The right to protest.

[Denny Crane!]

Originally Posted by GeorgeL
Well then you're clearly opposed to the idea of freedom of speech, so there's not much point arguing you about the issue of protests. But, just as an aside, there are plenty of examples in history where protest has achieved something.



And the freedom of business' to operate? What if someone owned that street privately? Can the people who are free sue the other free people for disruption of business?

Funny this freedom stuff, free speech, freedom of action and all that malarkey. It ends at some point. The freedom to swing your fist ends at another mans face. Is yours the freedom to shoot someone in the face because you feel like it? Freedom without consequences?

It isn't black and white. Protesting against the government not listening to your concerns seems illogical to me. As an anarchist I'm railed against by the likes of yourself saying, 'hey man freedom means responsibility, you paying for my education is a net benefit to society, all that stuff you disagree with is done by a party representing your interests if you don't like it vote someone else in'

So freedom of speech, in our current society yes to a degree, freedom to protest is something I actually think should be curtailed unless the organising bodies start compensating for the financial penalties. It is actually quite old fashioned. Impact can be had in so many different ways, protests in london is a very unionistic thing which is that they will cause economic damage in order to be listened to. That isn't democratic that is blackmail, and it isn't in the interests of the general population since it is a small minority.

In fact damn it all writing this post has actually made me 100% opposed to the idea of protests in London at all, it is a god damn disgrace in the context of our current system and has no political legitimacy and it has negative moral legitimacy.


.......................................................

Stepping back from the excited hyperbole of the last thread this was posted in I wouldn't say I'm 100% opposed but it doesn't seem like a black and white issue, the right to protest is painted as the ultimate expression of democracy but that of course isn't true. The right to protest is the right for small special interest parties to voice their discontent and there is no representation of the majority there. The majority either can't get there, are to busy working and may even be opposed.

Certainly in the days of the internet there are easier ways to cobble together an alliance of support and lobby, and they are well within the technical means of most people in society. To top it off allowing this freedom has negative consequences on the freedoms of others and sometimes big economic penalties.

[General Brittanicus]

I wouldnt just say they shouldn't be allowed in London, it would be any major city in my book- if they want to protest they can go somwhere where they aren't going to disrupt the day to day business of the normal people who have to work there. Marching through a city will never achieve what you want especially if it is carried out by a very small minority of people who's views do not represent the country as a whole.

[Claudius Gothicus]

I didn't you supported anarcho-fascism Denny

Not really, civil society is formed by pressure groups(lobbies, consumers associations, unions, human rights activists etc.)... those groups defend certain minorities and the sum of said minorities makes up the entirety of society.

When a protest arises it's never the majority the one that protests it's usually the minority affected by the government but if your maim the right of the minorities to protest then you're pretty much maiming the majority too since majorities are made up of ''unaffected minorities''.

[the Black Prince]

To some extent the freedom to protest is curtailed and balanced.

I've organised local demos as part of a national day of action, I had to inform the police, abide by their restrictions. Police can block certain routes, force you to do or avoid certain things, limit the number of people involved and even cancel the protest if they think it may get out of hand.

Since protest routes are known in advance, they are no more an obstruction to local business than any other march, parade or rally through a town.


If the street was a private street, thats another matter. Again, when protesting myself, the police have told me in no uncertain terms, on the street, fine. Off the street, cross this line, the owners have already said they want to prosecute and you'll be arrested for trespass.

If the owner of land does not want you there, he has the right to have you forcibly removed.

Begs an interesting question with English land law since all land is actually owned by HM and public spaces are simply estates in land owned by various councils and public bodies. Even common land is still owned by someone, subject to covernants.

[Baron Thunder-ten-tronckh]

"Can there not be a government in which the majorities do not virtually decide right and wrong, but conscience? . . . Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislator? Why has every man a conscience, then?"

I think everybody should have the right to protest, even if that is a right to abstain from participation. Protest through absence. And I think the government should allow this to happen, any government that doesn't allow this is tyrannical, irrespective (or even including) of whether it calls itself democratic or not.

I don't think I really understand the context of your post, so why is it you dislike protesting? Isn't protesting a valid way to say you disagree?

[Dr. Croccer]

Not sure about the UK, but in the Netherlands there's a fine line between civil disobedience and civil disorder.

[Inhuman One]

Recently burglars are protesting for the government cracking down on them whenever they break into empty homes to live there. If they want to live there they should pay for it. Bloody criminals.

[justicar5]

Recently burglars are protesting for the government cracking down on them whenever they break into empty homes to live there. If they want to live there they should pay for it. Bloody criminals.

that would be squatters, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squatter%27s_rights

[Angrychris]

Doesnt the home need to be owned or occupied to be burglarized?

[Dr. Croccer]

The problem with the Squatting movement here is that the housing market has been, and will continue to go, absolutely loopy. There are tons of unused or decaying office buildings in the cities, so I don't really see why they can't be used, whilst at the same time being concerned over the rights of the actual owners.

[Inhuman One]

well its just burglary to me. squatting is illegal as far as I am concerned. If they want to live there they should pay for it. Just because its expensive does not mean you should steal it. It does not work that way for games, electronics or such either, and it sure doesnt work that way for houses.

[justicar5]

well its just burglary to me. squatting is illegal as far as I am concerned. If they want to live there they should pay for it. Just because its expensive does not mean you should steal it. It does not work that way for games, electronics or such either, and it sure doesnt work that way for houses.

except as can be seen from the article, under common law there is a basis for 'squatters rights' and has been for centuries, not against an owner who notices and responds, but against one who (for years) does nothing to even try to remove the squatters, or to claim his property back, can loose right and title to that property.

[Dr. Croccer]

Netherlands = Civil Law.

[★Bandiera Rossa☭]

I will say up front that I'm not the most unbiased person on this matter (I have had trouble with the law for being involved in "Illegal Protests"). But I think that the right to protest is way too restricted. It is claimed that requiring licenses and the like "protects the rights of others", but it really limits the potential for non-violent protests.

[Gromovnik]

I will say up front that I'm not the most unbiased person on this matter (I have had trouble with the law for being involved in "Illegal Protests"). But I think that the right to protest is way too restricted. It is claimed that requiring licenses and the like "protects the rights of others", but it really limits the potential for non-violent protests.

so you support the right to protest?

[Armenum]

You have the right to protest peacefully. No one can touch you. But if you start hooliganism, desecrating property, targeting people, and so on, than the police have every right to disperse the protest. The line between a legitimate protest and a illegal one is pretty clear in my eyes...

[Inhuman One]

Sadly a legitimate protest can turn into a violent protest in the blink of an eye.

[Armenum]

Sadly a legitimate protest can turn into a violent protest in the blink of an eye.

Some may, not all...

[Inhuman One]

certainly not all, and I am not against the right to protest. It just makes me sad that some people think violence needs to be used for the protest to be recognized.

[Armenum]

certainly not all, and I am not against the right to protest. It just makes me sad that some people think violence needs to be used for the protest to be recognized

if people are very fired up or passionate about the issue at hand it can very easily turn violent as a result of a few hooligans in the group of course...I'll give you can example.

In Armenia there were protests against the elections that had taken place, the opposition was claiming that they were rigged. One night, however, after a day of peaceful protesting, it turned violent as hooligans began breaking into shops. The armored police got involved, and things turned even more violent as some of these protesters started putting cars on fire, turning over police cars, and actually acquired weapons and started shooting at the police. At this moment it was chaos, and in the chaos 10 of the protesters were killed many more injured, and a state of emergency was called for 20 days, and the army was brought into the capital. A violent protest can be very dangerous, and that line between violent and peaceful has to be firmly kept.