Between the 10th and 12th of April, Wellington experienced three notable protest actions: a $10 billion student debt day march on the Thursday, a pro-cannabis smokeup on parliament lawn on the Friday, and anti-Labour party protests outside the town hall on Saturday. These protests can be categorized as gold, frankincense and meh: gold for the debt march, frankincense for the smokeup, and meh for the anti-Labour protest (since it involved too many issues to be neatly summed up by one pithy word).
While I am a biased observer (as I support, to some degree, all three protests), nevertheless it’s worth asking whether these protests actually achieved anything other than presenting us with a bit of fun street theatre to watch. Is protesting really effective in this day and age?
Helen Clark boasts of having taken part in anti-Vietnam War and anti-Springbok Tour protests, and in February 2003 dismissed anti-Iraq War protests as relatively small, implying that, because she has done all this before (and ‘better’ than those doing it now), protests against her government are perfectly acceptable, harmless – and passé. People tell me time and again that protesting is now so predictable that it is little more than street theatre.
If we look at the three notable protests that occurred in central Wellington between the 10th and 12th of April, we can easily see many routines that have been well-rehearsed: protestors and the police have fine-tuned their responses to one-another so well that this all seems like some game, played out for the benefit of the media, whose representatives like myself run around flashing cameras and writing it all up. In a way, this all sounds much like a candidates debate: organized and played out as a spectacle. But what makes protesting worthwhile is that this is a candidates debate where anyone gets to speak, provided they shout loud enough. As long as you can be innovative and daring enough to actually get a bit of spotlight, you can make your voice heard.
I’m going to run through the three recent protests looking at the tactics used by the participants and targets of the demonstrations, so that we can ask whether these tactics are in fact effective. Do they get their point across? Do they end up aggravating those they want to educate?
Gold Protest: Student Debt
At 1pm on Thursday 10 April, student politicians met in Victoria’s quad with banners to begin a march down to parliament, to protest the fact that student debt had reached $10 billion, waving Unite Union, Labour and Workers’ Party banners along with anti-student-debt placards. VUWSA Executive members (from left to right) Sonny Thomas, Seamus Brady, William Wu, Alexander Neilson and Rev. Paul Danger Brown can be seen leading the march down the Terrace (above).
The protest stopped outside Vic House to chant “join us” while Sonny and Pres. Joel Cosgrove rallied the troops:
As they moved off the terrace, the protest chanted a catchy and effective ditty based upon the Song That Never Ends:
“This is the debt that never ends
Yes it goes on and on my friends
Some people, started borrowing not knowing what it was
And they’ll continue borrowing forever just because…”
Unfortunately, the protestors also chanted:
“What do we want?
Free education!
When do we want it?
Now!”
I say unfortunately because many of those on the march are not so greedy that they demand free education. We understand that we gain from our education, and do not mind contributing towards the cost of learning. The protest was intended to focus on the demand for universal student allowance, as given that studying is a full-time job, and given that the unemployed are not expected to pay back the cost of their living, we believe that we should not have to, either. However, this legitimate demand was drowned out by the call for free education, which made the protest seem like a bunch of greedy kids, and the call “People of Wellington, join us!” was lost. However, we did manage to get in a nice bit of swearing:
“2468 what don’t we appreciate?
Student loans, student loans, stupid fucking student loans.”
Anyway, we were joined by Massey University students on Willis st; their MAWSA executive brought along convict uniforms, which MAWSA president Alex and VUWSA president Joel donned. From this point onward, MAWSA’s Alex began leading the protest from behind a megaphone; we picked up some more supporters and a police escort on Lambton Quay, before arriving at Parliament.
When we collected in front of Parliament steps, Whitireia Polytech had set up a rock band (with poodle hair, Led Zep shirts, sweat stains and everything esle) to welcome us, which was fucking sweet.
Alex, Joel and NZUSA rep Liz Hawes then addressed the crowd. Green MP Metiria Turei, and NZ First MP Dail Jones, both long-time universal student allowance advocates, turned up to speak, but after Joel conferred with them he decided that this protest was “not about the politicians” and we marched off, although he stopped to be interviewed by a TV camera and some fellow Workers’ Party supporters brought their banner up behind him.
We then marched back down Lambton Quay to Midland park, where we were met by a heckler (in the purple shirt and white hat) and the police talked with Massey students who had brought a student in stocks on the back of a ute. The police didn’t seem to mind too much, though, and left after making their presence known.
Personally, I felt that the best thing about this protest was that it brought together students from all of Wellington’s tertiary education providers. In particular, Vic, Massey and Whitireia all made striking contributions (especially Whitireia with the rock band). While Vic tends to dominate these events, being the most political of the schools, Massey’s leaders were just as vocal. So the protest achieved a solidarity that we need if we’re going to make education affordable.
Question:
Did the demand for “free education” make the protest seem greedy and drive away support? Would we have been better off demanding simply a universal student allowance, which was what the protest was supposed to be about, after all?
Question:
Was it rude and naïve of Joel to deny Metiria and Dail the right to speak to us (as my colleagues Conrad and Jackson have previously argued)? Granted, his desire to stop politicians from dominating the event to serve their own parties may be honourable. However, both NZ First and the Greens have long been supporters of a universal student allowance; Labour and the Workers’ Party supporters were allowed to bring obviously-partisan banners (in that Labour supporters waved banners blaming National for the debt); and, perhaps most importantly, both the bulk of the protestors and the MPs expected the MPs to speak. Had the protest leaders told us from the start that the MPs would not speak, we could have avoided appearing to be rudely snubbing Dail and Metiria. Would allowing the MPs to speak have attracted more press attention, and would this have been a good thing? As it turned out, the Dom Post only gave us a small mention with no pics.
Frankincense Protest: Legalize Marijuana
A day after the debt march, Maryjane the Cannabus visited Wellington. That morning, while parked in town, a policeman had come to demand that her drivers move as they were taking up three parking spaces. The officer saw the bus’s navigator Conan, a marijuana plant sitting on the dashboard, but remarked to the drivers “yeah… I’m gonna ignore that.” In the afternoon, she drove around town inviting folk to a 4:20 smokeup on parliament lawn.
After waiting for a film crew to finish shooting around parliament, the NORML activists set up a prohibition-free zone on the lawn. This would be the third marijuana smoke-up on parliament grounds that I am aware of (though I assume there have been many more secretive ones): in 1996 several ALCP/NORML members were arrested (though charges were eventually dismissed) after a similar parliament lawn protest, and the next year Young ACT members smoked up on the steps after the VSM bill passed [note the 1996 incident is not reported on the interwebs and was reported to me first-hand, but don’t quote me on the date].
NORML’s Dakta Green spoke to the crowd, explaining that prohibition only increases any damage caused by cannabis, as it drives users underground, discourages addicts from seeking help, and criminalizes half our nation (sorry I can’t resist proselytizing). He stood next to the giant hookah that had been returned from the police sans its tubes, so is now no more than ornamental.
We smoked pot, including a ball (made out of roaches and resin) that was passed around, until the police decided that we’d had enough time to smoke and asked us if we could stop. Well, Dakta asked us on the police’s behalf, but pointed out that he did not personally intended to stop just then. So the cops came over and talked to us, telling us they didn’t want to make any arrests but we had to desist shortly. Since we didn’t want to be arrested, we did, although Strypey (who being a self-professed ‘media whore’ had been smoking in front of the Dom Post’s camera) followed the officer around, berating him while wearing a monkey mask.
Question:
The protest was a lot of fun, and got more media attention that the debt march, but would arrests have made it more effective? The TV3 people told us only arrests would have made it a worthwhile story, and wasn’t the whole point to get media coverage?
Meh Protest: Anti-Labour Party Demonstration
At midday on Saturday 12 April, a group of protestors gathered at Te Aro Park to prepare to demonstrate outside the Labour Party conference. The protestors included a group of Tuhoe activists who had traveled to Wellington for the event, along with a Workers Party contingent. The largest bulk of the group came from the anarchist community which is based around the128 Abel Smith Street community house, and most of the protest was focused on opposing the Labour Party’s passing the Terrorism Suppression Act, used to arrest a number of activists from both Tuhoe and the anarchist community. Other focuses of the protest were against Genetically Engineered crops, the Foreshore and Seabed Act, the Electoral Finance Act, and Solid Energy’s mining of Happy Valley.
Part of the Te Aro Park preparations including practice of the ‘drop and lock’ technique that Peace Action Wellington have been using for several years. Whenever the police attempt to move protestors, they link arms and drop to the ground, forming an immovable human barrier.
The protest moved off down Willis street, banners waving.
This photograph has two explanations. Either a bus got stuck behind the protest as it moved along Manners Street, or the driver just really wanted to join in but couldn’t get the time off work.
This wheelie bin has a circle of holes cut in the front and contains a speaker. The anarchist community have been using it to create noise during protests. The bin appears to have eaten the mid-90s, as it belts out Rage Against the Machine. Noise would become the protest’s major feature: demonstrators wanted to disrupt the protest, but avoided violent means. Besides the mid-90s wheelie bin, they banged upon bass drums with wooden spoons (all of which broke over the course of several hours), and played feedback on a megaphone by holding the mouth-piece over the noise-producing end. Surprisingly, this did not seem to bother the infants who attended the protest.
When the protest arrived outside the Town Hall, where the conference was taking place, it was greeted by a mass of cameramen, many of whom had walked backwards in front of the march to capture its motion. While myself and other non-respectable media persons captured the demonstration from behind the protestors, the mainstream media line up with the Labourites behind police lines – you can see their cameras poking out on the right:
The protest was also greeted upon arrival by a group of anti-EFA protestors. Whereas the demonstrators were largely attacking Labour from the left, these guys were attacking from the right. However, this did not prevent the two groups from working together: Mike Heine, a member of the A-Team who contested VUWSA’s elections last year on a vaguely libertarian ticket, even joined the march and wore a communist star hat (right). One of the anti-EFA protestors had a US flag, which he waved behind the barricades – between a Mana Motuhake o Tuhoe flag and a Tino Rangatiratanga flag, which makes for a beautiful image of anti-centrist solidarity (below).
Numerous VUWSA luminaries attended the protest: International Officer William Wu and A-Team leader Lukas Schroeter congregated at the back, underneath the Michael Fowler Centre (above right), while Young Labourites Sonny Thomas (Campaigns Officer) and Seamus Brady (Education Officer B) passed police barricades to attend the conference (above left). President Joel Cosgrove manned the barricades with a Workers’ Party banner, and got into a political argument with Clubs Officer and Labourite Katie de Roo (below).
On the right you can see protestors and police face-off at the Civic Square end of the barricade. At one point, the police and protestors pushed against the barricade until it began to collapse; the protestors then put their ‘drop and lock’ technique into practice, and the police backed off.
After over an hour of continuous noise-making, the protestors began to move off. However, a small number crept into the conference (I believe via the Civic Square entrance), and set off a fire alarm. The Labour Party then had to clear the Town Hall and stand outside among the protestors.
During the 45-minute fire-alarm induced break in proceedings, a number of scuffles broke out – but exactly what happened depends upon who you listen to. NZPA reported on Saturday night that Michael Cullen and Mark Burton “combined to protect an elderly delegate from the melee”; the following day the Sunday Star Times printed a photo of protestor Valerie Morse spitting, and said her spit her Phil Goff; Young Labour told me that Winnie Laban was involved in a scuffle.
While I have good reasons for not believing exactly what the mainstream media reported regarding the protest (explained below), most of the above incidents probably occurred, although the ‘violence’ of the protestors is generally over-stated in reports. I personally witnessed one scuffle, where a protestor in overalls was surrounded by shouting Labour Party supporters after crossing into their midst to berate them, as you can see above.
Once the demonstration ended, a number of protestors marched back up to Abel Smith Street to a ‘reclaim the streets’ party. When I arrived at around 4pm, the police had just got there, and promptly moved several couches off the street. From then on it was a ‘reclaim the pavement’ party. The police continued to drive along the bypass, putting their sirens on as they passed the party, and eventually calling the fire brigade in to put out one of the party’s two drum fires. At around midnight, as revellers were chowing down on Food Not Bombs goodies and trancing out to some electronica, two police cars and a paddy-wagon drove up behind the party, and marched in with a noise control officer who turned the stereo off. My friend R pointed at one of the officers, identifying him as one of the group who had raided his flat party a couple of weeks back and beaten up his flatmate. Indymedia has claims the officers were “Sergeant Andre (Andrzej) Kowalczyk and 10 members of the Strategic Response Group (SRG)”, the group which is used to blockade protests and raid squat parties. After the sound was turned back on, the police returned to confiscate the sound equipment and subsequently charge $100 for its return (while my report is based on personal recollections, another account can be found at Indymedia Aotearoa).
Question:
Did the anti-Labour Party protests do more harm than good for their cause, by alienating Labour Party members who may be sympathetic to their criticisms? The Terrorism Suppression Act is a terrible law, because it criminalises thought. Terror crimes, such as bombing, are illegal under the crimes act, as are conspiracies to commit such acts. The TSA simply creates a new category of crime carried out for ideological reasons; by making ideological bombing a worse crime than non-ideological bombing, the TSA legislates against thought. Unsurprisingly then, there are people within the Labour Party who disagree with this Act. So, would we be better off working with them, rather than chanting against them? Certainly, many would believe so, and the best argument on their side is that rowdy protests will always be mocked by the media, which means those who may be sympathetic are encouraged to simply laugh at these protests.
This mockery is demonstrated by Tracy Watkins’ claim (Dominion Post, April 14) that the protest was marked by “a couple of pasty Pakeha youths hold[ing] up a tino rangatiratanga flag.” This statement reflects the claim of several attending the Labour Party conference that there were no actual Maori protesting, which is untrue, as demonstrated both by the photograph to the right, and by an incident at the conference where one Maori woman walked out of the Town Hall, recognised a relative of hers on the other side of the barricade, and began a conversation with her. While a number of pasty Pakeha held black anarchist flags, the Tino Rangatirantanga flags were held by Tuhoe. So you will forgive me if I do not entirely trust the mainstream coverage of this protest.
The fact that such mockery was inevitable suggests that conducting a rowdy protest was tactically a poor move. However, the alternative – shutting the fuck up and waiting for some sympathy from within the Labour Party – may simply result in silence and inaction, so I’m going to answer my own question and say fuck worrying about upsetting people.
That said, I did have some doubts about setting off the fire alarm. Up until that point, the protest had been largely amicable (albeit noisy): Protestors had not tried to stop the police from forming an access into the venue; police did not try to arrest anyone; and while the protestors and conference attendees berated one-another, they understood their role. Labour Party president Mike Williams even put money in the Victims of Operation 8 Solidarity bucket.
When the alarm went off, I was tempted to go “oh noes they’re interrupting democracy! Bad protestors!” However, setting off the alarm harmed no-one, and did draw more media attention to the demonstration than would otherwise have been the case, so while it can’t really be regarded as anti-democratic or violent, it did make a point.
Question:
Have police and protestor tactics become so refined that protests are now nothing more than a game, played out for the sake of the media? Certainly, the fact that police intentionally avoided making arrests at all three protests, responded to the ‘drop and lock’ technique by backing off, and drove by Abel Smith Street with their sirens going to display their presence, suggests that they feel they are playing a game. Their main role is to turn up and look staunch, as demonstrated by their facial expressions in many of the photographs above. The protestors respond by playing along, working within the boundaries set out so as to avoid arrest. The fact that these boundaries are well-rehearsed and adhered to suggests that protesting really has become street theatre, played out for the sake of the media who attend in abundance.
However, at the end of the day, when you have a point to make, and you simply cannot get yourself heard through official channels, you have no other option but to protest. It’s just a pity that the act of protesting has become so accepted that it has lost its balls.
[note – this story is available online only. All photographs taken by the author.]