Extinction Rebellion Protests

[crazy canuck]

That is the language of civil disobedience. 

That sounds like an application of force rather than disobedience to it. Causing as much destruction and harm as possible may be justified under certain circumstances but that is not civil disobedience.

What part of that statement suggests "application of force" or "causing as much destruction and harm as possible"?

To me it sounds like people using the usual tactics of civil disobedience and getting in the way of the normal operation of the thing they are attempting to disrupt.

"Civil disobedience" is a much argued term, so yes, by some definitions any kind of "ends justify the means" actions can be called civil disobedience.

You guys are big on the hyperbole today.  Where have I argued for "any kind of ends justify the means actions"?

But by many definitions your actions have to be tied specifically to the cause you're trying to call attention to.

I would agree with that view.  And that is exactly what is happening here.  They are focusing their protests on Parliament.

And by a even more narrow definition (which was what MLK used) is ""Any man who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust and willingly accepts the penalty by staying in jail in order to arouse the conscience of the community on the injustice of the law is at that moment expressing the very highest respect for law."  So civil disobedience is openly violating a law that you feel is unjust, in order to call attention to that law e.g. for Rosa Parks not to move to the back of the bus.

While that can be a form of civil disobedience it doesn't work very well if what one is protesting is a lack of laws and government action.


edit: missed your last comment

Just blocking traffic and making everyday life for Londoners less pleasant doesn't count as civil disobedience in my book.

What book are your reading where that is ruled out as justifiable civil disobedience.  You guys seem to want to take the disobedience out of the term. 

[garbon]

I think it is clear that in CC's mind there is little chance of negative outcomes from Extinction Rebellion protests.

[crazy canuck]

The prospect of a negative outcome is pretty much certain.  The question is what to do about it.  Many here advocate the be nice approach in the hope that politics will change sufficiently in time.  And ignore the fact their approach is very risky.

[garbon]

So throw enough shit and hope something sticks?

[crazy canuck]

So throw enough shit and hope something sticks?

Rather the options seem to be, hope something happens in time (what most of you are advocating) or try to do something about it.  As I said earlier, given the urgency of the need for governments to act, the decision to protest government inaction is a rational response.

[garbon]

So throw enough shit and hope something sticks?

Rather the options seem to be, hope something happens in time (what most of you are advocating) or try to do something about it.  As I said earlier, given the urgency of the need for governments to act, the decision to protest government inaction is a rational response.

And I was describing this 'try to do something about it.' A protest can be rational but is this particular protest rational? And then I suppose more importantly, is it actually driving change? It has been over a week now.

[crazy canuck]

Ok, but if the test is that an individual protest must be effective (or largely popular) to be justified then few protests would likely occur.

[mongers]

A better test would be 'Is the protest directly counter-productive?'
For instance:
Violence at an anti-war demonstration.
Extra pollution / C02 emissions from an environmental demonstration.
Etc

If not directly so, I'm happy to see all demonstrations, but just because one has a 'worthy' aim doesn't mean it gets a free pass.

[garbon]

Ok, but if the test is that an individual protest must be effective (or largely popular) to be justified then few protests would likely occur.

I don't think criteria needs to be as high if the protest isn't illegal.

[crazy canuck]

Ok, but if the test is that an individual protest must be effective (or largely popular) to be justified then few protests would likely occur.

I don't think criteria needs to be as high if the protest isn't illegal.

But that is the flaw in your argument.  Civil disobedience is by definition the carrying out of an act which is illegal.  By your standards the early civil rights protests in the US would never have taken place.

[crazy canuck]

A better test would be 'Is the protest directly counter-productive?'
For instance:
Violence at an anti-war demonstration.
Extra pollution / C02 emissions from an environmental demonstration.
Etc

If not directly so, I'm happy to see all demonstrations, but just because one has a 'worthy' aim doesn't mean it gets a free pass.

I think it is a fallacy to argue that protesters are emitting carbon and therefore should be ignored.  This problem is not going to be solved by individuals trying their best to reduce carbon.  It is not possible because people need to use energy in our modern society.  What is required is governmental action (the UN reports say on the scale of mobilizing resources for WWII) to create a new energy grid based on non fossil fuels.

On that scale it is petty to point at somebody trying their best to effect that kind of change while traveling around the world to do it.

The main danger in your definition is who gets to decide whether a protest is counter productive.  There are lots of examples of acts of civil disobedience being unpopular but still being a factor in effecting change.

[garbon]

Ok, but if the test is that an individual protest must be effective (or largely popular) to be justified then few protests would likely occur.

I don't think criteria needs to be as high if the protest isn't illegal.

But that is the flaw in your argument.  Civil disobedience is by definition the carrying out of an act which is illegal.  By your standards the early civil rights protests in the US would never have taken place.

I still don't see how blocking bridges/mass transit in London is affecting any change, you linking the emotive civil rights movement notwithstanding.

[crazy canuck]

Ok, but if the test is that an individual protest must be effective (or largely popular) to be justified then few protests would likely occur.

I don't think criteria needs to be as high if the protest isn't illegal.

But that is the flaw in your argument.  Civil disobedience is by definition the carrying out of an act which is illegal.  By your standards the early civil rights protests in the US would never have taken place.

I still don't see how blocking bridges/mass transit in London is affecting any change, you linking the emotive civil rights movement notwithstanding.

I understand that you do not see the value in protests like this.  But going to the point Mongers made, if the test for whether a protest ought to proceed is that it was viewed popularly as something that would not be counter productive then who gets to decided what is counter productive and what is not. 

You would surely say it is.  I would disagree.  That is where the importance of protests is apparent.  Our views are not deterministive.  Historians will in due course make a judgment as to what worked and what did not - assuming we still have a future.

[Valmy]

That is the language of civil disobedience. 

That sounds like an application of force rather than disobedience to it. Causing as much destruction and harm as possible may be justified under certain circumstances but that is not civil disobedience.

What part of that statement suggests "application of force" or "causing as much destruction and harm as possible"?

To me it sounds like people using the usual tactics of civil disobedience and getting in the way of the normal operation of the thing they are attempting to disrupt.

Trying to cause maximum economic disruption. That sounds like something you talk about when planning your strategic bombing campaign rather than trying to have a protest.

Now maybe an attack on the livelihood of people is justified if the situation is critical enough, but that did not sound like resisting unjust laws like I normally think of when I think of civil disobedience.

[The Brain]

I can only guess why someone would try to link this crap to civil disobedience.