Does Climate Camp Need Confrontation?

Following news of Marc Vallée’s assault by someone whom he describes as a Climate Camp protester, I’m forced to reevaluate this piece:

And that is the greatest threat to the campers: that their political relevance is defined not by a meaningful encounter that challenges both the political mainstream and a wider community, effecting change, but is defined, as it increasingly appears to be, by the act of protest itself.

Because the reality of an organisation for successful political change is that it requires a mass movement behind it, drawn not just from those who already passionately believe in it but from those who have been persuaded. And those who may be persuaded.

Climate Camp, with its often hazy message and complex inner negotiations, with its indulgent obsession with its own workings, its insularity and the suggestion of elitism of its direct-action hard core, is in danger of becoming about Climate Camp, the institution, rather than about the wider fight to halt global warming. With all its energy and motivation, that would be a shame.

And here’s the question – without their grudge match with the police, what are Climate Camp? Camped in Blackheath, with largely unnoticed (but well-meaning) direct actions in Bishopsgate and Canary Wharf, fenced off to protect themselves from the Metropolitan Police (who haven’t so far cared two hoots about them), are they not in danger of becoming parodies of themselves? There are so many honest and motivated people, particularly young people, but after Kingsnorth and G20 can they only define themselves by conflict, rather than by the validity of their arguments and principles? It’s great that they’re taking a stand on perhaps the most important issue in modern society, but I can’t help but wonder if there is now a siege mentality taking over, which is drowning out their positive message.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.