Protests - moral, legal, societal red lines?
Discussion
Its always said that one of the fundamentals of a 'free' democratic society is the right to protest. But where should the 'red lines' be struck between peaceful protest, violent protest, disruptive protest, protests using noise pollution, and all the other activities that protests do to further their aim.
I think most support and welcome a peaceful protest, it shows our democracy and freedom in action. However, I think its clear that support quickly fades away when the red-lines are crossed. But is this sentiment backed up by our authorities or political action? Often not it would seem, and it allows activists to continue their actions and even develop them in to more severe/serious forms of protests.
For example, blocking the highways, preventing or delaying emergency vehicles and people going about their business which they rely on to make a living. Also destructive and violent protests done by the extremists political activists, where they cost businesses, private owners and the taxpayer in repair bills and generally lower the quality of society by undermining democracy, law and order.
And a new one that is doing the rounds is that of XR (under one of its many banners) tunneling under roads, to gain access to oil refinery property and also to create a safety issue for tankers accessing oil refineries. Intention being that a heavy oil tanker will cause a subsidence in the road and take out access to the refinery. Not only providing a safety issue and real risk of life to the tanker drivers but also all the other road users who use that stretch of road.
And this is typical of their brand of protest in which they create a health and safety issue by which they either put themselves or others in risk.
At which point should the law (judges especially) become really heavy handed on behalf of society to stamp out such abhorrent behavior and tactics of extremist activists?
Would you say that extremist political activists should get a 'free ride', treaty softly in comparison, to extremist religious activists (such as ISIS affiliations)? Where both types put the public at risk, have the potential to cause serious harm or loss of life.
Where would you draw your moral, legal and societal red-lines?
I think most support and welcome a peaceful protest, it shows our democracy and freedom in action. However, I think its clear that support quickly fades away when the red-lines are crossed. But is this sentiment backed up by our authorities or political action? Often not it would seem, and it allows activists to continue their actions and even develop them in to more severe/serious forms of protests.
For example, blocking the highways, preventing or delaying emergency vehicles and people going about their business which they rely on to make a living. Also destructive and violent protests done by the extremists political activists, where they cost businesses, private owners and the taxpayer in repair bills and generally lower the quality of society by undermining democracy, law and order.
And a new one that is doing the rounds is that of XR (under one of its many banners) tunneling under roads, to gain access to oil refinery property and also to create a safety issue for tankers accessing oil refineries. Intention being that a heavy oil tanker will cause a subsidence in the road and take out access to the refinery. Not only providing a safety issue and real risk of life to the tanker drivers but also all the other road users who use that stretch of road.
And this is typical of their brand of protest in which they create a health and safety issue by which they either put themselves or others in risk.
At which point should the law (judges especially) become really heavy handed on behalf of society to stamp out such abhorrent behavior and tactics of extremist activists?
Would you say that extremist political activists should get a 'free ride', treaty softly in comparison, to extremist religious activists (such as ISIS affiliations)? Where both types put the public at risk, have the potential to cause serious harm or loss of life.
Where would you draw your moral, legal and societal red-lines?
I don't have any issue with disruptive protesting. Quiet, well behaved protests are easily ignored and as such not as effective.
I will say that protests that go out with the intent of being violent or putting bystanders in danger aren't good though. They're also not effective as they generally turn the public mood against whatever issue the protestors are trying to draw attention to.
I will say that protests that go out with the intent of being violent or putting bystanders in danger aren't good though. They're also not effective as they generally turn the public mood against whatever issue the protestors are trying to draw attention to.
ZedLeg said:
I don't have any issue with disruptive protesting. Quiet, well behaved protests are easily ignored and as such not as effective.
I will say that protests that go out with the intent of being violent or putting bystanders in danger aren't good though. They're also not effective as they generally turn the public mood against whatever issue the protestors are trying to draw attention to.
What would you like to see in terms of authority/judicial response to such protestors/activists that have a violent nature or such that they put the public in (potential) harms way?I will say that protests that go out with the intent of being violent or putting bystanders in danger aren't good though. They're also not effective as they generally turn the public mood against whatever issue the protestors are trying to draw attention to.
ZedLeg said:
I don't have any issue with disruptive protesting. Quiet, well behaved protests are easily ignored and as such not as effective.
I will say that protests that go out with the intent of being violent or putting bystanders in danger aren't good though. They're also not effective as they generally turn the public mood against whatever issue the protestors are trying to draw attention to.
Intent is the key word. It is the difference between a protest that turned ugly and one that was always going to end (and probably started) that way. The problem is proving intent in a court of law. It's difficult and rightfully so. I will say that protests that go out with the intent of being violent or putting bystanders in danger aren't good though. They're also not effective as they generally turn the public mood against whatever issue the protestors are trying to draw attention to.
However I disagree with peaceful protests being ineffective. The idea of a protest is to draw attention to an issue. You can do this peacefully. Ultimately even with a disruptive protest, you want to make life difficult for the authorities, whilst not doing the same for the general public.
These days if you want something done about an issue you're protesting about you really need a champion. Someone famous to stand up and garner support. If Insulate Britain did this they'd be talking about it in parliament, not in the Daily Mail.
Basically, if you want action on an issue, don't block roads, get a Marcus Rashford.
ZedLeg said:
I don't have any issue with disruptive protesting. Quiet, well behaved protests are easily ignored and as such not as effective.
I will say that protests that go out with the intent of being violent or putting bystanders in danger aren't good though. They're also not effective as they generally turn the public mood against whatever issue the protestors are trying to draw attention to.
Disruptive protesting, such as preventing oil refineries from delivering fuel supplies, by a small minority to make a political statement is ok in your opinion, is it? I believe the majority would disagree and makes their protest worthless if they believe this will change hearts and minds.I will say that protests that go out with the intent of being violent or putting bystanders in danger aren't good though. They're also not effective as they generally turn the public mood against whatever issue the protestors are trying to draw attention to.
Surely, in this era of the internet and mass communication made easier than it was before, when holding protest rallies and waving banners was the only choice to make a protest, there is better way nowadays to get the message to the masses?
ZedLeg said:
I don't have any issue with disruptive protesting. Quiet, well behaved protests are easily ignored and as such not as effective.
I will say that protests that go out with the intent of being violent or putting bystanders in danger aren't good though. They're also not effective as they generally turn the public mood against whatever issue the protestors are trying to draw attention to.
Isn't my right to ignore a protest just as valid as someone else's right to protest?I will say that protests that go out with the intent of being violent or putting bystanders in danger aren't good though. They're also not effective as they generally turn the public mood against whatever issue the protestors are trying to draw attention to.
Disruptive protests are explicitly stating "My right to protest is superior to your right to do whatever it is you're planning to do today"
And, if I happen to be having a heart attack in the back of an ambulance, that's just not true.
pequod said:
ZedLeg said:
I don't have any issue with disruptive protesting. Quiet, well behaved protests are easily ignored and as such not as effective.
I will say that protests that go out with the intent of being violent or putting bystanders in danger aren't good though. They're also not effective as they generally turn the public mood against whatever issue the protestors are trying to draw attention to.
Disruptive protesting, such as preventing oil refineries from delivering fuel supplies, by a small minority to make a political statement is ok in your opinion, is it? I believe the majority would disagree and makes their protest worthless if they believe this will change hearts and minds.I will say that protests that go out with the intent of being violent or putting bystanders in danger aren't good though. They're also not effective as they generally turn the public mood against whatever issue the protestors are trying to draw attention to.
Surely, in this era of the internet and mass communication made easier than it was before, when holding protest rallies and waving banners was the only choice to make a protest, there is better way nowadays to get the message to the masses?
Climate change protest is particularly hard as there's not even a public consensus as to whether it's really happening. Also people will take the slightest inconvenience caused by a climate protest as an attack on their basic human rights.
SpeckledJim said:
ZedLeg said:
I don't have any issue with disruptive protesting. Quiet, well behaved protests are easily ignored and as such not as effective.
I will say that protests that go out with the intent of being violent or putting bystanders in danger aren't good though. They're also not effective as they generally turn the public mood against whatever issue the protestors are trying to draw attention to.
Isn't my right to ignore a protest just as valid as someone else's right to protest?I will say that protests that go out with the intent of being violent or putting bystanders in danger aren't good though. They're also not effective as they generally turn the public mood against whatever issue the protestors are trying to draw attention to.
Disruptive protests are explicitly stating "My right to protest is superior to your right to do whatever it is you're planning to do today"
And, if I happen to be having a heart attack in the back of an ambulance, that's just not true.
ZedLeg said:
SpeckledJim said:
ZedLeg said:
I don't have any issue with disruptive protesting. Quiet, well behaved protests are easily ignored and as such not as effective.
I will say that protests that go out with the intent of being violent or putting bystanders in danger aren't good though. They're also not effective as they generally turn the public mood against whatever issue the protestors are trying to draw attention to.
Isn't my right to ignore a protest just as valid as someone else's right to protest?I will say that protests that go out with the intent of being violent or putting bystanders in danger aren't good though. They're also not effective as they generally turn the public mood against whatever issue the protestors are trying to draw attention to.
Disruptive protests are explicitly stating "My right to protest is superior to your right to do whatever it is you're planning to do today"
And, if I happen to be having a heart attack in the back of an ambulance, that's just not true.
Why does the right of the protester to be disruptive trump the rights of everyone else not to be disrupted?
SpeckledJim said:
ZedLeg said:
SpeckledJim said:
ZedLeg said:
I don't have any issue with disruptive protesting. Quiet, well behaved protests are easily ignored and as such not as effective.
I will say that protests that go out with the intent of being violent or putting bystanders in danger aren't good though. They're also not effective as they generally turn the public mood against whatever issue the protestors are trying to draw attention to.
Isn't my right to ignore a protest just as valid as someone else's right to protest?I will say that protests that go out with the intent of being violent or putting bystanders in danger aren't good though. They're also not effective as they generally turn the public mood against whatever issue the protestors are trying to draw attention to.
Disruptive protests are explicitly stating "My right to protest is superior to your right to do whatever it is you're planning to do today"
And, if I happen to be having a heart attack in the back of an ambulance, that's just not true.
Why does the right of the protester to be disruptive trump the rights of everyone else not to be disrupted?
SpeckledJim said:
Isn't my right to ignore a protest just as valid as someone else's right to protest?
Disruptive protests are explicitly stating "My right to protest is superior to your right to do whatever it is you're planning to do today"
And, if I happen to be having a heart attack in the back of an ambulance, that's just not true.
Boom. Nail, head interface right there. Stand by the side of the road ok. Blocking the road, off to jail you go...Disruptive protests are explicitly stating "My right to protest is superior to your right to do whatever it is you're planning to do today"
And, if I happen to be having a heart attack in the back of an ambulance, that's just not true.
ZedLeg said:
Yes, as long as the protestors aren't setting out to cause harm or put people in danger I think that the right to protest is more important than people's right not to be inconvenienced.
So, what sort of disruptive protests does that include?I note you grant protesters the right to actually cause harm and put people in danger, as long as they don't mean to
Which is something of a slopey-shouldered approach to responsibility.
SpeckledJim said:
ZedLeg said:
Yes, as long as the protestors aren't setting out to cause harm or put people in danger I think that the right to protest is more important than people's right not to be inconvenienced.
So, what sort of disruptive protests does that include?I note you grant protesters the right to actually cause harm and put people in danger, as long as they don't mean to
Which is something of a slopey-shouldered approach to responsibility.
Literally anything you do could cause harm to someone if it goes wrong.
What I mean by disruptive protesting is blocking entrances to businesses that you're protesting, organised marches that close roads etc. I don't really agree with the ER flash mob style road blocking as there is too much risk of something unforeseen happening.
ZedLeg said:
Yes, as long as the protestors aren't setting out to cause harm or put people in danger I think that the right to protest is more important than people's right not to be inconvenienced.
If a protest group block a road, causing, say, a patient in an ambulance stuck in the tailback to suffer harm, and the protestors just shrug and say "Oh, we didn't intend that to happen", you'd be OK with that, it seems.I disagree that faux innocence can be used to justify a gamble with other people's lives.
ZedLeg said:
SpeckledJim said:
ZedLeg said:
Yes, as long as the protestors aren't setting out to cause harm or put people in danger I think that the right to protest is more important than people's right not to be inconvenienced.
So, what sort of disruptive protests does that include?I note you grant protesters the right to actually cause harm and put people in danger, as long as they don't mean to
Which is something of a slopey-shouldered approach to responsibility.
Literally anything you do could cause harm to someone if it goes wrong.
What I mean by disruptive protesting is blocking entrances to businesses that you're protesting, organised marches that close roads etc. I don't really agree with the ER flash mob style road blocking as there is too much risk of something unforeseen happening.
I hope my industry sector (filthy, polluting, oil-consuming cars. All perfectly legal, of course) doesn't fall foul of the capricious, vengeful whims of the righteous mob, otherwise my family and I are done for.
Still, closing my business is not really causing harm, is it.
SpeckledJim said:
So, the right to earn a living doesn't depend on whether what you're doing is legal, it just depends on whether an angry teenager will let you.
I hope my industry sector (filthy, polluting, oil-consuming cars. All perfectly legal, of course) doesn't fall foul of the capricious, vengeful whims of the righteous mob, otherwise my family and I are done for.
Still, not really harm, is it.
A lot to unpack there tbh, seems to have swung from a sensible discussion about protest to a personal gripe based on stereotypes about protestors.I hope my industry sector (filthy, polluting, oil-consuming cars. All perfectly legal, of course) doesn't fall foul of the capricious, vengeful whims of the righteous mob, otherwise my family and I are done for.
Still, not really harm, is it.
If you protest and cross the line much like fuel depot and XR, then my opinion is to automatically turn against you forever, no matter how noble your cause.
Do you remember when Plane Stupid invaded Stansted in 2008? That was part funded by Mark Constantine of Lush Cosmetics. Of course he didn't want you going on holiday, but he would travel to visit his empire. So I refused to allow The Vikingettes to buy anything from Lush. They could buy equivalent products elsewhere. Of course they are much older now and can shop where they choose.
Do you remember when Plane Stupid invaded Stansted in 2008? That was part funded by Mark Constantine of Lush Cosmetics. Of course he didn't want you going on holiday, but he would travel to visit his empire. So I refused to allow The Vikingettes to buy anything from Lush. They could buy equivalent products elsewhere. Of course they are much older now and can shop where they choose.
ZedLeg said:
How do you police the possibility of protest where harm might happen?
Literally anything you do could cause harm to someone if it goes wrong.
What I mean by disruptive protesting is blocking entrances to businesses that you're protesting, organised marches that close roads etc. I don't really agree with the ER flash mob style road blocking as there is too much risk of something unforeseen happening.
The point about blocking roads is that it does harm when it goes right, it's intended to do harm. They're basically the paramilitary wing of the middle lane crawlers club.Literally anything you do could cause harm to someone if it goes wrong.
What I mean by disruptive protesting is blocking entrances to businesses that you're protesting, organised marches that close roads etc. I don't really agree with the ER flash mob style road blocking as there is too much risk of something unforeseen happening.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff