IMO, extreme examples (especially when hypothetical - by the time a state has death camps protesting anywhere is going to end with protestors in those camps) make for poor discussions.
I'd agree with @Hugal - protesting outside someone's home pushes the boundaries into harassment and intimidation, it impacts personal life and family. Of course, there are times when home and office are the same which makes things more difficult. And, when an office is in a building shared by other businesses a protest that restricts access to the building or is noisy could disrupt other innocent organisations. Also, a protest outside an MPs office, a surgery or similar could be intimidating for constituents who have reason to see their MP on unrelated issues. Protests outside a Parliament or council building are usually less disruptive because there's always alternate ways into the building which allows staff, MPs etc to come and go without facing the demonstration.
Ok so we have Nazis on the one hand (morally responsible people would picket his house) and British MPs on the other hand (nobody should picket their houses).
So where is the line? What about a British MP who spouts Nazi nonsense?
Also I suspect it is much more likely that those who would protest whatever the consequences (and would be White Roses) would be from the Left whereas it is far more likely that that those tutting about the inconvenience of being forced to face realities of war-crimes would be from the Right.
Protesting outside a Nazi Death Camp Commander's house would have one swift end and achieve nothing. What on earth do you expect, other than a martyr's crown?
There is a competition between the right of free speech (which includes, naturally, protest against things or people) and the right for people to be left alone to quietly get on with their lives.
This argument often shows up on college / university campuses, which as well as being places for study and intellectual dispute are also home for many of their students, which puts them in an interesting position.
You want to protect your individual students, and not have them feeling harassed and unwelcome in what is effectively their own home, but you also want to allow the public expression and discussion of political ideas.
The University of Manchester has a pro-life student organization that has been making headlines, because a lot of students think it shouldn't have the right to exist.
I have attended protests as a duty and I have been paid for it. I have never ever felt the need to protest.
I have no quarrel with anyone who policed or polices protests.
Really? I have a quarrel with all the people who "policed" protests by using violence against peaceful protests, and responded to isolated violence with extreme and indiscriminate violence. And I have a problem with their colleagues who colluded and covered for them and made sure they were never brought to justice while their victims were charged. I'll not forget the appalled laughter in court when an assault by a police officer on one of a handful of unarmed, utterly harmless peace activists was elided by the magistrate as a "home office approved leg sweep" before he convicted the 6 protestors of "aggravated trespass". Neither will I forget being driven into by a police van at a similarly peaceful anti-war march. Not for nothing do we say ACAB.
I should have said I was talking about the many marches and protests I've been on and witnessed. In the vast majority of cases, even when protests turn into fights, the frontline police are doing what they've been trained to do and what they are told to do. There's little benefit in being unpleasant to police on a march.
That's not to deny that overpolicing isn't a thing nor that on some occasions they've individually failed badly. I've just never seen or experienced it.
I should have said I was talking about the many marches and protests I've been on and witnessed. In the vast majority of cases, even when protests turn into fights, the frontline police are doing what they've been trained to do and what they are told to do. There's little benefit in being unpleasant to police on a march.
There's little benefit in being unpleasant to anyone, on a march or elsewhere.
But, the issue of policing isn't really individual officers, who like any group of people cover a spectrum of very good through to a very small minority of not good, but with the system. "Frontline police are doing what they've been trained to do and what they are told to do" is entirely about the system. Who's training police officers to grab their riot gear to police a march, and force groups of peaceful protestors into a small area where they're deprived of the chance to go to the loo or get a hot cup of tea on a cold, wet day? Who trains officers to pull women from a protest against police murdering women, and push them to the ground? And, why are police being given this training rather than training in de-escalation and cooperation with protestors? And, as for individual officers - are people really going to let them get away with "just following orders"?
For sure, that was the point I was making. Overpolicing where it happens is a political choice. It's not normally any specific police officer thar decides to do that.
For sure, that was the point I was making. Overpolicing where it happens is a political choice. It's not normally any specific police officer thar decides to do that.
On the large scale, perhaps. On the small scale nasty, violent, policing like I described is down to individuals and the culture of the force.
I have attended protests as a duty and I have been paid for it. I have never ever felt the need to protest.
Lucky you!
There are, of course, many people who do feel the need to protest, especially in these troubled times, when the right to do so is being steadily eroded.
For sure, that was the point I was making. Overpolicing where it happens is a political choice. It's not normally any specific police officer thar decides to do that.
On the large scale, perhaps. On the small scale nasty, violent, policing like I described is down to individuals and the culture of the force.
I have attended protests as a duty and I have been paid for it. I have never ever felt the need to protest.
I have no quarrel with anyone who policed or polices protests.
Really? I have a quarrel with all the people who "policed" protests by using violence against peaceful protests, and responded to isolated violence with extreme and indiscriminate violence. And I have a problem with their colleagues who colluded and covered for them and made sure they were never brought to justice while their victims were charged. I'll not forget the appalled laughter in court when an assault by a police officer on one of a handful of unarmed, utterly harmless peace activists was elided by the magistrate as a "home office approved leg sweep" before he convicted the 6 protestors of "aggravated trespass". Neither will I forget being driven into by a police van at a similarly peaceful anti-war march. Not for nothing do we say ACAB.
In my experience I have not seen violence used against peaceful protestors. I should add that I have not attended all protests and I have never worked in London. The object is for the protest to be peaceful. The problems arise when officers defend themselves when they are attacked.
Comments
And yes I know this is an extreme example.
I'd agree with @Hugal - protesting outside someone's home pushes the boundaries into harassment and intimidation, it impacts personal life and family. Of course, there are times when home and office are the same which makes things more difficult. And, when an office is in a building shared by other businesses a protest that restricts access to the building or is noisy could disrupt other innocent organisations. Also, a protest outside an MPs office, a surgery or similar could be intimidating for constituents who have reason to see their MP on unrelated issues. Protests outside a Parliament or council building are usually less disruptive because there's always alternate ways into the building which allows staff, MPs etc to come and go without facing the demonstration.
So where is the line? What about a British MP who spouts Nazi nonsense?
This argument often shows up on college / university campuses, which as well as being places for study and intellectual dispute are also home for many of their students, which puts them in an interesting position.
You want to protect your individual students, and not have them feeling harassed and unwelcome in what is effectively their own home, but you also want to allow the public expression and discussion of political ideas.
The University of Manchester has a pro-life student organization that has been making headlines, because a lot of students think it shouldn't have the right to exist.
https://www.itv.com/news/granada/2024-03-02/violence-during-protest-over-pro-life-society-at-manchester-university
I have no quarrel with anyone who policed or polices protests.
And I'm not very interested in people who never protest. It seems like a lack of imagination to me, but each to their own.
Really? I have a quarrel with all the people who "policed" protests by using violence against peaceful protests, and responded to isolated violence with extreme and indiscriminate violence. And I have a problem with their colleagues who colluded and covered for them and made sure they were never brought to justice while their victims were charged. I'll not forget the appalled laughter in court when an assault by a police officer on one of a handful of unarmed, utterly harmless peace activists was elided by the magistrate as a "home office approved leg sweep" before he convicted the 6 protestors of "aggravated trespass". Neither will I forget being driven into by a police van at a similarly peaceful anti-war march. Not for nothing do we say ACAB.
That's not to deny that overpolicing isn't a thing nor that on some occasions they've individually failed badly. I've just never seen or experienced it.
But, the issue of policing isn't really individual officers, who like any group of people cover a spectrum of very good through to a very small minority of not good, but with the system. "Frontline police are doing what they've been trained to do and what they are told to do" is entirely about the system. Who's training police officers to grab their riot gear to police a march, and force groups of peaceful protestors into a small area where they're deprived of the chance to go to the loo or get a hot cup of tea on a cold, wet day? Who trains officers to pull women from a protest against police murdering women, and push them to the ground? And, why are police being given this training rather than training in de-escalation and cooperation with protestors? And, as for individual officers - are people really going to let them get away with "just following orders"?
On the large scale, perhaps. On the small scale nasty, violent, policing like I described is down to individuals and the culture of the force.
Lucky you!
There are, of course, many people who do feel the need to protest, especially in these troubled times, when the right to do so is being steadily eroded.
In my experience I have not seen violence used against peaceful protestors. I should add that I have not attended all protests and I have never worked in London. The object is for the protest to be peaceful. The problems arise when officers defend themselves when they are attacked.
a) by far the majority of English protests happen in London
And
b) London Metropolitan Police have been widely criticised for policing some protests.
At this one they apologised and paid compensation: https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/london-police-apologise-pay-compensation-women-held-vigil-2023-09-13/