Discussion
Those are fair points, but it is hard to be comprehensive in a post of a few lines, and I was attempting the general point that it is possible to be a petrolhead whilst also giving a toss about assorted eco issues.
I gather that some people wear hats saying "I heart global warming". That may just be to troll others, but the anger directed at Ms Thunberg etc is quite striking. I am not, BTW, her number one fan, but I don't hate her or her parents. At least some forms of some reactionary thinking appear to me to be based on a generalised misanthropy (with or without some built in misogyny).
I gather that some people wear hats saying "I heart global warming". That may just be to troll others, but the anger directed at Ms Thunberg etc is quite striking. I am not, BTW, her number one fan, but I don't hate her or her parents. At least some forms of some reactionary thinking appear to me to be based on a generalised misanthropy (with or without some built in misogyny).
Breadvan72 said:
Blocking a road is an annoying thing to do (it is supposed to be annoying, that's the point) but it is not the same as violence. Criminal damage should of course be prosecuted where the evidence is available. Pre-emptive blanket banning is throwing an important and hard won civil liberties baby out with the bathwater.
If we ban protest by people we disagree with, what happens if something then comes along that we want to protest about? Say, a ban on cars, for example?
Blocking a road is not peaceful protest. Criminal damage and vandalism is not peaceful protest. jumping on roofs of trains and planes is not peaceful protest (also illegal under probably several transport related laws/bylaws).If we ban protest by people we disagree with, what happens if something then comes along that we want to protest about? Say, a ban on cars, for example?
That's the point I am making,
In this country you only have the right to peaceful protest.
It is therefore proper and correct that the authorities ban/ crush organisations intent on flouting the law. XR have caused their own banning from London.
It matters not if they claim to hold some moral highground or if thier cause is "right". (i imagine all protesters believe in their cause.).
They have been banned due to their disruption and criminal behaviour, NOT because people disagree with their cause. In fact they were given a lot of leniancy in the early days - eg occupying Trafalgar square.
I suspect said leniency is due in part to the reality that tear gassing mothers who are in the process of breastfeeding their children is not going to play brilliantly on international telly.
The ban on XR will be challenged (see Adam Wagner on this) as it's likely illegal, and XR will be back.
The ban on XR will be challenged (see Adam Wagner on this) as it's likely illegal, and XR will be back.
Psycho Warren said:
Blocking a road is not peaceful protest.
...
It is therefore proper and correct that the authorities ban/ crush organisations intent on flouting the law. XR have caused their own banning from London.
....
Blocking a road is not an act of violence. It is a form of peaceful protest. Even the politest of protest marches along Whitehall will block the road for a time....
It is therefore proper and correct that the authorities ban/ crush organisations intent on flouting the law. XR have caused their own banning from London.
....
Your words ban/crush suggest an authoritarian impulse. Authoritarianism is inimical to the political and legal culture of the UK and should not be encouraged.
Nobody, btw, has suggested that the ban is related to the views of XR. Of course it is not.
I agree with my learned friend Adam Wagner (for once, both adjective and noun are true) that the ban is legally questionable. I expect that a JR challenge to the ban may well succeed.
in other news council fined for road closures breaching human rightsFreedom of assembly and of expression are qualified rights that must be balanced against other rights, including the rights to travel, work and so on. Interference with assembly and expression should be proportionate. The impact of disruption caused by protest is a valid factor to weigh in the balance when deciding on the legality of limits on protest.
Have a look at R (on the application of Barda) v Mayor of London, a case from 2015. It is on Bailii. It shows how a court balances competing rights and freedoms, and in that case upholds limited restrictions on protest. A blanket ban is more problematic.
Have a look at R (on the application of Barda) v Mayor of London, a case from 2015. It is on Bailii. It shows how a court balances competing rights and freedoms, and in that case upholds limited restrictions on protest. A blanket ban is more problematic.
Dammit said:
I suspect said leniency is due in part to the reality that tear gassing mothers who are in the process of breastfeeding their children is not going to play brilliantly on international telly.
Mothers with their jugs out with child attached really shouldn't be there do you not think.. Maybe this is what HK wants from its people . To let them deal with protesters etc.Then the Police and Chinese army don’t have to get blamed .The people themselves need to show what they want .Same in London. People don’t mind a vegan idiot shouting some s
t . But once these idiots start pissing people off. All bets are off .
t . But once these idiots start pissing people off. All bets are off . I cannot see any reason why a woman breastfeeding a child should not be at a demo, or indeed anywhere else that she wants to be.
Those suggesting the use of force against crowds of demonstrators should perhaps look up historical events such as Peterloo, Amritsar, and Bloody Sunday. It generally doesn’t produce good outcomes.
Pinoyuk said:
... But once these idiots start pissing people off. All bets are off .
Could you expand on what you mean by that? Those suggesting the use of force against crowds of demonstrators should perhaps look up historical events such as Peterloo, Amritsar, and Bloody Sunday. It generally doesn’t produce good outcomes.
Why is it that for everything else you don't agree with the standard response is that it is a democracy and you should vote for an MP / party that shares your views and you can't just be selective in what law you agree with.
If they don't agree with something, why should they not just vote for the Greens or so instead rather than tolerate their behaviour.
If they don't agree with something, why should they not just vote for the Greens or so instead rather than tolerate their behaviour.
Breadvan72 said:
I cannot see any reason why a woman breastfeeding a child should not be at a demo
I wouldn't want to unnecessarily place my child of breastfeeding age into an environment where there may be an increased risk of harm. Others may have different opinions, which of course they're entitled to.There's exercising your freedoms and there's exercising common sense. Not always the same thing!
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff