1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

London Climate Protests

Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by crinkleshoes, 17 Apr 2019.

  1. Dolph

    Man of Honour

    Joined: 17 Oct 2002

    Posts: 50,087

    Location: Plymouth

    What they are doing isn't protesting, it's disrupting. Not the same thing at all.

    Do what we want or we will abuse your rights isn't protest, it's blackmail. The rights abuse, taken to extremes, is what defines terrorism. (Note, this is not me saying that xr are terrorists, just that they share the same approach applied to different degrees).

    Rights are always a balance, and the right of an individual to do something is always balanced against the impact that action has on the rights of others.

    Would you support the right of anyone to disrupt in this way regardless of cause, or are you just being inconsistent?
     
  2. do_ron_ron

    Capodecina

    Joined: 23 Oct 2002

    Posts: 10,826

    Wrong, all protests, no matter how peacefull, always disrupt. Even if it is just traffic not allowed on that road during the hours it takes part.

    It is not blackmail in any sense. You are now saying it is like terrorism then saying they are not terrorists but act like terrorists. This says more about you than any protest.
    The right to protest has always been upheld as a part of a healthy democracy. It is this Govt who are curtailing these British values.

    It shows a healthy democracy. Only dictatorships and those leaning towards it bans protests
     
  3. XeNoN89

    Sgarrista

    Joined: 6 Mar 2007

    Posts: 8,676

    Location: SW19

    They have the right to protest. They don't have the right to block roads.
     
  4. do_ron_ron

    Capodecina

    Joined: 23 Oct 2002

    Posts: 10,826

    If you look at any protest the roads are blocked, even if it is only for a few hours. Standard police MO is to block roads when they know the route of any protest. It is normal for roads to be like this.
     
  5. Dolph

    Man of Honour

    Joined: 17 Oct 2002

    Posts: 50,087

    Location: Plymouth

    The protestors aren't the police.

    Presumably you'd have no issue whatsoever with a group barricading your house for 12 months to protest miscegenation given your statements above?
     
  6. do_ron_ron

    Capodecina

    Joined: 23 Oct 2002

    Posts: 10,826

    Stupid, stupid example. Why would people protest at my house anyway, it would bring them no/litle media coverage which is the main aim of protestors. If you look round the world at the types of countries where there are curbs on protests you come up with the Tabliban in Afghanistan, Putin in Russia and various other countries with wanabee tin pot dictators. It seem Johnson is taking this country down those paths. What is worrying is the number of people cheering him on.
     
  7. Dolph

    Man of Honour

    Joined: 17 Oct 2002

    Posts: 50,087

    Location: Plymouth

    Motivations are subjective and therefore shouldn't be considered. Only the action is objective and so that is what should be judged.

    Do you support any action being done under the name of protest, or do you have limits?
     
  8. Dirk Diggler

    Capodecina

    Joined: 6 Jan 2013

    Posts: 17,552

    Nonsense; you're comparing 2 completely different things. Johnson wants to change the law on protests to ease the attacks on public freedom, Putin will implement the law to attack public freedom.

    In a democratic country like ours, the law is constantly evolving. These idiot protestors are a catalyst in the evolutionary process that will see the law change to give them less freedom - because they currently abuse their freedom, simple as that.
     
  9. Dolph

    Man of Honour

    Joined: 17 Oct 2002

    Posts: 50,087

    Location: Plymouth

    Exactly, they are using their freedom to attack and restrict the freedom of others, which is exactly the sort of thing that the state has a responsibility to control and manage.
     
  10. do_ron_ron

    Capodecina

    Joined: 23 Oct 2002

    Posts: 10,826

    Peaceful protests should always be allowed. If they are not peaceful the police alreafy have powers to deal with it. Only extremists want to change to making protests more difficult.
     
  11. do_ron_ron

    Capodecina

    Joined: 23 Oct 2002

    Posts: 10,826

    The very terminology you use "attacks on public freedom" show your motivation and it has nothing to do with freedom. Protest are a fundemental right in any democracy. They may be annoying at times but they show democracy is working. Removal of these rights show democracy is being eroded in this country. As I said the most disturbing thing is the number of people who are cheering it on.
     
  12. Dolph

    Man of Honour

    Joined: 17 Oct 2002

    Posts: 50,087

    Location: Plymouth

    So there is no action, as long as it is considered peaceful, that you would consider unacceptable if the perpetrator claims they are doing it in protest, irrespective of the impact on the rights of others?

    And you think that anyone who doesn't share this view is an extremist?
     
  13. Dirk Diggler

    Capodecina

    Joined: 6 Jan 2013

    Posts: 17,552

    You're missing the nuance and acting like the right to protest is being revoked when it is not; it's being amended. You also miss the strength of feeling if you think the protest movement in this country in recent years can be accurately described as "annoying" - it's evolved well beyond that to become fanatical, criminal and in some cases domestic terrorism.
     
  14. do_ron_ron

    Capodecina

    Joined: 23 Oct 2002

    Posts: 10,826

    Peotests are a fundemental right in our country. As I said if it is not peaceful the police already have all the powers they need. The people shouting loudly about freedom today in this country are the very people who want to remove freedoms and are extremists.
     
  15. do_ron_ron

    Capodecina

    Joined: 23 Oct 2002

    Posts: 10,826

    Only to a certain group of tabloid readers. The climate problem is one of the biggest we have faced and certain right wing groups and the tabloid owners are attacking the idea. The strength of feeling about the climate is huge, much greater than getting annoyed about some protest, except in the said tabloids. Anyone can look at it and equally say that climate deniers are fanatical but equally you can say that the other side are delusional. You need to look at what the police term 'domestic terrorism' tather than what the tabloids label it. They are very different and there has been NO domestic terrorism by these protest groups.
     
  16. Dirk Diggler

    Capodecina

    Joined: 6 Jan 2013

    Posts: 17,552

    If you're going to be condescending then I'm happy to leave you to it.
     
  17. do_ron_ron

    Capodecina

    Joined: 23 Oct 2002

    Posts: 10,826

    I watched the Lords today debating this and there was agreement that it was unnecessary and a bad law.
     
  18. Dolph

    Man of Honour

    Joined: 17 Oct 2002

    Posts: 50,087

    Location: Plymouth

    Large parts of the new law are Draconian, excessive and utterly ridiculous, and have no place in UK law.

    That I believe that the general public should have more protection from intentionally disruptive protests (note, this is different from the disruption a protest can cause) such as the tactics used by XR etc, doesn't in any way imply that I support all the ludicrous restrictions being brought in via the police, crime and sentencing bill.

    It's not a dichotomy.
     
  19. philo-sofa

    Hitman

    Joined: 22 Oct 2012

    Posts: 830

    Yeah it's nominally that. But in practice most go for the fun of it.
     
  20. Murphy

    Sgarrista

    Joined: 16 Sep 2018

    Posts: 7,656

    The problem is how do you define disruptive, IDK if there's a legal definition but the OED is "Interrupt (an event, activity, or process) by causing a disturbance or problem". It could be argued that any protest, no matter how benign, interrupts, disturbs or causes a problem, that's sort of the point of them isn't it?