I don't disagree but I think it's disingenuous to not recognise the distinction between violence such as last night and effective legitimate protest.
Westminster Politics
- Thread starter altodevil
- Start date
Nor do I disagree with your position.
I wasn't there and can't comment from an informed position but I have seen protests both descend into violence due to an element in the march or demo hellbent on having a fight and I've also seen peaceful matches turn into desperate fights for survival due to Police tactics (the, I think '91, Isle of Dogs anti BNP one was fecking horrendous and entirely Police initiated - I feared for my and other's lives).
It seems that last night was the former based on the reporting but, having seen how this type of thing can be spun I honestly don't have good enough sources to verify.
In saying that, I want to clearly state that the outcome of seriously injured cops (and I imagine protestors too?) is clearly not a good thing. The point I am making is that this is an inevitable end result of the policy and culture of this Government and UK politics in general. It's going to get worse.
Nah, I'm just not convinced by your point about XR and their tactics being significantly more likely to achieve anything than other forms of peaceful protest. I think they've largely attempted to adopt more militant tactics, but still largely found that peaceful protest (however disruptive) will ultimately be swept away unless the establishment decides to co-opt the cause.
But at its most basic level the point is obvious, whatever you think about the moral questions.
Imagine two groups. One asks politely, can we change this thing that we don't like?' and the other asks 'can we change this thing that we don't like, and if you don't agree then we might start smashing up some windows, setting fire to things and generally being cnuts'. Which of those two groups is more likely to get what they want?
It's not pleasant, it doesn't sit well with our belief in the power of an idea, nor with out innate sense of fairness that the nice guys should win, but it's unfortunately the reality of the world.
Looking at what's been reported last night I really don't see any spin on it.
The point I am making is nothing is black or white. You don't have to have a peaceful protest that dissipates in to nothing nor do you have to have a riot that sees plenty of people injured. You can fall into that grey area and achieve something.
The closed down the whole of London for several days and out stretched the Met to the point of it being a critical resourcing issue. They didn't need to break arms and try and kill people either.
As I said the whole thing doesn't have to be one or the other. There's a middle ground.
Sure, but if legislation means that any protesting at all, no matter how peaceful, can result in punitive sentencing (and the Police being instructed to be more hands on) then violence becomes increasingly likely. XR is an interesting one as the kids of Tory voters are doubtless out there and things could get ugly but BLM (or similar) and "Kill the Bill" type protests? They're fecked - especially now. That shifts the grey area you refer to.
As for the spin point, you may very well be right but having been in these situations I've learned to be mistrustful. All of your and my points still stand irrespective.
But, again, XRs tactics were widely criticised by establishment politicians and have directly led to the introduction of this bill. They aren't welcomed as bastions of peaceful protest who should be embraced, but people who operate outside of the accepted norms of protest in this country and deserve condemnation for it. And that's not just Patel; the Labour leader condemned them too.
I question how ultimately effective the disruption they achieved was, but you can't hold them up as the acceptable face of succesful peaceful protest, because noone in the political establishment thinks their tactics are acceptable. They're still deliberately engaging in civil disobedience to achieve political aims; it might not be on the scale of smashing windows or killing people, but it's on that spectrum.
I think you're skirting around the point I'm making.
There's not just ineffective peaceful protest v violence and disorderly ones. There's a middle ground which XR exploit and it's very effective.
It reminds me of my countries history within colonialism. For quite a long time the concept of 'Home Rule' was dangled at them as a carrot to keep them more in check. This concept was then pushed further and further down the road each time. Finally it was used as an incentive for Irish people to go fight for Britain in World War 1, however simultaneously others had decided enough was enough and that only by force could they gain freedom. Hence the 1916 rising happened at the same time that many Irish people were fighting a war overseas. The rebels were absolutely correct in their mistrust of the carrot in my opinion.
Now that is obviously a massive simplification of complex proceedings but it highlights the point that only for so long can false promises of change be made before people are forced into more aggressive action. The British people who died in 1916 Rising died because of the actions of the British government first and foremost. They were victims of years of lies and deceiving.
The big problem for the British public, in my eyes, is that for some strange reason the Tory party continue to get voted in because they are excellent at blaming their faults or mistakes on others, be it the British public, the EU or opposition parties. The thing is though, that regardless of Democracy, if enough of a population are pissed off and it seems that they can make no change peacefully then its inevitable that people will lash out. The injuries to those police officers may have been at the hands of protesters but the blame lies almost squarely at the feet of the government. If you don't sit up and listen to peaceful protests then you risk the chances of violence.
If the Tory party have enough of the public hoodwinked to keep them in power then it is not reasonable to expect the rest of the population to accept that in silence.
Now that is obviously a massive simplification of complex proceedings but it highlights the point that only for so long can false promises of change be made before people are forced into more aggressive action. The British people who died in 1916 Rising died because of the actions of the British government first and foremost. They were victims of years of lies and deceiving.
The big problem for the British public, in my eyes, is that for some strange reason the Tory party continue to get voted in because they are excellent at blaming their faults or mistakes on others, be it the British public, the EU or opposition parties. The thing is though, that regardless of Democracy, if enough of a population are pissed off and it seems that they can make no change peacefully then its inevitable that people will lash out. The injuries to those police officers may have been at the hands of protesters but the blame lies almost squarely at the feet of the government. If you don't sit up and listen to peaceful protests then you risk the chances of violence.
If the Tory party have enough of the public hoodwinked to keep them in power then it is not reasonable to expect the rest of the population to accept that in silence.
But that's not the point that either Villain or I made. We were directly contrasting ineffective peaceful protest which worked within the confines of the law to effective protest (including civil disobedience and, ultimately, violence) which worked outside it.
The 'middle ground' that you're advocating isn't a middle ground at all. Its deliberately and self consciously working outside of the legal norms of protest, knowing that it could lead to arrest and prosecution, in order to achieve widespread disruption and inconvenience. It's the cuddly face of window smashing, and it's why MPs are voting in a bill to give the police stronger powers to tackle these tactics. Ultimately, the tactics work for the same reason that violence works; you make enough of a nuisance of yourself that it is easier for the government to give you what you want than to continue opposing you.
It is a middle ground. We'll have to agree to disagree if you don't see the difference between the extremes that I do.
Ultimately there's no excuse for the level of violence towards other human beings that we saw last night. I can't agree with anyone that suggests that is okay. (I'm not saying you do but that's my stance on it)
How are XR's tactics a middle ground when those are the exact kinds of protest that will be subject to potential custodial sentences and criminalisation under the auspices of creating a nuisance? You're wrong on this issue.
But is that because you don't see much sense in the violence on a cause like that (which we both agree on), or because you think that violence is always indefensible?
Would you make the same point, say, to criticise Mandela and the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa or would you recognise the legitimacy of violence as a form of opposition to a clearly abhorrent and disgusting regime like apartheid era South Africa?
Once you accept the legitimacy of violence in the pursuit or certain political goals, it really becomes a debate not of whether violence can be morally defensible but whether a particular cause is important enough for violence to legitimately be deployed in pursuit of it.
At that point do you also accept the legitimacy of people of the opposite view (eg Government including police and army) using violence to protect their political goals? (who is the arbiter of which certain goals are valid?)
God that's an incredibly anarchical question of you. Of all the posters to question the legitimacy of a state monopoly on violence I'm not sure I'd have had you pegged for it!
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Again we aren't talking about that are we? We are talking about what happened last night in Bristol. It's not really a question as to my personal thoughts on protests it's a question as to if you believe last nights level of violence and the injuries caused to the officers was acceptable. I don't and I don't think you do but rather than just say that we keep going around in circles.
Sadly that's what tends to happen in a riot.
I'm sorry if I missed it, but your first post seemed very much to me to be talking in general terms, rather than the events in Bristol specifically, after a couple of posts talking about how lawful protest is ineffective.
My first post said 20 officers were injured last night, two seriously, and it was unacceptable.
We can discuss the issue in much broader terms but likely better in a new thread?
You've been condemning violence and injuries caused to the officers, and earlier you said it's "narrow minded" to try and achieve anything by seriously injuring others - are you now suggesting that violence committed against the protestors by the officers is acceptable?
I'm saying this is what happens in a riot. I'm not sure of your point? Mine is I'd sooner there was no rioting so no one is injured and everyone goes home safely.
I'm not sure there's a better thread for it. We're talking about a violent protest in response to a draconian piece of legislation which further erodes the right to peaceful protest, so to my mind, this whole discussion is incredibly pertinent to what happened in Bristol.
But more to the point, I think I remember rightly that you are an officer, right? Inevitably and understandably, your concern is going to be with colleagues and friends put in danger through violence (legitimate or illegitimate) which makes it difficult to discuss the more philosophical questions under lying it.
Why can't a copper also be concerned about civilians getting hurt? Isn't that kind of why they do the job?
Your comment seemed to be excusing the officers inflicting injuries and violence on the protestors as though this just a natural consequence.
I guess what I’m trying to say is, it’s surprising to see you suggest that protestors getting hurt is to be expected, but police officers getting hurt is unacceptable, when overall your posts seemed to be anti-violence in totality.
Well that too, but I was piggybacking off the point about police officers being injured last night which has been the focus of The Religion's posts to date.
At any rate, it wasn't meant as a criticism; just a recognition that if you see the more immediate effects of violence (both ways) it's understandably harder to take a long term view of its effectiveness as a method of process.
I don't follow the end bit of your post. It's as if police officers aren't human beings with personal thoughts and feelings on these topics themselves.
I didn't suggest that you're simply painting it how you want it to be? Not sure why.
Clear enough to me.
There's not really been a focus. I just pointed out the level of injuries were serious and it wasn't right. If others think differently that is fine I guess although I'd question their morals perhaps.
As I said I'd sooner everyone goes home safe and well. And by that I mean everyone.
Well you certainly didn't condemn them inflicting violence against protestors, like you did the officers being injured as a result of the protestors.
Do you condemn the officers beating those protestors violently?
What? I've been pretty clear throughout yet for some reason you look desperate to try and catch me out with something or have a confrontation. Not sure why.
You've been clear about violence against police officers and violent protests yes, but I haven't seen you condemn the violence brought upon the protestors.
If i've missed it, can you show me?
I'm not trying to catch you out at all, I'm just asking a pretty straightforward question.
Surely more than a clipped Twitter video is needed before we condemn police using their batons. Bodycam them all up
As I say, it was not meant as criticism. Simply a reflection of the fact that you are human and inevitably are going to have your opinions shaped and influenced by the things you see, like all of us.
I suspect my own position would be rather different if I had to face violent protest directly. Whilst my relative distance allows me to talk in the abstract, your closeness to events inevitably is going to make that more difficult. I'm not trying to suggest that makes me right or you wrong (as I think it might have been taken), but rather just to highlight the differences of background that is going to inevitably shape our thinking on the issue.
On the other hand you've not been pretty clear yourself on if you feel it's acceptable?
That is fair and I don't disagree. I hadn't taken it that way to be honest as you're very balanced in what you say and open to listening and understanding contrasting views. Much more so than others.
Definitely the first time that's been said on this forum of me.
That again doesn't condemn the violence brought upon the protesters, you're suggesting that violence is a natural occurrence in a riot (I agree with you), however you only seem to be condemning one side who are inflicting the violence.
Am I right or wrong in that? For some reason you seem to think i'm out to target you, all i'm asking for is clarification on your stance.
Do you condemn the violence brought upon by the protestors, or not.
My stance is that until there's justice, there's unlikely to be peace - and very few societal changes happen without civil unrest & violence.