The Direct Action Debate

This September Tony Blair met with some of the thousands of manufacturing staff about to be made jobless in Newcastle. After meeting our venerable leader, one of the imminently unemployed said he believed that Blair wanted to help but was unable to act in the face of market forces, that intangible entity which makes decisions about our daily lives. Am I alone in feeling slight panic at the thought of neither an ordinary man nor the Prime Minister seeing themselves as agents of change? Beyond manufacturing and on Splice's raison d'ętre, genetic engineering, a similar lack of agency by government is apparent. Jeff Rooker of MAFF, for example, has admitted of the UK government that "I am sure we are not in the driving seat".

In the UK there is genuine concern over genetic engineering. Many institutions such as the House of Commons Catering Committee and Kent and Stockport Councils are taking action where possible within their remit. However, the products creating such a stir remain on our supermarket shelves, on the menus of public catering outlets and the living DNA remains in the laboratory of our countryside.

Gandhi, that well-known advocate of direct action who played an important role in freeing a continent from the shackles of colonialism earlier this century, said that "Silence becomes cowardice when occasion demands speaking out the whole truth". I can break silence and speak out my version of the truth, a challenge to gene technology, by simply going to a deliberate release site and removing plants which I believe to be contaminating our ecosystem. I am prepared to accept responsibility and have my action challenged. I don't believe I hold an absolute truth: however I do believe that, as an ordinary citizen, my version and participation in the debate is currently ignored. Nonviolent direct action in this situation therefore acts as a 'democratic veto' - a chance to say, "hold on". It calls for all arguments to be heard, not just well-resourced ones.

Direct action shifts some power back to ordinary people through recognising their ability to act. It is a move towards a more genuine democracy where people actively participate in decisions which affect their lives. From this perspective, the mud of accusations of terrorism will not stick - for the aim is not just to challenge the process, it is to communicate beyond this, on a more level field, so that all society can together arrive at a better understanding of how to meet the need for healthy and plentiful food in a way which does not place profit above people and planet.

Monsanto had promised to contribute their side of the debate - but have not been able to find the time. It is sincerely hoped that they will be able to in the future.