the Right to Protest
![[Deleted User]](/uploads/userpics/281/n8T53N6UZ5BS8.png)
[Deleted User]
Posts: 0
in Purgatory
British Home Secretary James 'Clever' Cleverly doesn't like protests. Specifically he doesn't like Gaza protests.
To summarise:
JC says/implies we've got the message so you can stop now
JC says that the British government position is to work towards a two-state solution and therefore the continued protests are against logic
JC (and/or other politicians) implies that the protests are bad/evil/taken over by radical Islamists
JC says the cost of policing is too high
JC says that they threaten elected politicians
--
As someone who has protested many times, I'd say most of that is irrelevant. A lot of those on the Gaza protests feel like they have to with no real expectation of a change in government policy. Because they can't sit around whilst people die.
Second, I don't accept that the government is in a position to regulate protests that are against the government
Third I don't want to live in a country where objecting to government policy is somehow illegal
To summarise:
JC says/implies we've got the message so you can stop now
JC says that the British government position is to work towards a two-state solution and therefore the continued protests are against logic
JC (and/or other politicians) implies that the protests are bad/evil/taken over by radical Islamists
JC says the cost of policing is too high
JC says that they threaten elected politicians
--
As someone who has protested many times, I'd say most of that is irrelevant. A lot of those on the Gaza protests feel like they have to with no real expectation of a change in government policy. Because they can't sit around whilst people die.
Second, I don't accept that the government is in a position to regulate protests that are against the government
Third I don't want to live in a country where objecting to government policy is somehow illegal
Comments
If the government has got the message, then where is the evidence? Where are government ministers calling for an immediate ceasefire? Or ambassadors to the UN bringing forward motions calling for an immediate ceasefire? Why are UK firms still supplying weapons systems and components to Israel?
If the government is working for a two state solution, why have they been silent over the last decade as illegal settlement are established in occupied territory and Palestinian people murdered and driven from their homes?
We don't march for the government to hear us. We march for them to do something.
Doesn't that rather presuppose that 'the government has got the message' must mean the same as 'the government is now doing what I've told it to?'
And, we'll keep on marching to call on others to do what we see as the right thing too. So, we'll picket outside businesses supporting the Israeli government actions. We'll protest against sporting and cultural events where people are allowed to participate under the Israeli flag (join us in Glasgow on Saturday, 12 noon at Barrowland Park to march on the world athletics championships at the Emirates Arena).
I've marched to protest about inaction on human influence on global climate and local environment. Where, again, the government response is to ignore what we're claiming is the right thing and continuing to support oil and gas extraction from the North Sea, continue to oppose onshore renewable generation, continue to bet on nuclear supplying all our electricity in 50 years time when we need to have massively cut carbon use in electricity generation in the next 5-10 years (would much prefer it if we'd already done that), continuing to ignore commitments to net zero by 2050 etc. And, to be honest Labour policies aren't all that better.
I have some opinions on this but am interested in hearing others views
If everyone is protesting under the same rules and is policed the same way, protest is protest, even when I disagree with the protestors. Especially when I disagree with the protestors.
I concur. The right to protest has to apply to things I don’t like to be able to apply to things I do.
If the police as insufficiently resourced to do their job, which includes policing as many protests as are provoked by the actions of the government and those of its allies, it is for the government to provide more resources.
In other words, they would have to be financed by the tax payer.
So you want to ban protests? Is this official GB News policy?
I'd also say that people not involved in your political dispute, especially when they're particularly vulnerable, shouldn't be targeted in anyway. So, even if you're dispute relates to a medical procedure that shouldn't involve protests at clinics - outside Parliament etc is fine, but not where people who are ill or traumatised (by definition, vulnerable) are seeking treatment. I'm not sure about health workers on strike, because they're picketing their own place of work and aren't really protesting about any particular procedure (except possibly the inability to deliver that treatment because of lack of funding). There would be other examples of out of bounds venues - eg: any protest that might have a perceived religious element should avoid places like faith schools or places of worship.
Why on earth do you think that I am employed by GB News or have any influence on the programme content of GB News ?
Yes, a functioning democratic system has some costs associated with it. Did you know elections and parliament cost taxpayers money too?
We could fund policing every protest for the next few decades by moving parliament out of Westminster and ditching the multi-billion pound refurbishment.
Announced today that an extra £31 million is needed to be spent on MPs protection. More expense for the ordinary taxpayer.
There is a need for policing of protests, there would be roads that need to be closed and traffic diverted for marches and to a lesser extent rallies. But, there's also a lot of excessive police action at peaceful marches. I was at the climate march in Glasgow during COP26 in 2021, and almost got caught up in an illegal kettling operation by a group of thugs in police uniforms who, without any evidence that there was even a remote possibility of trouble, decided that they need to drive a group of young people into a dead end street denying them access to food and drink or use of toilets for an extended period of time - justified because these people were wearing face masks (during a pandemic where the Scottish law was that face masks should be worn in enclosed public spaces). How much did it cost the taxpayer to have hundreds of police create a point of anger that could have easily got out of hand?
I have no issue with the cost or the fact that it is being provided. My issue is the fact that it is now needed. MPs should be free to vote as they see fit without fear of intimidation.
Civil disobedience out here can be extremely violent, the more so as protests go unheard and service needs unmet by municipalities, local authorities and government. Protesters on unauthorised marches or gatherings resort to rioting, looting and arson. Police respond with tear-gas and the use of non-live ammunition such as rubber bullets. The armed forces are called in to restore order and live ammunition (bullets) is then used, resulting in severe injuries or the deaths of protesters. It is a devastating spiral of violence and most of those involved with community and policing negotiation forums out here try very hard to get grievances addressed and tensions defused before violence erupts.
There's a great deal of difference between a protest and a death threat, although the two main parties in the UK like to blur that line when the discussion comes up:
https://twitter.com/HamzaMSyed/status/1760662429850067183
I doubt if it would happen, but I should like to see it - what an impact it would make! Why, the police would have nothing to do, and no-one to arrest, so they could just go on with their normal duties...
All protests need to be policed because there’s no way to know ahead of time which ones will be peaceful and which will result in a genuine threat to others.
Clearly the police are able to take a view on which protests need more policing - or we'd see 100s of riot police turn up whenever a protest was in the offing.
No. They typically don't.
Correct. Just remember it is not illegal to film a police officer particularly in London. It is on the Met Police website. If during a protest an officer behaves badly then film them
Fair enough - I was being slightly ironic, but should have been clearer.
No problem
You imagine that would make the slightest difference? Apart from you getting your card marked for police harassment down the line, that is?
These things go both ways. There are more police in places where they think there may be trouble but more police often seems to stoke things up as well.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1c/West_and_East_Germans_at_the_Brandenburg_Gate_in_1989.jpg
Well, quite.
FWIW, I thought @Eirenist was being ironic...
Well, quite. "I've got the message" is a very different statement from "I intend to do something about it."
Fair enough, and you're entitled to your opinion, of course - but I beg to differ, because if protests are not made, the (any) government will eventually get away with anything they choose.
Thanks for the clarification, though.
(I've been on marches, too - anti-Thatcher marches...so I do, in a way, sympathise with your view. I'm also older, but not, I suspect, wiser
I did my share of protesting the Vietnam war too,
Part of this is drawing lines between different kinds of 'bad'.
There's a film/movie that is in line for awards in Hollywood at the moment; it tells the story of the family of a Nazi death camp commander who live in a house which immediately backs on to the camp. The kids play on the garden and their lives are briefly clouded by the sounds of the disgusting things drifting over the wall.
If you don't know about it, I'm sure you can imagine.
In terms of right/wrong alone, I don't think many would object to the idea of a picket outside his house.
Note: I'm not talking about effectiveness only the concept of picketing a house.
In the UK there's a debate about picketing politicians houses, I don't know how this plays out elsewhere.
Outside their office is ok. Outside their house I am not too happy with. We have to draw the line between protest and harassment. Protesting outside a person’s house walks that line.