Skip to content or view screen version

The Right to Peaceful Protest.

Ann Arky's Blog | 25.02.2013 22:55

Here on the streets of Glasgow, the same streets that John MacLean, Guy Aldred, Willie McDougal and many others, held meetings and protests attended by hundreds, we are seeing the authorities trying to stamp out that tradition of peaceful public protest. If they succeed, where is your freedom to voice your concerns and anger at injustice?


A peaceful protest held in Gordon Street Glasgow, on February 22, saw two young men arrested for no more than using a megaphone to get the attention of the passing public. How often have you walked through our city streets and some preacher has been belting out his "message" through a sound system and no large police formation and no arrests? The authorities only send in their minders, the police, if it is a political protest, they can't have the people voicing their concerns publicly, others might listen.

There is a campaign to right this wrong, to hold onto our right to peaceful public protest. It is our city, our streets, our right to freedom of expression.

More details HERE:

Ann Arky's Blog
- Original article on IMC Scotland: http://www.indymediascotland.org/node/32836

Comments

Hide the following 2 comments

Peaceful

26.02.2013 15:01

a word that strangles and stamps out any chance of effective change. The state and its cops have you bandying this word around like it's fucking gospel.

so it's all over


Unclear on the concepts (both of you)

27.02.2013 14:53

Peaceful protest
Just because PEACEFUL does not mean compliant or law abiding. The very term "civil disobedience" implies NOT law abiding because were it a lawful peaceful action would be "civil obedience".

Non-peaceful alternatives
NOT always better or more effective. Just saying that you can't see how peaceful (but not necessarily law abiding) protest can bring about the change you want to see isn't enough. You NEED to explain why in THIS situation violence would be more effective. There is more than one issue.

1) Neutrals may decide that in THIS situation your violence is inappropriate to your grievance. Whatever you grievance might have been now becomes irrelevant.

2) You may not have sufficient means. Coming to a gunfight armed with a cricket bat isn't the brightest idea in the world.

Retain the initiative and right of choice.
Whichever way you go, remember you need to retain the right to define the action. Do not surrender that by an action which gives the right of choice away to the other side.

Do you need an example of that? Say you want to blockade a building that has people in it. You block the main doors in such a way that people outside can't get in and people inside can't get out (through those doors) without removing you and that can't be easily/quickly done without injuring you. That is peaceful AND you retained the choice over that. Now suppose you instead blocked ALL the doors. The people outside can't break in, you have retained choice over that. But the people inside (at least where I am) do NOT have to tamely await rescue from imprisonment. THEY have a right to escape imprisonment by you even though that means the arms of those through the door handles get shattered. In other words, you surrendered the right of choice to them.

MDN