News:

And we're back!

Main Menu

Extinction Rebellion Protests

Started by mongers, April 19, 2019, 07:48:17 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Razgovory

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 26, 2019, 01:08:54 PM
Quote from: Barrister on April 26, 2019, 12:26:58 PM
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.
I've given it serious thought. I must scorn the ways of my family, and seek a Japanese woman to yield me my progeny. He shall live in the lands of the east, and be well tutored in his sacred trust to weave the best traditions of Japan and the Sacred South together, until such time as he (or, indeed his house, which will periodically require infusion of both Southern and Japanese bloodlines of note) can deliver to the South it's independence, either in this world or in space.  -Lettow April of 2011

Raz is right. -MadImmortalMan March of 2017

garbon

Quote from: Oexmelin on April 26, 2019, 02:09:25 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 26, 2019, 02:02:34 PM
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.  :cheers:

Yeah having a discussion about the city where the protest happened seems like a foolish idea. :wacko:
"I've never been quite sure what the point of a eunuch is, if truth be told. It seems to me they're only men with the useful bits cut off."
I drank because I wanted to drown my sorrows, but now the damned things have learned to swim.

crazy canuck

Quote from: citizen k on April 26, 2019, 02:21:35 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 26, 2019, 01:29:46 PMThe 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

Quote from: citizen k on April 26, 2019, 02:21:35 PM
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.
Que le grand cric me croque !

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).
Women want me. Men want to be with me.

garbon

Quote from: The Brain on April 27, 2019, 04:30:50 AM
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.
"I've never been quite sure what the point of a eunuch is, if truth be told. It seems to me they're only men with the useful bits cut off."
I drank because I wanted to drown my sorrows, but now the damned things have learned to swim.

mongers

Quote from: garbon on April 27, 2019, 04:40:29 AM
Quote from: The Brain on April 27, 2019, 04:30:50 AM
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? :unsure:
"We have it in our power to begin the world over again"

dps

Quote from: Razgovory on April 26, 2019, 01:07:28 PM
Quote from: grumbler on April 26, 2019, 11:43:40 AM
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

Quote from: dps on April 27, 2019, 08:42:12 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 26, 2019, 01:07:28 PM
Quote from: grumbler on April 26, 2019, 11:43:40 AM
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.
I've given it serious thought. I must scorn the ways of my family, and seek a Japanese woman to yield me my progeny. He shall live in the lands of the east, and be well tutored in his sacred trust to weave the best traditions of Japan and the Sacred South together, until such time as he (or, indeed his house, which will periodically require infusion of both Southern and Japanese bloodlines of note) can deliver to the South it's independence, either in this world or in space.  -Lettow April of 2011

Raz is right. -MadImmortalMan March of 2017

crazy canuck

Quote from: Razgovory on April 26, 2019, 04:13:19 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 26, 2019, 01:08:54 PM
Quote from: Barrister on April 26, 2019, 12:26:58 PM
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

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 27, 2019, 06:23:13 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 26, 2019, 04:13:19 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 26, 2019, 01:08:54 PM
Quote from: Barrister on April 26, 2019, 12:26:58 PM
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.
I've given it serious thought. I must scorn the ways of my family, and seek a Japanese woman to yield me my progeny. He shall live in the lands of the east, and be well tutored in his sacred trust to weave the best traditions of Japan and the Sacred South together, until such time as he (or, indeed his house, which will periodically require infusion of both Southern and Japanese bloodlines of note) can deliver to the South it's independence, either in this world or in space.  -Lettow April of 2011

Raz is right. -MadImmortalMan March of 2017

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.