In this age, it seems there are protests in many different countries. Some of the issues are worth fighting for. the corruption in Lebanon has been going on for years, and the people finally had too much, and protested. in Lebanon, the government has listened to the people and have relented, vowing to cut politicians wages, remove some nonsensical taxes and have said they will fight the corruption.
In Hong Kong, the people are protesting the so called autonomous rule of their region, which is overseen by the communist Chinese regime. The fact that they are communist makes me question the worth, or good of protesting. Historically, communist regimes do not listen to the people and do whatever they like. They broke a promise to keep their hands off the politics of Hong Kong, but communist regime are not to be trusted.
There have been protests all over the world about climate change, and the humans contribution to it. Now I am not an advocate of climate change, but I do think that we have a responsibility to care for the world in which we live. We cant expect a place to continue to provide shelter and food, if we do not help ourselves. So… recycle, cut down on waste, plant trees and grow vegies. There are policies that governments have that are not helping to care for our earth, and these should be protested against.
Immigration from refugees has been a reason to protest in Europe recently, most notably in France and The Netherlands to name two countries. While I have compassion for refugees, I can understand that people feel over whelmed by the sheer volume of people coming in, taking refuge from war and violence in their countries of origin. European countries can question whether their infrastructure can cope with the sudden influx of so many people. It is one reason that Britain is defecting from the European Union. Britain wants to control who comes into their region and the amount of people they allow to resettle in their countries. France has had man protests recently. The Yellow Vest protesters have been protesting the rise in fuel tax, while the red scarf group and the blue vests, protest against the violence and hate of the other protesters.
“The Red Scarves marched in Paris last Sunday in a “March for Republican Liberties” along with other allied groups, including the “Blue Vests,” or “Gilets Bleus.”
The Blue Vests also call for an end “to all forms of violence and hate” and the group’s founder Laurent Segnis wrote on the group’s Facebook page in late November that “we want to show that there are more and more of us refusing these blockages, refusing these violence, these obstacles to freedom, these attacks our freedom of opinion.” He argued that road blockages would only prompt more unemployment and insecurity.
“We denounce this insurrectional climate created by yellow vests,” he said.
It is important for people to have a voice, to be heard by the government and not to be ignored. In a democratic political system, the people are supposed to be represented by elected representatives chosen by the majority of people in that region. ( I wont go into the merits or problems with preferences). The first place we must protest then is through the member of parliament chosen to represent us. When this fails, then we have a right to take to the streets in protest. Voices of many can be heard when people protest. Protesters must concentrate on the message they wish to convey, using language that is respectful, and making sure the focus is on the problem, not attacking people personally.
I can understand some protests becoming violent, when people are fervent about the issue they are presenting. Violence occurs when the language of diplomacy fails. But when violence occurs, the issue is put to one side, and concentration on stemming the violence takes precedent. The sympathies of the world and onlookers are lost when violence is introduced, by either side… protesters or officials. All credibility is lost when people are hurt, or threatened, or when property is destroyed. When people are hurt or property destroyed, does it advance the cause of the protest? no. The officials do not look at the issues that started the protest, but focus on quashing the violence.
Hong Kong being a case in point. We agreed with the protesters that the communists needed to keep their promises of letting the region have autonomous rule, but they didn’t. And no amount of violence or protests will change their minds. They are communists, they don;t listen to reason.
Chile troubles me. People have lost their lives, been shot by the police. Curfews have been put in place, giving police the authority to arrest people who break the curfew. Does anyone in the world realise what the protests are about? We do not focus on the issue, but on the violence and the lives lost, without knowing the cause they are fighting for. The problem is, the issue is so minor, that protests should not have happened, and the violence is not justified. The issue is that a group of secondary school students were protesting at having to pay fares on public transport, and the rise in prices of that transport. I understand that there is inequality in Chile and that some people ar struggling, but violence is not the way. Now Chile is not considered to be a poor country. In fact the world bank rank it as a high income country and has said that it is South Americas most stable and prosperous nation. Chile is a democratic country, but was previously a dictatorship. Many of the policies of the current government have roots in the former dictatorship. There needs to be dialogue between people and government, and if the government is not listening, then vote them out,
I think we need to not sweat the small stuff, but vehemently protest the big stuff. Argue for the rights for everyone to live in a safe and healthy world, without war, violence or disease. Violence has no place in dialogue between the people and the officials who govern a country.