Hunger strikers in Washington D.C, from left to right: Sam Jewler, Adrian Parsons,
and Joe Gray
In Washington D.C., a group of Occupy protesters have gone on a hunger strike to call attention to their lack of representation in Congress as well as their lack of control over the District's laws and city budget. The provocation was the House of Representatives spending deal which bans "the District from funding abortions with local tax money." The protesters have now gone a full week without eating. During that week, a few of the protesters, Joe Gray, Kelly Mears, Adrian Parsons, and Sam Jewler, have visited various congressmen, including Speaker of the House John Boehner, to make their point. Their life-threatening protest has not been completely in vain. Representative Keith M. Ellison of Minnesota read the protesters' demands into the Congressional Record. Also, Washington D.C.'s non-voting member of the House of Representatives, Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, announced that she would enter a tribute to the protesters in the Congressional Record. As the protesters go into their second week of not eating, they will increase their risks of serious health consequences. However, the strikers believe that the longer they hold out, the louder their message becomes. What are your thoughts about the strikers' method of protest? Do you believe that such extreme measures are necessary in order to get a point across? Or do you think that the extremeness of their method actually hurts their cause?
11 comments:
I think the extremeness helps their cause. Not only can people relate to them more, it shows their seriousness in the issue. And, I mean, the Congressmen have come to meet them, so it seems to be effective.
However, it is kind of a pity that facts and massive pubic opinion doesn't change things, but it takes extreme cases like hunger strikes to get the point across.
In truth, unless you are Gandhi or some other influential individual, not many will care about your hunger strike. These hunger strikers seem to be steadfast in their protest, but I'm not sure that they know exactly what they are protesting for. The Occupy Movement is about calling "attention to their lack of representation," but who is it that chooses the representatives? It is the people that vote, so if they want more representation, they should rally people and encourage them to vote rather than starve themselves. The house has elections next year around November, so it would be in their best interest to get as much support as possible and find someone that they feel represents them and get that person elected into congress. I think that the Occupy Movement will turn some heads the longer it lasts, but I still believe the best way to be heard is to vote for the representative that holds and cares about your same beliefs.
I agree with Vinh that there is futility in the Occupy/hunger strike. What they should do is look for reasons that would give voting representatives from the states incentives to create a local government for DC. They can't really vote for anyone that would represent their interests directly.
I think that in time this protest will work. However, people will only start to really pay attention once the protestors start dying. The government does not want citizens dying in protests because the media will report some anti-government story where the big bad government is driving these poor protestors to death. This will amplify the protest and won't look good for the government. The best thing would be to just give them a little representation. Or in this case just give them some money for their abortion clinic and in a way just shove this under the rug.
Honestly, I agree with Vinh. I feel that although these hunger strikers' actions are commendable, I feel that they themselves do not know exactly what they want; in addition, the issues that want answers too cannot be easily passed due to the complexity of our government system. There are mixed feelings about the issues, and simply hunger striking won't solve it.
I think this hunger striker is only going to hurt the strikers. Like Vinh said, if they're not well-known or aren't influential people no one is going to listen to them. I get that they're trying to make point, but I don't think going on a hunger strike is the right way to deal with this situation. This strike is very fatal and if they continue with this, there could be some serious consequences.
In order to answer whether these hunger strikes will work, one must first examine public opinion of the Occupy protests in general.
Generally, those opposed to the Occupy protests see protesters as lazy people who just want free government handouts.
Thus, I think this new strategy of protesting is a good thing. At least the public now can see that Occupy protesters aren't lazy people taking a vacation by protesting. Now the public realizes that there are people among the Occupy group who are actually dedicated to the cause in a more serious sense.
I have to agree with Vinh. These protesters are trying to send their message in a way that seems to be hurting them more than anything. Yes, they want change, they want representation, they want jobs etc., but what is starvation or occupying a street corner going to do to help them get what they want? Congress is not going to start changing policies just because a few people out of millions of citizens are taking irrational means to get their message across. I think the protesters have good means behind their protests and they have the right to voice them, but extremists are getting so involved in the movement that it is just hindering the whole purpose of it.
While I admire the dedication and self-control necessary to even start a hunger strike, it is really hard for me to imagine Congress being able to pass a bill that would satisfy the Occupiers before the hunger strikers either quit, or suffer serious health consequences (or both?). I'm not sure if this is so much an issue of helping or hurting the cause, but an issue of whether a hunger strike has enough potential to make enough of a difference to make the health risks worthwhile.
It is possible that this will show a deeper dedication to the cause than many people think exist, and therefore encourage more sympathy, as Andrew said. But if someone has so little respect for the Occupiers that he dismisses the protesters as lazy people looking for hand outs, I think he is likely to dismiss the hunger strike as just plain crazy.
I think going on a hunger strike is just stupid. Congressmen don't care about a few unknown people who decide to stop eating for a cause. That just is not going to help. I agree with Sam. People are only going to pay attention if the protestors end up dying, and that is not what anyone wants. These protestors will just realize that they need to eat to live, and they will give up the hunger strike.
I think that by going on a hunger strike, it does show how serious they are about things and it has obviously been effective since the Congressmen have met with them. I think this goes to show that even though these are regular people trying to get a point across and not Ghandi... that it is still possible. If they continue to protest and have valid points and reasons, I think they will be able to get something out of this.
Post a Comment