Peaceful Protest

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.

LuckyLloyd

No damage to property
No physical harm of any person

Seth Brundle

Just to add my €0.02, when farmers or taxi drivers or large anti-water changes protest occur, they are preceded with sufficient notification to avoid the area. There's a protest in Dublin city centre on Saturday so if you are driving, you can plan your route in advance. therefore inconvenience can be mitigated.

However, some of the follow-up protests after main anti-water charges protests have not been pre-planned publicly and it has been a thuggish element deciding to take action into their hands and block O'Connell street or whatever.
No notice given.
No consideration for other people given.
Completely selfish behaviour by an element that demand everyone abides by their terms.

Sand

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.

Yes, and the civilised compromise which society has landed upon is for anyone holding large gatherings which may inconvenience others is to work with the Gardai to organise the event safely so they can get their message across with the minimum of fuss.

Of course, some people seem to think its perfectly responsible and fine to rev up an enraged mob and turn them loose on an individual, deny all personal responsibility and claim it should be allowed because "protest". I've no time for that belief whatsoever. Groups which practise it should be pursued for their actions to the full extent of the law.