Extinction Rebellion Protests

[Oexmelin]

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.

Erh. No.

[Valmy]

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.

Erh. No.

No. That is not a protest. That is an attack. Now maybe that is justified but I do not appreciate the double speak and sugar coating and dishonesty. Building those barricades in 1830 and 1848 Paris was not a protest.

If I am on the street corner waiving my sign then I am protesting. If I have my people blocking the street now we have moved to something a little more aggressive.

[garbon]

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.

Erh. No.

No. That is not a protest. That is an attack. Now maybe that is justified but I do not appreciate the double speak and sugar coating and dishonesty. Building those barricades in 1830 and 1848 Paris was not a protest.

I guess the only caveat is that is what one organiser has said is their plan. Issue with these decentralised movements is it isn't clear who is really in charge / what's the thoughts, motivations, dreams of the larger movement.  How many people support any given tactic at a given time is hard to judge.

On the flip side, if you can't examine what members of the group say about their aims, what do you draw on?

[Oexmelin]

No. That is not a protest. That is an attack. Now maybe that is justified but I do not appreciate the double speak and sugar coating and dishonesty. Building those barricades in 1830 and 1848 Paris was not a protest.  If I am on the street corner waiving my sign then I am protesting. If I have my people blocking the street now we have moved to something a little more aggressive.

It's not sugar-coating. It's rejecting your, and other's attempt to paint this as a threatening movement akin to war or terrorism, which must be presumably be met with state-sanctioned violence.

So, yes. It's a protest. Once that economic disruption takes the form of bombing factories, deploying troops, or murdering CEOs, I'll join you in saying it's terrorism or war. Once that movement has a plan to violently overthrow Her Majesty's Government or create Soviets, I'll join you in saying this is a revolution. Maximizing economic disruption for a few days will neither topple capitalism, nor replace British Government with anarchist communes.

[Barrister]

No. That is not a protest. That is an attack. Now maybe that is justified but I do not appreciate the double speak and sugar coating and dishonesty. Building those barricades in 1830 and 1848 Paris was not a protest.  If I am on the street corner waiving my sign then I am protesting. If I have my people blocking the street now we have moved to something a little more aggressive.

It's not sugar-coating. It's rejecting your, and other's attempt to paint this as a threatening movement akin to war or terrorism, which must be presumably be met with state-sanctioned violence.

So, yes. It's a protest. Once that economic disruption takes the form of bombing factories, deploying troops, or murdering CEOs, I'll join you in saying it's terrorism or war. Once that movement has a plan to violently overthrow Her Majesty's Government or create Soviets, I'll join you in saying this is a revolution. Maximizing economic disruption for a few days will neither topple capitalism, nor replace British Government with anarchist communes.

"state-sanctioned violence" comes in many forms or flavours.  To say this is akin to a war, and that the state should reply in kind with armed soldiers would be madness.

But to say these acts are criminal, and the state should reply with arrests and police use of force if necessary would appear to be entirely correct.

[Oexmelin]

But to say these acts are criminal, and the state should reply with arrests and police use of force if necessary would appear to be entirely correct.

I could agree, but only up to a point. Militarization of police force is a real problem now, which goes alongside training which emphasize protest as illegitimate, and protesters as threats. I would no longer trust the answer to be proportional, or friendly to the principles of protest.

[garbon]

I'm not sure we should generalise experiences in some countries to all countries.

[viper37]

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.

Erh. No.

No. That is not a protest. That is an attack. Now maybe that is justified but I do not appreciate the double speak and sugar coating and dishonesty. Building those barricades in 1830 and 1848 Paris was not a protest.

I guess the only caveat is that is what one organiser has said is their plan. Issue with these decentralised movements is it isn't clear who is really in charge / what's the thoughts, motivations, dreams of the larger movement.  How many people support any given tactic at a given time is hard to judge.

At one point do we determine the intentions of the individuals as being different from the group when he/she follows them into their actions?

If a protests attracts violence against police, bystanders, journalists, any car or any window that stands in its way, if you keep presenting yourself every night/every week-end for the protest but disagree with their methods... Why should society believe it?

[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.

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.

Strawman meet Valmy, Valmy this is strawman. 

I would be very happy to discuss the pros and cons of civil disobedience if you wish.  But if you want to mis-characterize this to this degree, I am not sure how to accomplish that.  If you read my last several posts they have nothing to do with "trying to cause maximum economic disruption".  But having made the characterization yourself you led yourself into a convincing argument that such things only happen in strategic bombing campaigns which then led you into using an "attack" metaphor.

Now if only someone had made the argument that causing "maximum economic disruption" to society in general was a legitimate goal of civil disobedience.

edit: to be clear the economic disruption is to a particular place in a particular time related to Parliament.  You want your protestors to be all nice cuddly law abiding people.  In short you wish to eliminate disobedience from civil disobedience.

[garbon]

Until today the disruption wasn't only for parliament (/not really sure how parliament was bothered today).

[Valmy]

edit: to be clear the economic disruption is to a particular place in a particular time related to Parliament.  You want your protestors to be all nice cuddly law abiding people.  In short you wish to eliminate disobedience from civil disobedience.

I never said I wanted that or even that I disapproved. I was merely saying that causing harm like that is not really a protest, it is an aggressive action. Now maybe aggressive action is needed, as I said many times. But civil disobedience is disobeying unjust laws, that is why it is disobedience. I don't think they are saying that the ability to use public roads or buildings is unjust and that all these public spaces should cease to be used. But rather this one person was clearly saying that they are going to actively cause harm until certain actions are taken (or just for a bit to put pressure on or whatever). I am just saying that call it what it is here, this is an attempt at revolutionary action not just trying to alert people's consciences like what you would do in a protest.

But I was just reacting to what that one guy was saying. I am not there.

I mean I have to admit that if the UK did some kind of radical emissions reform I would be glad of it. So there is that.

[Razgovory]

I don't see this form of protest as that much different than strikes or occupying lunch counters.

[Admiral Yi]

I don't see this form of protest as that much different than strikes or occupying lunch counters.

Are you making the argument that people riding the tube are engaged in a unjust and illegal act, analogous to refusing blacks service at a lunch counter?

[Valmy]

I don't see this form of protest as that much different than strikes or occupying lunch counters.

I would say it is comparable to forming a picket line to keep out scabs, though not exactly the same since the scabs are obviously their direct opponents. Not unjustified but not exactly peaceful either.

[Eddie Teach]

I'd ask how this differs from the yellow umbrella protests( which Mono was alone in opposing)?