Since seeing that disabled people are planning an act of civil disobedience on Saturday I have been thinking a lot about this.
Disabled people have been fighting very hard recently to be recognised as having a legitimate and valued voice, and I dare say we have been successful in this. As Sue Marsh said in her blog, we are no longer considered scroungers and dole scum. Thanks to the Spartacusreport we have raised disabled peoples profile in the national media, wider society and more importantly within the houses of power at westminister.
As I said on twitter the other day, the spartacusreport managed to get inside the HoL in an amendment and not just standing outside with a placard. Its success was in my opinion soley down to one thing. Accessibility. It meant that, for the first time the majority of disabled people could all unite together with one voice, one message using the same means. The internet has become one of the best tools for disabled people to communicate. There weren't any practical issues of traditional protesting and people were able to contribute in their own small way to make a big difference.
My fear for saturday is that all this good work will get undone. disabled people have been fighting for the front pages of newspapers with a legitimate, factual and reasoned argument with the spartacusreport, but unfortunately this might hit the headlines for all the wrong reasons.
It might shove spartacus report into the sidelines and change the public's new perception of disabled people once again into a negative and scrounging stereotype.
I know I would prefer disabled people to be known for the calm, reasoned, thoughtful, intellectual and factual arguements within the spartacus report than for some stunt in central london.
I am one of the people planning to be involved in this protest. I am open to being persuaded as to why I am wrong to do so. I think the question I want to ask you first is that if a protest through physical presence is not required or justified now, when is it?
ReplyDeleteI do take issue with the idea that protesters do not have calm, reasoned, thoughtful, intellectual and factual arguments. The point of protest is to stand up to the politicians and the media who are ignoring us and force them to look at those arguments.
ReplyDeleteAs for getting in the headlines for the wrong reasons - after following UK Uncut for more than a year, I don't expect this to get in the headlines at all. And I don't intend to do anything that isn't peaceful. If I get arrested, it will be because of political policing.
Again, here is the thing - protest has always been "outside the law". Suffragettes chained themselves to parliament steps. Disabled people broke the law. Black people drank out of white fountains. It was considered AGAINST THE LAW. They were LAWBREAKERS. They were UNLAWFUL. They were not being REASONABLE.
ReplyDeleteThe thing about passive protest is no one had any experience with it, and it soon became clear when a million people marched onto the White House that the military would not be able to stop them if they got angry. And THAT is why it worked.
That is also why protest does NOT work now - because the government is well aware people will just sit around sipping Starbucks, doing the "hipster" thing of holding a placard for an hour and then go home saying "Well I did my bit." There's no fire behind it, and therefore it can be ignored.
There's a point where rational works. It's been tried. It's been done. Then there is a point where you have to get angry. After the letter I got today, I'd be there myself. I've tried rational, now I'm furious.