# Does peaceful protesting work?



## xes (Dec 13, 2010)

I've asked this question...oooh, twice now, in the past couple of days.. I've not had an answer to the question all the same. 

Now, obviously, peace is the way to go. But when peaceful protest falls on deaf ears, what choice is left? 

Can someone tell me when our goverment last caved in to pressure from a peaceful protest? 

And if not, can some of the anti violent protest mob, give me an alternative? Because I can't see one. When the goverment will not listen to peaceful protest, what other alternative is there to get your point accross in an efficient way? one which will work, and one which will do your cause good. 

Answers on a postcard (or in the quick reply post box)

Also, to the anti vioent protest mob....What IS worth fighting for?


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 13, 2010)

well, not in isolation, no


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 13, 2010)

Work at what? 

And, as is always pointed out on these threads, the question is not whether we're _peaceful_ or not, but whether we're _effective_.


----------



## xes (Dec 13, 2010)

What do you mean, not in isolation? Can you give me examples of a peaceful protest "in isolation" that has worked?

edit, cos my spelling after lunch, seems to go all funny...


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 13, 2010)

yep.


----------



## xes (Dec 13, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Work at what?
> 
> And, as is always pointed out on these threads, the question is not whether we're _peaceful_ or not, but whether we're _effective_.


 
well, when was the last time a peaceful protest was effective. When did a peaceful protest achieve what it set out to achieve.


----------



## fredfelt (Dec 13, 2010)

The question may even be out dated.  The whole Wikileaks thing has unleashed a wave of protest but in a different form to what we are used to.  How effective it turns out to be is unknown but these are interesting times.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 13, 2010)

xes said:


> well, when was the last time a peaceful protest was effective. When did a peaceful protest achieve what it set out to achieve.


 
This question is just so vague that it's meaningless.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 13, 2010)

xes said:


> What do you mean, not in isolation? Can you give me axamples of a peaceful protest "in isolation" as worked?


 
i mean in terms of the fact that some pointless demo from a to b usually doesn't work no matter how many people are on it, but other stuff combined with it can (such as strikes, occupations, direct action, etc) whether or not that is classified as "peaceful" ...


----------



## xes (Dec 13, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> This question is just so vague that it's meaningless.


 
Why? I'm only looking for a time, when a protest which didn't turn violent, managed to over turn the political decision that it was protesting against. How can I put it in better terms? (legalise isn't my first language btw)


----------



## skyscraper101 (Dec 13, 2010)

In a democracy. Voting can be a form of protest and entirely peaceful.

If enough people vote against the government come election time for a party who acts on its promise to overturn whatever it is you're casting your vote for. Then yes, in this respect - peaceful protesting works.

If you're Brian Haw sitting protesting outside Parliament for the best part of 10 years achieving little by way of troop pull-out from Iraq/Afghanistan. It seems to be doing very little in getting govt attention.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 13, 2010)

xes said:


> Why? I'm only looking for a time, when a protest which didn't turn violent, managed to over turn the political decision that it was protesting against. How can I put it in better terms? (legalise isn't my first language btw)


 
What do you mean by protest for starters? Was the largely victorious occupation at Visteon a protest?


----------



## pinkmonkey (Dec 13, 2010)

It doesn't work at getting any press awareness, the press are only interested if hundreds of thousands turn up or it fits their agenda. (Stop The War, Countryside Alliance).  They want to see a ruck, they love it the slags. Stewarded a peaceful march last year, 20,000 strong, all the way down Oxford Street to Trafalgar Square.  We got not one single sentence in any paper. 
I agree the violence can seen to turn people against it, but then there might be a tipping point (saw this during the miners strike) as everyone (not only the protesters) get angry and the support widens.  I think the thing with protests is to not give up, keep up the pressure.

ETA I wonder if the Stop The War protest had turned into a proper full on riot with 1million going mad, would they then sit up and notice?  That many people?  Because they certainly didn't give a fuck that one million people bothered to show up. Didn't change jack shit.


----------



## xes (Dec 13, 2010)

skyscraper101 said:


> In a democracy. Voting can be a form of protest and entirely peaceful.
> 
> If enough people vote against the government come election time for a party who acts on its promise to overturn whatever it is you're casting your vote for. Then yes, in this respect - peaceful protesting works.
> 
> If you're Brian Haw sitting protesting outside Parliament for the best part of 10 years achieving little by way of troop pull-out from Iraq/Afghanistan. It seems to be doing very little in getting govt attention.


 Voting only works when you have different parties to vote for. All of the current parties, are different faces, of the same coin. There is no point on voting for any of them, if you want change, becasue they all want the same thing.


----------



## xes (Dec 13, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> What do you mean by protest for starters? Was the largely victorious occupation at Visteon a protest?


 
Yes, thank you for ebing the first person to be able to answer the question!! Have a cookie, or something 

although it wasn't really a goverment decision they managed to change, you're definatly on the right path.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 13, 2010)

xes said:


> Yes, thank you for ebing the first person to be able to answer the question!! Have a cookie, or something
> 
> although it wasn't really a goverment decision they managed to change, you're definatly on the right path.


 
The key is fitting appropriate tactics to situations - not taking the view that all peaceful protest is either shit or the only way to go. If you do this (the first) you can easily enough reach the conclusion that at times peaceful protest is not only ineffective and counter-productive at times, but is even dangerous.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 13, 2010)

I think it depends what you're protesting against. If your protest is directly against a decision by the government of the day, I would think that if the protest did not provoke a violent reaction from the govt, that's a pretty clear indication that you haven't worried them enough to change their minds. 

Peaceful protests in the US for civil rights no doubt made a difference, but they were pushing at a door that was half-open, they had supporters at the top. If your protest is specifically aimed at those at the top, it is quite different.


----------



## xes (Dec 13, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> The key is fitting appropriate tactics to situations - not taking the view that all peaceful protest is either shit or the only way to go. If you do this (the first) you can easily enough reach the conclusion that at times peaceful protest is not only ineffective and counter-productive at times, but is even dangerous.


 
Well, this I know. This thread is aimed more at those who 100% oppose violent protest in any way. I'm looking for times when a peaceful protest on the streets of England, actually did what it set out to do. And I can't think of any.


----------



## tbaldwin (Dec 13, 2010)

xes said:


> Why? I'm only looking for a time, when a protest which didn't turn violent, managed to over turn the political decision that it was protesting against. How can I put it in better terms? (legalise isn't my first language btw)


 
Fuel tax protesters?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 13, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I think it depends what you're protesting against. If your protest is directly against a decision by the government of the day, I would think that if the protest did not provoke a violent reaction from the govt, that's a pretty clear indication that you haven't worried them enough to change their minds.
> 
> Peaceful protests in the US for civil rights no doubt made a difference, but they were pushing at a door that was half-open, they had supporters at the top. If your protest is specifically aimed at those at the top, it is quite different.



They were also backed up with the threat of massive force - from Robert Williams and the Deacons of Defence to the Watts riots, to Detroit '67...


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 13, 2010)

> ETA I wonder if the Stop The War protest had turned into a proper full on riot with 1million going mad, would they then sit up and notice? That many people? Because they certainly didn't give a fuck that one million people bothered to show up. Didn't change jack shit.



Its a good arguement but I honestly, honestly don't know if they would have to be honest (although undoubtedly the government may have reacted in a different way, but that might have just been a more brutal way). There was already a massive build-up of troops in the area that couldn't just have been withdrawn easily - they (IMO) made the decision to go to war long long befoer the demo - and in any case it wouldnt have been "one million going mad" it would have been a few thousand rioters at most, most of whom would be easily charged with criminal offences, demonised and portrayed as "violent anarchists" or worse.


----------



## xes (Dec 13, 2010)

tbaldwin said:


> Fuel tax protesters?


 
Nothing really changed, jujst set it back a year or so. Wher are we right now, in the cost of fuel? Pretty much back where we were. Infact, you raise a good point, as I've been wondering when we're going to kick off about fuel prices again, cos we're close to where we were when it last kicked off.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 13, 2010)

Lindsey and related wildcats


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 13, 2010)

xes said:


> Well, this I know. This thread is aimed more at those who 100% oppose violent protest in any way. I'm looking for times when a peaceful protest on the streets of England, actually did what it set out to do. And I can't think of any.


 
Well it hasn't really. It needs to be backed up with other stuff.


----------



## xes (Dec 13, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> Well it hasn't really. It needs to be backed up with other stuff.


 
other stuff like?......


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 13, 2010)

like strikes, sit-downs, occupations, blockades etc and other stuff up to and including direct action that is really disruptive to what you're trying to prevent, although not necessarily "violent". (not saying violence never has a place btw but if you do you need to make damn sure that it has public support for it to be effective otherwise that sort of stuff can completely alienate people)


----------



## London_Calling (Dec 13, 2010)

The authorities really, really don't like 'normal' people being driven to violence that's for sure - every opportunity is taken to portray people as 'trouble-makers' or ‘anarchist groups', etc, anything to separate angry people them from the mainstream.

It's also surprisingly easy for a very few hundred committed people to cause the police to lose control of central London.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 13, 2010)

London_Calling said:


> The authorities really, really don't like 'normal' people being driven to violence that's for sure - every opportunity is taken to portray people as 'trouble-makers' or ‘anarchist groups', etc, anything to separate angry people them from the mainstream.


 
yep.


----------



## Cobbles (Dec 13, 2010)

xes said:


> INow, obviously, peace is the way to go. But when peaceful protest falls on deaf ears, what choice is left?



What about the ballot box? - it seems to have worked well for a few centuries.........

Oh no - you don't prevail that way unless you're the majority, OK then, let's just have a "_whoever bleats loudest gets whatever they want_" form of Government - novel.


----------



## tbaldwin (Dec 13, 2010)

xes said:


> Nothing really changed, jujst set it back a year or so. Wher are we right now, in the cost of fuel? Pretty much back where we were. Infact, you raise a good point, as I've been wondering when we're going to kick off about fuel prices again, cos we're close to where we were when it last kicked off.


 
It strikes me as being a very effective protest. Petrol prices are way too cheap in my view. Interesting as well how Reclaim the Streets started off really well but fairly quickly fell apart.


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 13, 2010)

Cobbles said:


> What about the ballot box? - it seems to have worked well for a few centuries.........
> 
> Oh no - you don't prevail that way unless you're the majority, OK then, let's just have a "_whoever bleats loudest gets whatever they want_" form of Government - novel.



Hmmmm...history not your strong point is it?

What _is_ your strong point?  Do you have any?


----------



## xes (Dec 13, 2010)

Cobbles said:


> What about the ballot box? - it seems to have worked well for a few centuries.........
> 
> Oh no - you don't prevail that way unless you're the majority, OK then, let's just have a "_whoever bleats loudest gets whatever they want_" form of Government - novel.


 
like I said earlier, we can only vote for those who want the same thing, as evey political party are going in the same way. Labour, lib dems, conservatives....all different faces of the same coin. there is no point voting for a fringe party, as it'll be a wasted vote.


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 13, 2010)

tbaldwin said:


> It strikes me as being a very effective protest. Petrol prices are way too cheap in my view. Interesting as well how Reclaim the Streets started off really well but fairly quickly fell apart.



Did RTS fall apart?  Started around 94ish iirc, from the M11 protest, slowly went from a single issue to making links with the Liverpool dockers, striking tube workers etc, J18 etc.  What killed it IMO was 9/11.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Dec 13, 2010)

Cobbles said:


> What about the ballot box? - *it seems to have worked well for a few centuries*.........
> 
> Oh no - you don't prevail that way unless you're the majority, OK then, let's just have a "_whoever bleats loudest gets whatever they want_" form of Government - novel.


 
1928 is less than 100 years ago.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## tbaldwin (Dec 13, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> Did RTS fall apart?  Started around 94ish iirc, from the M11 protest, slowly went from a single issue to making links with the Liverpool dockers, striking tube workers etc, J18 etc.  What killed it IMO was 9/11.


 
At first there seemed real momentum behind rts. I met the organisers at that time as was quite impressed by them. And June18th was a really good protest. After that it all fell aprt IMV....Not quite sure why but i think once the SWP etc decided to jump on the bandwagon, people started to see it as just more of the same....Not sure what effect 9/11 had?


----------



## xes (Dec 13, 2010)

tbaldwin said:


> It strikes me as being a very effective protest.


 
It was, you're right. but it didn't really do alot, other than cut the prices back for a few months. (I disagree about fuel being too cheep, but that's another point in another thread)


----------



## Clair De Lune (Dec 13, 2010)

It seems it can yes 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_resistance


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 13, 2010)

tbaldwin said:


> At first there seemed real momentum behind rts. I met the organisers at that time as was quite impressed by them. And June18th was a really good protest. After that it all fell aprt IMV....Not quite sure why but i think once the SWP etc decided to jump on the bandwagon, people started to see it as just more of the same....Not sure what effect 9/11 had?



IMO, the whole globalisation anti-capitalist thing was rather overshadowed by 9/11 and it kind of fizzled out a bit.


----------



## moon23 (Dec 13, 2010)

I don't think having a protest works in isolation but as other posters have pointed out it depends on what your objective are. Is the aim of a political campaign to change public opinion, change legislation or to change the actions of a private company or individual?

I think generally you need more than simply a peaceful protest, you need to build a campaign with meetings, gaining press attention, lobbying your representatives etc as well.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 13, 2010)

I think the question _Work at what?_ is really important at getting at both the limits and the uses of peaceful protest. I think history has given us as clear an answer as possible as to whether peaceful protest can achieve a social revolution - and the answer is no. I think situation is equally clear as regards peaceful protest blocking new developments, overturning specfic injustices (see the Pentonville five for a brilliant example) or defending previously won victories _within the system_ - at that it's been historically effective. The trick is to connect these two. 

The victories that peaceful protest have won within the system haven't necessarily (or _at all_ imo) been a result of their peaceful nature but because if the implicit threat of wider social and economic disruption that they contain within them and the danger of ongoing radicalistion of participants as the protests continue and extend. That's the link with the first part. There's no need to seperate peaceful and non-peaceful and face them against each other. There's a connected _process_ at work across all aspects of protest or rebellion.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Dec 13, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I don't think having a protest works in isolation but as other posters have pointed out it depends on what your objective are. Is the aim of a political campaign to change public opinion, change legislation or to change the actions of a private company or individual?
> 
> I think generally you need more than simply a peaceful protest, you need to build a campaign with meetings, gaining press attention, lobbying your representatives etc as well.



Fuck the representatives. They've lied. Why should anyone listen to the same old platitudes and rhetoric? This ideologue government haven't consulted anyone they're attacking with their cuts about whether it's a good idea or not. You think people in council houses were asked their opinion on whether they should have their house for life? Think anyone in the government listened to the students, or will listen to the NHS workers, coastguards, teaching assistants...


----------



## Cobbles (Dec 13, 2010)

xes said:


> Voting only works when you have different parties to vote for. All of the current parties, are different faces, of the same coin. There is no point on voting for any of them, if you want change, becasue they all want the same thing.


 
So - create your own party and stand for election.

Ah yes - I see the flaw in that - it only works if your policies engender support......


----------



## Cobbles (Dec 13, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> 1928 is less than 100 years ago.
> 
> Louis MacNeice


 
Nothing wrong with having a few qualifications regarding who gets to vote.

I'd go for proof of payment of Income tax. After all, why should someone with no financial stake in the nation have any say in how it's run - this works fine for shareholders in a corporate context.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Dec 13, 2010)

Cobbles said:


> Nothing wrong with having a few qualifications regarding who gets to vote.
> 
> I'd go for proof of payment of Income tax. After all, why should someone with no financial stake in the nation have any say in how it's run - this works fine for shareholders in a corporate context.



Deliberate trolling or not, that's one of the most stupid comments I've read on here.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Dec 13, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> I think the question _Work at what?_ is really important at getting at both the limits and the uses of peaceful protest. I think history has given us as clear an answer as possible as to whether peaceful protest can achieve a social revolution - and the answer is no. I think situation is equally clear as regards peaceful protest blocking new developments, overturning specfic injustices (see the Pentonville five for a brilliant example) or defending previously won victories _within the system_ - at that it's been historically effective. The trick is to connect these two.
> 
> The victories that peaceful protest have won within the system haven't necessarily (or _at all_ imo) been a result of their peaceful nature but because if the implicit threat of wider social and economic disruption that they contain within them and the danger of ongoing radicalistion of participants as the protests continue and extend. That's the link with the first part. *There's no need to seperate peaceful and non-peaceful and face them against each other.* There's a connected _process_ at work across all aspects of protest or rebellion.



This, particularly the bit I've put in bold.


----------



## _angel_ (Dec 13, 2010)

Steel☼Icarus said:


> Deliberate trolling or not, that's one of the most stupid comments I've read on here.


 
Wouldn't necessarily work out the way he wanted it to either - lots of foreigners would be able to vote and pensioners would be disenfranchised!


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Dec 13, 2010)

xes said:


> like I said earlier, we can only vote for those who want the same thing, as evey political party are going in the same way. Labour, lib dems, conservatives....all different faces of the same coin. there is no point voting for a fringe party, as it'll be a wasted vote.


 
I think there are specific reasons why they're 'all going the same way' which I've elaborated before. Briefly, the prerequisite to winning an election in the UK is to send out a bunch of specialised market researchers to identify the few thousand swing voters in the few key marginals that will decide the election and then focus your campaign almost entirely on winning them. 

The only way you can pay for all this stuff (because it costs millions to do) is to have a whole bunch of dodgy millionaires who want something (e.g. seats in the Lords) to fund it for you. So you simply don't get electable parties who aren't going to be acceptable to a bunch of dodgy millionaires. This leaves the rest of us effectively disenfranchised unless we can find a way to disrupt this status quo, which is precisely where protest and other forms of mass unrest come in.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Dec 13, 2010)

_angel_ said:


> Wouldn't necessarily work out the way he wanted it to either - lots of foreigners would be able to vote and pensioners would be disenfranchised!


 
Fear the Blue Rinse Brigade. I wouldn't get to vote, either, as a house husband, but to suggest I have no financial stake in the country is ridiculous.


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 13, 2010)

Cobbles said:


> What about the ballot box? - it seems to have worked well for a few centuries.........
> 
> Oh no - you don't prevail that way unless you're the majority, OK then, let's just have a "_whoever bleats loudest gets whatever they want_" form of Government - novel.


you actually know zip about Uk electoral history, don't you?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 13, 2010)

Steel☼Icarus said:


> Fear the Blue Rinse Brigade. I wouldn't get to vote, either, as a house husband, but to suggest I have no financial stake in the country is ridiculous.


 
Well, he's at least consistent with his tagline – No representation without taxation.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Dec 13, 2010)

Cobbles said:


> So - create your own party and stand for election.
> 
> Ah yes - I see the flaw in that - *it only works if your policies engender support......*


 
And if you have several million pounds and a media that isn't one sided.


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Dec 13, 2010)

Cobbles said:


> Nothing wrong with having a few qualifications regarding who gets to vote.
> 
> I'd go for proof of payment of Income tax. After all, why should someone with no financial stake in the nation have any say in how it's run - this works fine for shareholders in a corporate context.


 
Ha this is actually the worst attempt at trolling i've ever seen.  It's so bad that if we had signatures i'd be one of those annoying people and actually have this quote as mine.


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 13, 2010)

To answer the OP: it depends on what peaceful protest, what objective, the social/political context of the times, anfd how well it is integrated into a wider campaign. Agree with BA it's daft to have an either/or oppositionism between peaceful protest and non-peaceful protest. You need the whole, integrated campaign


----------



## Cobbles (Dec 13, 2010)

Doctor Carrot said:


> And if you have several million pounds and a media that isn't one sided.



Well, if you actually have any folk who agree with your policies then you can charge them a few quid per annum "subscription" to be "members" of your party, which funds can be used for advertisong or whatever - again the fatal flaw is that you actually have to be proposing something that other folk give a toss about.

Once you have a decent level of support (as opposed to just you and the other 3 members of the "revolutionary front" down the pub). media interest will follow.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 13, 2010)

Let's ignore this knob eh?


----------



## ymu (Dec 13, 2010)

Some excellent posts here, especially BA and Bernie.

Just to add another dimension ... no protest movement can be successful without widespread popular support. That support will range from very passive to very active. The larger the critical mass, the less control anyone has over the tactics used by others in the movement. 

Even within the realm of non-violence, opinion differs as to what is non-violent. Trident Ploughshares are strict pacifists - they damage property and then wait to be arrested. IIRC they would view any resistance as violence, whereas other non-violent movements will passively resist (make it as hard as possible to be shifted) and others will push back if pushed (no hitting). They will vary on attitudes to property damage, but I know of no group which regards property damage focused on a legitimate target as 'violence'. Opinions on what constitutes a legitimate target vary, of course.

I don't know of any group which solely uses violence to get its point across, but there are many that will step across the non-violence boundary when they deem it necessary. That may mean using violence against people (usually the police) in response to violence from them, it may mean being proactively violent in attacking people (usually the police), it may mean full-blown terrorism in the most extreme of circumstances, and terrorism itself might be largely aimed at property damage and disruption, or largely aimed at taking human life.

In a movement large enough to change anything, many if not all of these elements are likely to be present. Whatever tactics you favour, you will be faced with others using a different approach. The angrier and more frustrated people become, the greater the likelihood of 'violent' action, and even actual pro-active violence against people.

There is a legitimate debate to be had about tactics. It's not as simple as portrayed in the simplistic slogans, and there are people on both sides of the violence/non-violence divide who fail to grasp the nuances. More violent groups do tend to attract a minority who are just up for a ruck and who can't/won't bring much judgement to bear, and non-violent groups tend to attract a minority of sanctimonious types who'd rather expend their energies condemning the actions of others than doing something useful to further the cause. 

Both types are a problem, and a barrier to success, IMO. But they're a minority, and they tend to learn pretty quickly once they actually get involved in a movement.

The kind of violence which disenfranchises others (those who are not as physically strong) is a problem. The kind of non-violence which achieves nothing and demoralises its supporters as a result is a problem. Movements that manage to avoid those extremes are the ones that are most likely to succeed. There needs to be space for everyone to have their say and, in general, the level of sustained true violence will only ever reflect the degree of support - due to perceived necessity - that it has in the wider movement.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Dec 13, 2010)

ymu said:


> <snip> I know of no group which regards property damage focused on a legitimate target as 'violence'. Opinions on what constitutes a legitimate target vary, of course.<snip>



Nobody with any common sense does I agree. 

The UK state however, under the Terrorism Act 2000, views 'serious property damage' done to advance a political cause or influence policy as 'terrorism'


----------



## Steel Icarus (Dec 13, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Let's ignore this knob eh?



Agreed.


----------



## DrRingDing (Dec 13, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> IMO, the whole globalisation anti-capitalist thing was rather overshadowed by 9/11 and it kind of fizzled out a bit.


 
I agree, the wind was taken out of the sails. 

It gave an enemy other than government and corporations. 

"You're either with us or against us".


----------



## ymu (Dec 13, 2010)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Nobody with any common sense does I agree.
> 
> The UK state however, under the Terrorism Act 2000, views 'serious property damage' done to advance a political cause or influence policy as 'terrorism'


 
Which is why I said no _group_ - I know of no organised protest group with that attitude. What the bystanders think is irrelevant, and what the law says is irrelevant when we are protesting against those that make the laws.

The most extreme pacifist group I know of are Trident Ploughshares, and their whole schtick is based around doing very expensive damage to very legitimate targets, and taking responsibility for it on the grounds that it is justified.


----------



## ymu (Dec 13, 2010)

This kid gets it.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Dec 13, 2010)

ymu said:


> Which is why I said no _group_ - I know of no organised protest group with that attitude. What the bystanders think is irrelevant, and what the law says is irrelevant when we are protesting against those that make the laws.
> 
> The most extreme pacifist group I know of are Trident Ploughshares, and their whole schtick is based around doing very expensive damage to very legitimate targets, and taking responsibility for it on the grounds that it is justified.


 
Yes, they got let off for smashing up a Trident at least once didn't they? Prior to the 2000 Act if I recall right and I wonder if that case influenced the totally potty definition of 'terrorism' in that act.  

Good luck trying a bunch of articulate, media-savvy and obviously non-violent grannies for terrorism though ...

They make a very good case for the effectiveness, in some areas, of well thought out and disciplined non-violent direct action.


----------



## Bakunin (Dec 13, 2010)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Yes, they got let off for smashing up a Trident at least once didn't they? Prior to the 2000 Act if I recall right and I wonder if that case influenced the totally potty definition of 'terrorism' in that act.
> 
> They make a very good case for the effectiveness, in some areas, of well thought out and disciplined non-violent direct action.



You might be thinking of the 'Seeds Of Hope' action which involved the sabotage of several Hawk jets destined for export to Indonesia. That action was carried out by the 'East Timor Ploughshares' group which included some of the founders of Trident Ploughshares. The jury accepted a plea of 'lawful excuse' IIRC, on the grounds that the Hawk jest, if successfully exported, would have been used by the Indonesian government for conducting ground attack strikes against the East Timorese people.


----------



## ymu (Dec 14, 2010)

This kid gets it too.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 14, 2010)

Blagsta said:


> IMO, the whole globalisation anti-capitalist thing was rather overshadowed by 9/11 and it kind of fizzled out a bit.



cultural shift as well, rts relied on big numbers and people pepared to risk sound system that were worth a good few grand

the squat/rave scene in london fizzled out massively around 2000


----------



## chilango (Dec 14, 2010)

Also old age.

Movements like RTS are generational. Not very good at sustaining themselves when the first waves of activists get old/tired/responsibilities.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Dec 14, 2010)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Nobody with any common sense does I agree.
> 
> The UK state however, under the Terrorism Act 2000, views 'serious property damage' done to advance a political cause or influence policy as 'terrorism'


 
Also 'anyone seeking to change the mind of the government' can aslo fall under the definition of 'terrorism'. I remember posting this many times on here with a view that one day it might be used.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Dec 14, 2010)

As per above



> Actions, or threats of action, by a group or person are classed as ‘terrorism’ under Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000 if:
> the action falls within subsection (2); and
> the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause; and
> the use or threat is designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public.
> ...




www.internetrights.org.uk/factsheets.shtml?cmd[512]=i-512-561d8d22db60b7686b804ad31e3448b0&x=53241


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 14, 2010)

ymu said:


> This kid gets it too.


hardly a kid. These fantastic young adults have richly earnt the right to stand as our equals, I'm fucking overwhelmed to see this new generation of battlers rise up...


----------



## xes (Dec 14, 2010)

I'd like to thank those in this thread for being cool , and learning me a few new things. I'm notthe most politically aware person on the planet (  ) but I have learnt some things from this thread. Which is  as fuck.


----------



## ymu (Dec 14, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> hardly a kid. These fantastic young adults have richly earnt the right to stand as our equals, I'm fucking overwhelmed to see this new generation of battlers rise up...


 
I don't use the term kid disrespectfully, and I didn't intend it to come across like that. Agree with what you say. It's awesome.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Dec 14, 2010)

Also - wether a protest movement remains 'peaceful' or 'violent' depends very much on the repsonse of the state. In 1989 the regimes in east germany and czechoslovakia were smart enough to relaise that a state clampdown was not likely to work - and could have led to a violent backlash from their own people, as they were reluctant to use (much) violence they are held up as emaples of non violent revolutions.

The civil rights movment in northern ireland in the late 60s was non-violent, but met a violent response from the unionist state - which led to a spiral of violence and the struggle mutating into a armed struggle by irish nationalists against the britsih state. 

The american civil rights movement also used violence - not just in the form of 'background threat'; it used the violence of their opponents by carrying out protests in areas where a violent reaction from local authorities and police was gaurenteed - and witnessed by the whole world.


----------



## nino_savatte (Dec 15, 2010)

xes said:


> Voting only works when you have different parties to vote for. All of the current parties, are different faces, of the same coin. There is no point on voting for any of them, if you want change, becasue they all want the same thing.



Especially with out current FPTP system and the AV one that is being proposed. Voting is a pretty ineffective means of protest when the choice of candidates are all capitalists.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 20, 2010)

Peaceful _direct action_ can work, but quietly asking the state if it wouldn't mind changing its ways a little bit please? Fuck that. Even if you win, which mostly you don't, you still lose in the long run because you've helped shore up the idea of the government as an accountable body acting according to public consent and in the public interest. Which it isn't and never will be.

e2a: and remaining passive when confronted with violence from the police or whoever is not nonviolent, in fact it is entirely in the interests of violence that people should refuse to defend themselves from it.


----------



## ymu (Dec 20, 2010)

> Personally, I find the concept of requesting permission to hold a demonstration from our police and/or government, the same government we are supposed to be demonstrating against, to be a strange one.
> 
> “Dear Mr. Cameron; we oppose your ideological cuts, which will result in a million people losing their jobs, and we oppose your education reforms, which will create a two-tier education system in which only the rich will be able to afford to go to University.  Your coalition government is on the brink of collapse, and we would like to quicken the process.  What do you reckon?”
> 
> ...


.


----------



## Redknee (Dec 20, 2010)

War is politics by other means!!


----------



## Random (Dec 20, 2010)

Good call, redknee - was your other post as good?


----------

