Belated Response

I never did get around to posting after the TUC protest a couple of weeks ago, which means I won't bother saying much about it now since it's all a bit outdated. I did have a look at the coverage on Sunday, and it was pretty much what you'd expect. The more liberal papers tended to run higher numbers of attendees (ranging up to 400,000) and their headlines played down the trouble caused by the more radical elements. The more conservative papers generally went with lower attendance estimates (as low as 200,000) and featured photos and headlines about violence and police more prominently. Headlines aside, though, the things that went on outside of the march - the occupation of Fortnum and Masons, the paintballs thrown at police officers and allegedly tax-dodging businesses on Oxford Street, the vandalism of the Olympic clock in Trafalgar Square - were really the main focus of all coverage. Some better-meaning pieces opened with a paragraph that pointedly recognised the mass of peaceful protesters, but still went on to talk quite a bit more about the rest. But even if 400,000 people are marching peacefully, it's still news if anyone goes and smashes windows and throws paint on Oxford Street, so it's wrong to think that there should somehow be no media coverage just because the protest leaders would rather highlight the peaceful elements.

Yesterday someone posted this article on Twitter, defending the Black Bloc's tactics. While I generally don't agree with it, I do think it makes an important point about the distinction between violence and vandalism. Commentary during and after protests from politicians, police, opponents and peaceful protesters always condemns the 'violence' perpetrated by a few rogue elements. But is breaking shop windows or spraypainting buildings and monuments really violence? If this were an isolated incident on any night of the week, it would just be vandalism, and not noteworthy at all. Of course, there have been incidents of some people attacking police with protest signs, bottles, bricks, etc., and of course this is violence. I just think it's important that we use the right words in the right context.

*****************************

The election campaign in Canada is under way, and I'm already annoyed. First, by the jibes being traded on Twitter by Michael Ignatieff and Stephen Harper over the possibility of a one-on-one debate. "You said this but now you've taken it back", "My staff offered this and got no response", blah blah blah. People who are trying to be elected as Prime Minister of a country should not be engaging in petty who said what, schoolyard taunting online. It's pathetic. Second, the condescending campaign sloganing: met with REAL CANADIANS today, repeating RURAL CANADIANS over and over to show they aren't forgotten. It's so transparent and superficial. And I know, I know, it's politics. Sometimes I just hope for something a little better from the people who are supposed to be our nation's great leaders.

Finally, I'd forgotten the most annoying thing of all about election campaigns - my partisan Facebook friends. My newsfeed is basically a list of articles about why Harper or Ignatieff is terrible and will ruin this country (or already has). Worse than these, which are presumably meant to at least educate, are the status updates that don't really mean anything and serve just to shout loudly about who that person is voting for and why everyone else is stupid for not doing so. Urgh. I wish we could have some sort of moratorium on party hacks for the duration of the campaign.