There's been a lot said the last few days about Trenton Oldfield's Mid-Thames paddle at the Oxford Cambridge boat race last weekend. Well I say there's been a lot said; really very little has been said, but it's been repeated with slightly different words under a number of different banners.
Predictably most people have been against his stunt. The few in favour of Oldfield have been so because they agree with his cause - there's too much elitism apparently. Personally I've always found the tyranny of the mob a lot more frightening (something he would have found himself had he taken any notice of the chorus of boos that accompanied his public dip). In the modern age effective demagogues have always had to rustle up some measure of popular support in order to be effective. However that's not my beef here.
My comment on Trenton's choice of bathing coordinates last Saturday and the reaction to it is that perhaps we shouldn't be so ready to poo-poo the protestors, whatever your feelings about their often-absurd actions. For someone who wishes to protest against the status quo, be that the government, Simon Cowell or 'the elite', they have limited options. They can make an ineffective or counter-productive protest - a letter to the editor or a camp outside Westminster would fall into those classes respectively. They can make a violent protest - hopefully this doesn't require any elucidation - or they can make a peaceful, albeit inconvenient one. The last option would be my preference.
The first option is no option at all. When people talk about 'the proper way to protest' invariably what they mean is airing your grievances so that nobody else, including those to whom you're making your point, need notice.
The violent option is, to my thinking, and hopefully to most others, at least as, and usually more, undesirable. If you're fighting and maiming for some kind of greater good you're sharing your moral ground with the despot gang. From Bismarck to Bush-Blair they've all had speeches about freedom and notions of a greater good; it was always just a pity so many had to die to get there. If you choose the violent path, pretty soon the in-the-meantime harm surpasses the equivalent benefits of any possible utopian ideal.
The annoying protest is the goldilocks solution*.
When Islamic protestors threatened to disrupt William and Kate's big day last year the general consensus seemed to be 'why can't they just give us this one day? If they've got a beef, save it for another time.' What this really means is save it for when nobody's paying any attention so we can pretend there's no problem at all.
Of course they wanted to protest on the day of the wedding, that's when people will be paying attention. Likewise of course other protestors will want to disrupt the Olympics. All I ask from protestors, whether they're irritating or impeccably mannered, is that they a) actually have a cause truly worth it and b) make sure that some way or another we get to hear and understand said cause. Maybe it's a shame that we 'can't all just get along' but this kind of protest is the real price we pay for meaningful freedom of speech. It's annoying, it's inconvenient and sometimes when it's wearing a neatly trimmed beard and is bobbing up and down in the Thames it can come across a little bit smug. But if it's a choice between putting up with the occasional smug beard/spoiling a sporting contest and violent revolution I know which one I'd prefer. **
*Actually it's the warm porridge. Society would be Goldilocks, but 'warm porridge solution' didn't sound as catchy
**Oh, I prefer the smug beard protestor, even though I know the second one sounded a lot sexier.