Peaceful Protest

A battlecry that we've heard many times, but what does it actually mean to engage in peaceful protest?

Obviously this thread is being started on the back of Murphy's arrest for his interpretation of what it is to 'peacefully protest' being out of line with the DPP, but I don't really want to focus on that too much.

premise: A protest that doesn't inconvenience someone is an ineffective protest.

Logically you could suggest that if nobody is bothered by it, nobody would be bothered enough to do anything about the reason behind the protest.

The idea of protest is to publicly register a complaint and to prove involvement and passion against something. A side aim would be to resonate with more apathetic individuals and to bring them on board.

What levels of inconvenience are acceptable in order to achieve these goals? Where is the line? Is shouting "peaceful protest" really a peaceful protest?

BoJack Horseman

Deleted User wrote: »

What levels of inconvenience are acceptable in order to achieve these goals? Where is the line? Is shouting "peaceful protest" really a peaceful protest?

Something specific & relevant to the cause.

eg:
- Standing outside parliament in opposition to something you perceive as wrong = fine.

- A bunch of Eirigi cretins sitting down blocking O'Connell street & the quays...
= not fine, because it disproportionately attacks the wrong opponent in the wrong way.

oscarBravo

Deleted User wrote: »

premise: A protest that doesn't inconvenience someone is an ineffective protest.

As with almost everything in life, the question is where the line is drawn. Inconveniencing people is one thing; deliberately imprisoning them is another.

Is shouting "peaceful protest" really a peaceful protest?

If I shout "peaceful protest" while battering someone with a stick, is it really a peaceful protest?

Clearly not; the words are at odds with the behaviour. Which leads to the next logical question: why would anyone feel the need to shout "peaceful protest" at all, if not to give the lie to their actions? Are actual peaceful protests traditionally accompanied by shouts of "peaceful protest"?

creedp

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Something specific & relevant to the cause.

eg:
- Standing outside parliament in opposition to something you perceive as wrong = fine.

- A bunch of Eirigi cretins sitting down blocking O'Connell street & the quays...
= not fine, because it disproportionately attacks the wrong opponent in the wrong way.

Hauliers blocking roads or on a go slow through Dublin City?

Farmers driving through the City in tractor convoys/releasing a load of sheep into Dept of Agriculture building?

A couple of e.g. of past protests which could probably be put in same category as 'not fine' protests above. But then again they aren't a 'bunch of Eirigi cretins' so thats probably different.

Basically I'm never in favour of protests that inconvenience my life ... but them again that's life and is one form of protest more legitimate than another?

BoJack Horseman

creedp wrote: »

Hauliers blocking roads or on a go slow through Dublin City?

Completely blocking the road wouldnt be fair.

Farmers driving through the City in tractor convoys/releasing a load of sheep into Dept of Agriculture building?

I tagged along to that one when I was a kid as one of my uncles was involved....
It inconvenienced by reducing road capacity, didnt block roads entirely if memory serves & was targeted at the government.

quite different from a handful of quasi-communists plonking themselves in the middle of the road with no purpose other than giving a "f*ck you" to commuters.

A again they aren't a 'bunch of Eirigi cretins' so thats probably different.

No, they were objevtively different.
As Eirigi are objectively a bunch of cretins.

ancapailldorcha

Once protesters aren't breaking the law or impeding anyone going about their business then it's fine by me.

conorh91

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Once protesters aren't breaking the law or impeding anyone going about their business then it's fine by me.

It's almost impossible to engage in any meaningful protest without breaking the law.

e.g.

S.7 OATS Act 1939 (Interference with military or other employees of the State)
S.8 OATS Act 1939 (Obstruction of the President)
S.10 OATS Act 1939 (Prohibition of printing, publishing or sale of certain documents)
S.12 OATS Act 1939 (Possession of treasonable document, etc.)
S.10 Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Act 1976 (Unlawful seizure of vehicles)
S.5(1)(b) Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994 (Disorderly conduct in public place)
S.6(1) Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994 (Threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour in public place)
S.7(1) Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994 (Distribution or display in public place of material which is threatening, abusive, insulting or obscene)
S.8(2) Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994 (Failure to comply with direction of member of AGS to leave vicinity)
S.9 Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act, 1994 (Willful obstruction)
Ss.9(1)(d)--(e) Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997 (Coercion)
S.15 NFOAP Act 1997 (False imprisonment)

Almost none of the above are ever considered for prosecution of acts carried out in the course of protest because we all have some hazy idea in our heads of what crosses the line from reasonableness into unreasonableness.

However, this is a very subjective distinction. I don't think we can claim to be able to rely coldly on the statute and common law offences for guidance.

I think only the most egregious and obvious breaches of the law should be prosecuted, and that the DPP should operate a higher threshold of tolerance when it comes to public protests than she would in other cases. In my opinion, the Joan Burton case meets that egregious test, but I can understand that some particularly lawless thugs would disagree.

But this is not a matter for law, it's a matter of public policy and subjective opinion.

ancapailldorcha

conorh91 wrote: »

It's almost impossible to engage in any meaningful protest without breaking the law....

Fair point. I suppose if you don't cause some sort of minor inconvenience then you run the risk of being ignored. As you've said, there is a line which, once crossed, causes more harm to the cause than good.

Boskowski

I would have thought it means to make the opinion of a preferably large number of people public. To be noticed by as many as possible.
I didn't think you'd actually have to inconvenience someone to do so.

johnnyskeleton

Deleted User wrote: »

What levels of inconvenience are acceptable in order to achieve these goals? Where is the line? Is shouting "peaceful protest" really a peaceful protest?

Surely what is or is not acceptable is that which is criminalised or permitted in the legislation. You know, the will of the people as democratically expressed and all.

Equally, some issues may be so important that protesters are prepared to break the law and suffer the consequences ala Ghandi.

This idea that protesters can imprison a senior member of government for several hours in frightening conditions is not acceptable to the majority of citizens. However, if the protesters said "we feel water charges are so important we are prepared to go to jail for it" and they have no moral qualms with frighening a middle aged lady then I suppose it is acceptable to them.

I don't think they can have it both ways though - that because they feel so strongly about it that they break the law means that we as a society should refuse to punish them because of it.

Quin_Dub

I think for me it's about inconveniencing the "Entity" rather than the person.

So -

• Workers blockading a factory preventing good vehicles entering/leaving for example - OK
• Workers blockading a factory and preventing other staff from leaving to go home at the end of the day - Not OK

Protests should by and large not be about individuals they should be about the issues.

I think that once you begin to personalise an argument you've lost.

Sand

Boskowski wrote: »

I would have thought it means to make the opinion of a preferably large number of people public. To be noticed by as many as possible.
I didn't think you'd actually have to inconvenience someone to do so.

This is correct. A good protest inconveniences no one. It simply highlights the feelings of as many people as can be rallied, sending a warning to the politicians seeking election next time out.

Unrepresentative groups, that simply cant rally serious numbers of people for any purpose, are forced to engage in desperate acts to try attract attention as no one cares was 5 guys and a dog think.

expectationlost

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

..
= not fine, because it disproportionately attacks the wrong opponent in the wrong way.

you could say that about most strikes particularily public sector ones

not sure why you set it up as inconvient vs peaceful

isn't sitting down peaceful protest?

Sand

expectationlost wrote: »

isn't sitting down peaceful protest?

Inconveniencing someone involves a certain threat and level of violence.

expectationlost

Sand wrote: »

Inconveniencing someone involves a certain threat and level of violence.

it does?

think ppeople are just trying to lower the bar to what they personally thin its accreptable protest, these people probably never protested.

conorh91

Sand wrote: »

Inconveniencing someone involves a certain threat and level of violence.

So to be clear, a sit-down protest on O'Connell Street would not constitute inconvenience?

creedp

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

I tagged along to that one when I was a kid as one of my uncles was involved....
It inconvenienced by reducing road capacity, didnt block roads entirely if memory serves & was targeted at the government.

quite different from a handful of quasi-communists plonking themselves in the middle of the road with no purpose other than giving a "f*ck you" to commuters.

I think this just highlights that's peoples views on what is/is not accepted is strongly coloured by bias - just like I'm sure every protesting farmer is the salt of the earth and is concerned about everyone but himself/herself while every anti water charge person is a quasi-communist who doesn't give a f*ck about ayone else.

BoJack Horseman

creedp wrote: »

I think this just highlights that's peoples views on what is/is not accepted is strongly coloured by bias - just like I'm sure every protesting farmer is the salt of the earth and is concerned about everyone but himself/herself while every anti water charge person is a quasi-communist who doesn't give a f*ck about ayone else.

You know what they say about assumptions kid.

The only ones I consider 'quasi-communist' are the ones who label themselves as such.

creedp

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

You know what they say about assumptions kid.

The only ones I consider 'quasi-communist' are the ones who label themselves as such.

Seriously!! There's more than bias going on there

FreudianSlippers

creedp wrote: »

I think this just highlights that's peoples views on what is/is not accepted is strongly coloured by bias - just like I'm sure every protesting farmer is the salt of the earth and is concerned about everyone but himself/herself while every anti water charge person is a quasi-communist who doesn't give a f*ck about ayone else.

Could you explain what blocking traffic of ordinary people has to do with water charges?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

conorh91

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

What about lower taxation protests? Protests favouring greater personal rights?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

creedp

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Could you explain what blocking traffic of ordinary people has to do with water charges?

What has blocking traffic of ordinary people go to do with any form of protest? Didn't say I agree with it .. I am simply pointing out that other forms of protest also involve blocking traffic and similarly inconvencing people .. it doesn't make all protesters lefty pinkos who don't give a f*ck about anyone though.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Quin_Dub

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

It's hard to think of any protest in Ireland in the last 40 years that would have it's political roots anywhere other than the left wing...

Every protest that I can think of has been around not wanting to pay for something or complaints about a reduction in a government payment or service of some kind or other.

conorh91

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I think there needs to be an injection of some perspective there.

Complaining about being subjected to driving south via Capel Street instead of a preferred route, is not at all on the same locus of the hierarchy of personal rights as, say, the right to contraceptive choices, or freedom from excessive taxation.

The point about excessively high taxes is not that public resources should be spared, it's that my resources should be spared from others.

Criticism of an important civil protest because it briefly hinders the flow of traffic, as though all rights were equal, is incredibly myopic.

Mizu_Ger

conorh91 wrote: »

Criticism of an important civil protest because it briefly hinders the flow of traffic, as though all rights were equal, is incredibly myopic.

The problem with this is that most protests don't need to impede traffic, but do so to gain maximum exposure.

Quin_Dub

People sitting down in the middle of the streets and blocking traffic is an annoyance and in my view counter-productive to the aims of the protest.

If you want to garner public support , making them miss work because you've blocked traffic isn't helping..

Having said that - That's still a "peaceful" protest - If you act the tool when the Gardai ask you to move , then you are moving into illegality and it no longer being "peaceful"

Blocking specific individuals completely is definitely not peaceful though..

e.g. If you block the exits to a building/car-park and prevent the safe movement of private citizen that's most definitely not a peaceful/legal protest. And Yes , A Government minister , CEO or whatever is still a private citizen.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

HivemindXX

Quin_Dub wrote: »

It's hard to think of any protest in Ireland in the last 40 years that would have it's political roots anywhere other than the left wing...

Every protest that I can think of has been around not wanting to pay for something or complaints about a reduction in a government payment or service of some kind or other.

Every protest related to abortion or marriage.

BoJack Horseman

HivemindXX wrote: »

Every protest related to abortion or marriage.

I supposed 'economically left/right', rather than culturally left/right would be an appropriate distinction.

conorh91

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

UNACCEPTABLE DELAYS IN WASHINGTON

Sand

conorh91 wrote: »

So to be clear, a sit-down protest on O'Connell Street would not constitute inconvenience?

Try pass through that sit down protest or a strike line and see what happens. All these "inconvenience" protests are essentially a mob oppressing the rights of individuals. The mob essentially thinks their views are more important than the rights or views of the individual.

Look at Joan Burton. Some would say she was "inconvenienced" but the reality was she was imprisoned in her vehicle through the threat of violence to her. This threat was acted on when the Guards escorted her from the vehicle and she and they were physically attacked by the peaceful protestors.

conorh91

I will reply to your main points in reverse order

Sand wrote: »

Look at Joan Burton. Some would say she was "inconvenienced" but the reality was she was imprisoned in her vehicle through the threat of violence to her. This threat was acted on when the Guards escorted her from the vehicle and she and they were physically attacked by the peaceful protestors.

I am blue in the face from explaining the fairly straightforward criminal offence of false imprisonment, and as I said earlier, it is a particularly egregious act of 'false protest'.

I'm not advocating the disgusting thuggery that happened in Jobstown, I'm arguing in favour of the existence of a constitutional right to protest.

No liberal-minded adult can abide the notion that publicly-organised protest is dispensable in a liberal democracy.

Try pass through that sit down protest or a strike line and see what happens. All these "inconvenience" protests are essentially a mob oppressing the rights of individuals.

I cannot pass through an imagined group of protesters, and neither am I willing to drag some hypothetical debate between them.

Was the March on Washington of 1963 somehow unethical or otherwise unwarranted?

Sand

conorh91 wrote: »

I'm not advocating the disgusting thuggery that happened in Jobstown, I'm arguing in favour of the existence of a constitutional right to protest.

No on is attacking the existence of a constitutional right to protest.

Emmet02 acknowledged in his OP that "Obviously this thread is being started on the back of Murphy's arrest for his interpretation of what it is to 'peacefully protest' being out of line with the DPP"

By all means, protest. Just don't cross the line into violence against or "inconveniencing" other citizens. If you truly have a popular movement, you wont need to.

I cannot pass through an imagined group of protesters, and neither am I willing to drag some hypothetical debate between them.

Its your imagined group of O'Connell Street sit down protesters. You introduced it, I replied. So don't pretend to suddenly rise above it.

Wx

Is the real issue with the apparent decision to prosecute the "Joan Burton" protesters the fact that the reasoning behind DPP decisions are not made public. Why cannot we have "transparency" in this area?

Sand

Wx wrote: »

Is the real issue with the apparent decision to prosecute the "Joan Burton" protesters the fact that the reasoning behind DPP decisions are not made public. Why cannot we have "transparency" in this area?

The reasoning will be made public in a court of law. It will be the basis of the prosecution case. There will be full transparency.

Personally, I am no fan of Burton. Her voice sounds like nails on a blackboard. But she is a citizen of the Irish republic, and her personal freedom and security deserves the full protection of the law, like any other citizen.

conorh91

Sand wrote: »

By all means, protest. Just don't cross the line into violence against or "inconveniencing" other citizens. If you truly have a popular movement, you wont need to.

Was the 1963 March on Washington wrong, or not?

Should it not have gone ahead, for fear, as per Permabear's example, that school journeys and employees criss-crossing the city would have been inconvenienced?

Red Kev

There's a big difference between having an organised pre arranged protest where people behave in a law abiding manner, and a spontaneous one run on threats and intimidation.

A properly arranged protest from Parnell Sq to the Dail is easily organised, the Gardai will assist in this, ordinary people can be informed in advance and make alternative arrangements.

Blocking people from moving for hours with no proper warning is wrong and as we can see with the dwindling number of people on the water protests is ultimately counter productive.

johnnyskeleton

Mod Note:

A higher standard of posting quality is required here. Making glib generalisations will not be tolerated.

raymon

Deleted User wrote: »

What levels of inconvenience are acceptable in order to achieve these goals? Where is the line? Is shouting "peaceful protest" really a peaceful protest?

You talk about crossing the line. Do you mean the legal line or morally justified line ? The legal line is clearly defined however the morally justified line is a matter of perspective. There is no universally accepted definition of what a "peaceful protest" is. It is a slogan with no legal basis.

In 1930 Ghandi was arrested and jailed for months for encouraging Indians to manufacture their own salt , which was an offence at the time. It may have been a "peaceful protest" and Im sure he felt it was morally justified , but was breaking a law. He knew this and knew he was at risk of being arrested. Making salt is no longer an offence in India.

In Ireland , legal offences against the person are clearly defined , for example:

15.—(1) A person shall be guilty of the offence of false imprisonment who intentionally or recklessly—

(a) takes or detains, or
(b) causes to be taken or detained, or
(c) otherwise restricts the personal liberty of another without that other's consent.

Protesters should study the law before engaging in protest and should be prepared for the consequences of their actions if they do break the law.

Citizens should have a reasonable expectation that offences would not be carried out against them regardless whether the protesters themselves feel that their protest is morally justified.

Protesters should probably refrain from shouting "peaceful protest" and replace their chants with "non violent protest that complies with section 15-1(c) of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997" ( or other applicable law) if they want to declare that they are acting within the law.

expectationlost

Red Kev wrote: »

There's a big difference between having an organised pre arranged protest where people behave in a law abiding manner, and a spontaneous one run on threats and intimidation.

A properly arranged protest from Parnell Sq to the Dail is easily organised, the Gardai will assist in this, ordinary people can be informed in advance and make alternative arrangements.

Blocking people from moving for hours with no proper warning is wrong and as we can see with the dwindling number of people on the water protests is ultimately counter productive.

we going to have the police ok every protest now? not much of protest.

conorh91

Red Kev wrote: »

There's a big difference between having an organised pre arranged protest where people behave in a law abiding manner, and a spontaneous one run on threats and intimidation.

Although I agree with this, I disagree with lumping spontaneity in with threatening and intimidating behaviour.

You can have a disruptive and 'spontaneous' (i.e. not government sanctioned) protest which is still peaceful.

There is no obvious reason to associate spontaneity with violence, otherwise you run the risk of maintaining that a protest is not permissible, or not peaceful, unless it is approved by the very people it intends to rally against. And clearly, that is not an acceptable standard.

That might go down alright in Tehran but hopefully we have stronger democratic principles.

K-9

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

I supposed 'economically left/right', rather than culturally left/right would be an appropriate distinction.

PAYE protests.

Sand

conorh91 wrote: »

Although I agree with this, I disagree with lumping spontaneity in with threatening and intimidating behaviour.

You can have a disruptive and 'spontaneous' (i.e. not government sanctioned) protest which is still peaceful.

There is no obvious reason to associate spontaneity with violence, otherwise you run the risk of maintaining that a protest is not permissible, or not peaceful, unless it is approved by the very people it intends to rally against. And clearly, that is not an acceptable standard.

That might go down alright in Tehran but hopefully we have stronger democratic principles.

You're unnecessarily giving credibility to protests that deliberately choose to not co-operate with the police in planning protests. The police are not the government. They exercise no legislation. They are there to serve all citizens - including the protestors. They offer a sensible way to balance the right to protest against the rights of other citizens. Working with the police to plan a protest in no way endangers the right to protest - it simply demonstrates the basic politeness and civic duty on which society rests.

Protests which deliberately ignore the police are deliberately ignoring and trampling over the rights of other citizens. Worse, as in the case of these water protesters, it discredits and distracts from the actual goal of the protests. I don't agree with Irish Water as executed, but I wont support any Irish citizen being imprisoned against their will and I hope the full force of the law is implemented against those who threaten violence against any Irish citizen.

conorh91

Sand wrote: »

You're unnecessarily giving credibility to protests that deliberately choose to not co-operate with the police in planning protests.

From what oracle was this deciphered? I did not say that at all. I am not endorsing any particular protest, in fact I have never done anything but criticise the Irish Water yobs.

I am not referring to Irish water at all, in the post you're quoting, nor to any specific protest. I make a general statement that demonstrations may be both peaceful and spontaneous (i.e. not centrally sanctioned), and may be disruptive yet still be peaceful.

I cannot believe anybody is even arguing this point, and the only explanation I can offer is they are unnecessarily approaching this question through the prism of anti Irish-Water protests, and attempting a post-hoc definition of peaceful protesting on that extremely narrow basis.

The police are not the government. They exercise no legislation. They are there to serve all citizens - including the protestors.

In Ireland, we have a small g government and a big G Government/

Government = The cabinet
government = the judicial, legislative and executive powers of the state. Garda powers fall under the latter category, they are one subcategory of the executive branch of government. AGS most certainly is small-g government. This is a somewhat semantic point, but is Chapter 1 of any political science/ constitutional/ administrative law textbook.

K-9

Sand wrote: »

Inconveniencing someone involves a certain threat and level of violence.

In that case the Dublin City Marathon shouldn't be allowed!

We had a huge protest in 09 or so organised by SIPTU and a couple of big ones for IW. Many people were inconvenienced and some totally opposed to it so they would fail your test.

Part of living in a democracy is the right to protest which by its very nature will lead to some level of inconvenience, whether an individual finds it inconvenient or doesn't agree with the protestors is largely irrelevant, otherwise I want all those pro life marches stopped.

FreudianSlippers

K-9 wrote: »

In that case the Dublin City Marathon shouldn't be allowed!

We had a huge protest in 09 or so organised by SIPTU and a couple of big ones for IW. Many people were inconvenienced and some totally opposed to it so they would fail your test.

Part of living in a democracy is the right to protest which by its very nature will lead to some level of inconvenience, whether an individual finds it inconvenient or doesn't agree with the protestors is largely irrelevant, otherwise I want all those pro life marches stopped.

Not disagreeing with you, but a march from point-a to point-b is one thing; purposely blocking major arteries of the city in order to purposely disrupt people is another.

Son Of A Vidic

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Not disagreeing with you, but a march from point-a to point-b is one thing; purposely blocking major arteries of the city in order to purposely disrupt people is another.

Yes it is a major inconvenience, but it is still a peaceful protest. Sometimes marching from point A to point B, does not achieve the desired effect. And that effect is to make your government/target audience to sit up and take notice. Ideally you would hope to avoid an escalation, but sometimes blocking roads and such actions are an unfortunate consequence of a government who ignores the people. That for me is the entire point of a peaceful protest, to deliver a strong message while avoiding the counterproductive consequences of violent actions.

For Reals

There's a fine line between engaging with the authorities in planning and those same authorities putting you in the corner of a field somewhere out of the way. Also if it's those authorities you are protesting against its a bit of a farce.
Protests are for highlighting issues and this often involves some form of civil disobedience. It goes with the territory.
If the government and any Labour minister's niece in the DPP want to waste tax payer time and money on the likes of a sit down protest which resulted in inconvenience and nothing else, we should protest that too.