Extinction Rebellion Protests

[Razgovory]

What we're talking about is where is the line for civil disobedience within a democratic system of government by people fully entitled to participate in that democratic government.

Civil disobedience only exists as a concept within a democratic system.  A totalitarian system has no difficulty characterizing the breaking of the law as simply an act of a criminal.  Your suggestion would mean that people who can participate in a democracy cannot engage in civil disobedience - so really only children can do so?

I disagree that civil disobedience can only exist within a democratic system.  The counter-examples would be Poland in the 1980's and British India in the 20th century.  Neither the Soviets nor the British were well equipped to deal with widespread civil disobedience.  They could deal with military opposition.  Widespread strikes were something else.

[garbon]

I did. The axe you want to grind doesn't fit with London given the vast amount of actually public spaces in the city.

Awesome. I am sure the discussion narrowly focused on the London case that you desperately want to have is going to be super interesting. 

Yeah having a discussion about the city where the protest happened seems like a foolish idea.

[crazy canuck]

The whole purpose is to bring about political change within a democratic system.

The only way to bring about political change within a democratic system is by voting.  Protesting in the street is not "democracy", voting is.

And how do people decide to vote and if they are going to vote how they will cast their ballot?  Perhaps one of those ways is that issues are brought to their attention. 

[Oexmelin]

The only way to bring about political change within a democratic system is by voting.  Protesting in the street is not "democracy", voting is.

Of course it's democracy. Plenty of regimes allow for a vote. Absolute monarchies of old had voting. Voting no more makes democracy than buying and selling make a free market.

[The Brain]

At least in Sweden protesting in the street is legal, and part of democracy. Police will redirect traffic. You have to fill in a form and get permission, which can only be refused for very specific reasons (like two protests in the same time and place with likely violent confrontation, for instance, then one will have to move a bit).

[garbon]

At least in Sweden protesting in the street is legal, and part of democracy. Police will redirect traffic. You have to fill in a form and get permission, which can only be refused for very specific reasons (like two protests in the same time and place with likely violent confrontation, for instance, then one will have to move a bit).

I've legally protested in the street in SF and London.

[mongers]

At least in Sweden protesting in the street is legal, and part of democracy. Police will redirect traffic. You have to fill in a form and get permission, which can only be refused for very specific reasons (like two protests in the same time and place with likely violent confrontation, for instance, then one will have to move a bit).

I've legally protested in the street in SF and London.

And that didn't involving blocking a major bridge for 3 days or glueing yourself to a mass transit light train?

[dps]

One could certainly argue that the law against theft is just, but its application to humans is unjust, and that therefor one can "justly" violate the law against theft when freeing a slave.  Ditto for trespass laws, when they are used to protect unjust tree-cutting by logging companies.  "Civil disobedience" designed solely to inconvenience bystanders in order to draw attention to one's cause is more difficult to justify.  Blocking access to a building to inconvenience Parliament is different than blocking streets to inconvenience the public.

Inconvenience is the point...

I thought the point was to draw attention to an issue.  If the point is to inconvenience people, that's not a protest;  that's just being a dickhead.

[Razgovory]

One could certainly argue that the law against theft is just, but its application to humans is unjust, and that therefor one can "justly" violate the law against theft when freeing a slave.  Ditto for trespass laws, when they are used to protect unjust tree-cutting by logging companies.  "Civil disobedience" designed solely to inconvenience bystanders in order to draw attention to one's cause is more difficult to justify.  Blocking access to a building to inconvenience Parliament is different than blocking streets to inconvenience the public.

Inconvenience is the point...

I thought the point was to draw attention to an issue.  If the point is to inconvenience people, that's not a protest;  that's just being a dickhead.

If the point was to draw attention to it you'd just visit people's houses and have a little chat or send out letters, or buy billboards.  The point is to force someone to change.  I'll use the lunch counter sit-ins as an example again.  If you simply brought up the fact that blacks couldn't eat at these lunch counters people would respond, "yes I know, that's the way we want it".  What Sit-ins accomplished was to create a situation where the owners could not profit and where the public could not use the lunch counters either.  Both the owners and the public were deeply inconvenienced and the only way way to remove that inconvenience was to comply with the demands of the protesters or use physical violence.

I think I understand Yi's statements about self-gratification now.

[crazy canuck]

What we're talking about is where is the line for civil disobedience within a democratic system of government by people fully entitled to participate in that democratic government.

Civil disobedience only exists as a concept within a democratic system.  A totalitarian system has no difficulty characterizing the breaking of the law as simply an act of a criminal.  Your suggestion would mean that people who can participate in a democracy cannot engage in civil disobedience - so really only children can do so?

I disagree that civil disobedience can only exist within a democratic system.  The counter-examples would be Poland in the 1980's and British India in the 20th century.  Neither the Soviets nor the British were well equipped to deal with widespread civil disobedience.  They could deal with military opposition.  Widespread strikes were something else.

Sorry, didn't notice this before.

I think Poland was a strike and the civil disobedience in India was to affect change in British policies made in London not a government located in India.

[Razgovory]

What we're talking about is where is the line for civil disobedience within a democratic system of government by people fully entitled to participate in that democratic government.

Civil disobedience only exists as a concept within a democratic system.  A totalitarian system has no difficulty characterizing the breaking of the law as simply an act of a criminal.  Your suggestion would mean that people who can participate in a democracy cannot engage in civil disobedience - so really only children can do so?

I disagree that civil disobedience can only exist within a democratic system.  The counter-examples would be Poland in the 1980's and British India in the 20th century.  Neither the Soviets nor the British were well equipped to deal with widespread civil disobedience.  They could deal with military opposition.  Widespread strikes were something else.

Sorry, didn't notice this before.

I think Poland was a strike and the civil disobedience in India was to affect change in British policies made in London not a government located in India.

I do not disagree.  Both are civil disobedience and the goal was to force the Raj and the Polish Communists to go back to their masters and say "we can't operate like this".  Strikes are a form a civil disobedience particularly in a country where the industry is owned by the state.

Yi stated "In functioning democracies protests are essentially exercises in self-gratification." and I think this is correct if we view protests as simply marching around to send the message "we are upset".  I do not share the view of protests as simply marching around to raise awareness that you are upset.  I view protests as a part of civil obedience which is typically illegal, frequently destructive and sometimes violent.  The point is not to raise awareness but to force a change without resorting to outright war.

[crazy canuck]

The fundamental problem with Yi's "self-gratification" statement is he ignores at a definitional level that a person engaging in civil disobedience risks losing their liberty. His world view breaks down when people act against their individual self-interest for the common good.

I quibble with a strike being civil disobedience but generally we agree.