and warmth and WiFi, so you pinch them off the very institution you’re complaining about? Less fine.
Well it is Cambridge after all, it’s not reasonable for us to go without wifi for a day!
A typical student protest here is to do with not being allowed to bring wine to formal or the cancellation of a may ball. To me it’s refreshing that something which is actually important is being discussed.
Jonathan, I have a number of remarks.
First, I believe your worries for Clare Politics to be a ‘mouthpiece’ for this movement to be ill-founded. It is rather a mouthpiece for political debate - and no one can deny that the occupation of the Law Faculty has sparked debate of the highest order - and views from those involved in the occupation (myself included) are as welcome as those in opposition to it. Indeed, I see no real conflict of interest between my simultaneous position on the Clare Politics Committee and involvement in the events of the last week. Were blog posts to be restricted to those without a political agenda, our blog would be very dull indeed. I believe I speak for the rest of the committee in these respects.
Second, you seem to be misinformed as to the exact nature of the protest staged in the course of the last six days. It is undeniably peaceful, and to suggest otherwise is simply false.
‘Because is it’s a sit-in, I hear the faculty has inevitably had to rearrange lectures and instigate ID checks on the door. So it’s a bit obstructive.’
It is worth reminding that no lectures have been cancelled as a result of the occupation, and any obstruction caused is a result of the heavy-handed reactions of university authorities - reactions specifically designed to drive a wedge between protesters and their student colleagues. That your views on the matter stem from hearsay is also telling. Had you taken the time to visit the protest at the Law Faculty it would soon have become clear that the action undertaken has been characterised by inclusivity and healthy debate. Far from obstructing the educational purpose of the University, it has enhanced it in a way that can only prove healthy, scheduling talks, debates, film-showings and showcasing a form of direct democracy fitting to the peaceful nature of the demonstration.
Thirdly, you further misrepresent the nature of the action by stating that
‘Peaceful protest where you want space and warmth and WiFi, so you pinch them off the very institution you’re complaining about? Less fine.’
Such statements are seriously misguided - even offensive. Your implicit suggestion seems to be that the occupation has been staged by a bunch of hippy student activists whose sole aim is the elevation of their own egos, in an essentially cushy environment. On the contrary, it has been undertaken by determined students sincere in their belief, who have faced consistent intimidation from University authorities. The length of such a political protest is unprecedented in Cambridge, posing serious challenges to the well-being of the occupants; last night saw the culmination of the University’s authoritarian methods, with the removal of food in the occupied area forcing protesters to eat out of bins. Students have risked their degrees for the sake of firmly held political beliefs - I ask you not to forget this.
The occupation has been disciplined, diverse, inclusive, peaceful - in short a true demonstration of the progressive values which you purport to extoll. I am proud of my involvement.
I said I worry about CP being seen as a mouthpiece for this movement, which was more of a worry about the future than a criticism about the present. Sam Dub discussed this with me earlier this week. So far it’s all okay.
That you are a mouthpiece for this movement seems rather beyond doubt.
Just to be clear, during the Clarification cartoon hullaballoo, we got a massive traffic spike from a whole bunch of bloggers/journalists/general-internetters who kind of misconstrued what the blog was about and who we spoke on behalf of. Hence the appearance of the disclaimer in the sidebar.
There is in my opinion no post on the site that suggests anything to the contrary. In any case, as they probably don’t say at ENS c’est pas (encore) mes oignons..