It has been a year of protests. From the Arab Spring, to political turmoil in Russia, to Occupy Wall Street, and back to Québec’s campaign against tuition hikes, it is clear that revolution is in the air. Some protests have been peaceful, while others have turned violent. All have received media attention.
One trend accompanying the rise of such political activism has been political repression – the restriction of political movement- and a resulting paradigm shift: a negative change in the way the public perceives a movement. The media is largely responsible for the criminalization of some of these movements.
The Occupy movements in particular received criticism and derogation from the media. Fox News’ Peter Johnson, Jr. likened Occupy Wall Street demonstrators to “hobos, tramps, bums, hippies, and yippies” in an interview on Fox’s morning show Fox and Friends with anchor Steve Doocy. Laird Harrison and Michelle Nichols for Reuters said the movement was “firmly disorganized and driven by dreams.” Various other media outlets, such as CNN, echoed these sentiments.
While an anti-Occupy trend was generally established, not everyone joined the opposition. Alain Sherter for CBS News argued the widespread critiques the movement received tells of the media’s discomfort with popular dissent and the public fury driving the cause. Though the movement had clear-cut goals, such as the restoration of democracy to America and increased equality, Sherter argued that it received unjust and unfocused denigration.
The strong opposition from the media to the Occupy movement is but one example of marginalizing popular dissent and peaceful protest. A major side effect of such belittling of movements can be the criminalization of dissent.
ActivistRights.org.au is a self-descried “expanded and updated version of Our Rights: Activist Rights Handbook,” which was originally published by the Fitzroy Legal Service in March 1996. The website’s many contributors address issues such as the criminalization of political dissent, thus defined as the process of making activists appear as criminals, or making protest action illegal.
The stigmatization of protesters and intolerance for movements becomes dangerous when the media creates negative portrayals of a democratic process. When media outlets and those running them do not agree with a movement’s aims, they demean them. Referring to the Occupy demonstrators as “domestic terrorists”, as Todd Starnes for Fox News has, criminalizes a democratic movement.
Furthermore, Fox & Friends falsely alleged that the White House shooter of Nov. 11, 2011, Oscar Ramiro Ortega-Hernandez, worked with the Occupy movement, calling him the “Occupy” shooter. Reports have not proved any affiliation. Criminal accusations without evidence are dangerous, especially when perpetrated by high-ranking news outlets. In January 2011, a report from Public Policy Polling ranked Fox News ranked as the second-most trusted television news network in the US.
Peaceful dissent and public scrutiny are both crucial in a democracy. A protest may seem noisy, disruptive, or annoying to those who do not support the cause, but the fact remains the legitimate expression of dissent is vital in maintaining democracy.
The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right to freedom of expression from government interference, including the rights to freedom of speech, press, assembly, association and government petition. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms does the same: Canadians are entitled to freedoms of thought, belief, opinion, expression, press, peaceful assembly and association, among others.
Canadians have the right to agree publicly with a movement as much as they have the right to disagree publicly. The McGill anti-tuition protests have only grown in magnitude, to varied responses from McGill students. McGill engineering student Cameron Dagg iterated a tolerant yet frustrated opinion on the protests: “I recognize that protests in a democracy are central to maintaining an active student voice. At the same time, I don’t feel these protests are going anywhere – the Charest government has made clear they’re not willing to budge on the tuition hike. The protests have become a hindrance – I want to be able to get to my classes.”
Such feelings do not pose a danger to a democratic student government. On the other hand, some argue the violent removal and arrests of demonstrators – and even McGill students not involved in the protest – from the James Administration building on Nov. 3, 2011 is a violent overreaction to student demonstration.
Furthermore, the rally on March 10, 2012, during which 55,000 students gathered to protest Charest’s austerity measures, resulted in police arresting ten students pre-emptively. Without cause, their thus-far peaceful protest turned into a criminal matter. Police jailed the students for 54 hours on charges of conspiracy. No arrests or injuries occurred during the protest on March 22, 2012.
Democratic citizens have rights. Protesters, within the law, have rights. Thus, when laws bend against protesters and the media supports such flexibility, dissent is often criminalized and democracy can be threatened.
