What is typically called ‘violence’, more accurately: property destruction, occurred at yesterday’s protests in London over the increase in tuition fees proposed by the Conservative government.
Regardless of what you call it, one thing seems to be certain here in England: Everyone is talking about the protests! Some people begrudgingly argue that the militant protesters were rightfully outraged, were but a small segment of the protest, or were unrelated youth out to get their kicks.
But those militant protesters are probably the reason anyone is talking about this protest.
Last December, a group of over 40,000 people marched against climate change in London. The news covered it but sparsely. Discussion after the protest was minimal. I doubt the extra 10,000 people in the latest tuition fees protest is what’s making the story viral. Rather, it the “violence”.
The story doesn’t end here. What is the news and debating all about? Well, mostly the violence. Case in point: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-11729912; http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/11/how_should_the_police_deal_wit.html.
But there is some underlying talk of the substantive issues. No news article ignores it and rarely do I hear a debate sticking entirely to the topic of the violence. Perhaps I’m in a biased atmosphere, I’ll admit that much.
But take a look at this:
BBC’s Have Your Say, on the topic of “How should the police deal with protests?”
(http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/11/how_should_the_police_deal_wit.html?page=8#comments)
Its already got over 700 responses and many many people are talking about the fees even when the question is not directed toward the substantive issue (thanks a lot media). There’s so much talk of the tuition fees people have posted responses like: “Yes lets focus on the ‘violence’ instead of the reason the protest was on in the first place”!!
People are talking and they are talking about the issue. It seems like at this point real discursive democracy might require a few broken windows.
