Are there limits to Political Protest?

[Marmora Man]

I see UK Uncut targeted Nick Clegg's home with hundreds of anti-cuts campaigners staging a "street party" protest outside his house in south-west London.

While I'm all for political protest, free speech and democracy I believe it to be over the top to target an individual member of the government in his home. No doubt some will argue that the publicity that resulted for UK Uncut made it worthwhile but I suggest it further diminishes the nature of political debate and will deter otherwise sensible people from engaging in mainstream politics in the future.

[El Pibe]

I think it's quite difficult to get a message across if you don't annoy anyone.

On the wider, philosophical point, I guess the limits of protests are defined by and appropraite to that which you are protesting against.

I would say for instance that the Syrian use of violence agasint those who refused to listen and responded with repression is entirely appropriate, whereas blowing up Nick Clegg is probably overkill (though I'm sure Allfornun would approve!!).

Given government intransigence on austerity, but a backdrop of social cohesion and rule of law, I don't think a street party is particularly excessive.

*edited for unforgivable splleging errors*

[Brendan]

I wonder if they will try to prosecute them for harassment. Surely the right to protest doesn't give you a blanket immunity to criminal liability.

[Chippy Minton]

How exactly do a couple of hundred people having a street party - complete with picnics and with their kids - for a couple of hours "deter otherwise sensible people from engaging in mainstream politics"?

People have been so disengaged with mainstream politics for so long, which led to the rise in protests like those organised by UK Uncut, the Occupy movement et al in the first place. It is not things like the protest outside Clegg's house that discourages engagement - that disengagement was there long before and is far more deep rooted than any influence UK Uncut may have.

[Huguenot]

I think the implication was that sensible people would stay out of politics, rather than sensible people wouldn't be interested in voting.

Targeting a man's family in his home, harrassing his wife, kids and neighbours would be a pretty good incentive for mature sensible people with important abilities and vital skills to stay out of politics to the disadvantage of the country.

This is bullying and intimidation, not protest.

[Loz]

I think politicians have a right to separate home and work. Even though I could see the funny side, it was wrong when the Fathers 4 Justice protested on Harriet Harman's roof. Now even though I hate Harriet Harman I know that she, like all MPs, deserve their home life.

So, yes, UK Uncut were wrong. They could have picked plenty of other places.

[Marmora Man]

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I think the implication was that sensible people

> would stay out of politics, rather than sensible

> people wouldn't be interested in voting.

>

> Targeting a man's family in his home, harrassing

> his wife, kids and neighbours would be a pretty

> good incentive for mature sensible people with

> important abilities and vital skills to stay out

> of politics to the disadvantage of the country.

>

> This is bullying and intimidation, not protest.

You recognised and expanded on my point elegantly - thank you.

[Chippy Minton]

It wasn't at all threatening, they didn't trespass onto his property, it only lasted a few hours, Clegg and his family weren't even there and he has come out and said he supports their right to protest - as a one off, I think it was fine to do this.

[Loz]

Would you be as supportive if it was the BNP, Chippy?

[Chippy Minton]

BNP - yes. EDL - no.

Would you condem it so much if it wasn't UK Uncut? How would you feel about a peaceful, one off, few hours street party outside a Council member's home who'd introduced a CPZ in your street? ;-)

[Loz]

Again, unfair, obviously and something I would never be a part of. The forum and some pretty damn determined local residents knocked that CPZ idea down in the right way.

As I said earlier, I would like to see a certain Ms Harman banished to the International Space Station for the next decade or four, but I defend her right to a quiet home life. No one should be hassled at home because of their job. That goes whether or not I support the cause in question.

[Chippy Minton]

"I would never be a part of it" - fair enough. I'd "never be part of" a UK Uncut protest. But would you actually prevent East Dulwich residents from having a peaceful street party outside, let's say, the Council leader's home as a form of protest?

It strikes me that for someone that seems to champion freedom of speech and civil liberties so much you probably just don't agree with what the protest was about.

It's very sad you think what UK Uncut did goes beyond the "limit" of political protest yet EDL marches through Tower Hamlets don't.

[Loz]

Chippy Minton Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> "I would never be a part of it" - fair enough. I'd "never be part of" a UK Uncut protest. But would

> you actually prevent East Dulwich residents from having a peaceful street party outside, let's say,

> the Council leader's home as a form of protest?

No, but I wouldn't 'prevent' UK uncut either. But I would disagree with both of their methods.

> It strikes me that for someone that seems to champion freedom of speech and civil liberties so

> much you probably just don't agree with what the protest was about.

The two concepts are not conjoined. I don't agree with UK Uncut, but I would defend their right to protest - I just don't like their method this time. I do fully believe in freedom of speech and civil liberties, but that has to extend to everyone - a concept you seem to have difficulty with. As I showed with the Harriet Harman example, the test of what you really believe is whether you would apply it to people that you both agree and don't agree with. I think I am pretty sound on this test.

> It's very sad you think what UK Uncut did goes beyond the "limit" of political protest yet EDL

> marches through Tower Hamlets don't.

I'm sorry, but I didn't actually mention Tower Hamlets. But I assume you are referring to the banning of the EDL marches through Tower Hamlets a couple of years ago? If I recall correctly they were banned because of the 'cause', not the 'method'. Even though I hate the EDL and everything it represents, I believe that they too have the right to fair and peaceful protest. Now if the protest wasn't peaceful, then that is a different matter and at that point the police can step in and arrest all and sundry. But banning it pre-emptively was, in my opinion, wrong. And actually a danger to the right to protest in general. I mean, who gets to decide which protest cause is undesirable? That's a slippery slope.

So, here is two tests...

a) Do you think all peaceful marches by anyone through Tower Hamlets should be banned?

b) Do you think that protests by anyone at MPs private residences is fair protest.

I can happily answer the same (no and no), not matter what the cause. Can you?

[Marmora Man]

I was going to make much the same point as Loz.

An EDL march, through Tower Hamlets or elsewhere, is a demonstration of support for their particular beliefs. Properly conducted I have no problem with this - tho' I would work hard and long to ensure that everyone recognised the EDL beliefs are abhorrent.

The UK Uncut "protest" was targeted at a single individual politician, his family and their home. I recognise the strength of UK Uncut's feelings but I abhor their methods in this particular case.

In answer to Loz's questions:

a. NO

b. NO

[Chippy Minton]

We've been through this before Loz - you know my views on that EDL march, but if you need reminding see: http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?20,736932,page=1

For clarity -

a) No

b) No

[Loz]

And yet, Chippy, you raised the issue of the EDL/Tower Hamlets in relation to this. I have to say, I am confused on where you stand on the EDL's right to protest.

[Chippy Minton]

This is a drawing room discussion about limits to political protest - I think referernce to the EDL and their banned "protest march" which has also been discussed on this forum before is relevant. You raised the issue of the BNP - why do that?

Did you actually bother to re-read the EDL march thread? I think I made it pretty clear where I stand on their "right to protest" there, but if you didn't, I'll repeat myself again here - I would have banned that EDL protest march.

[RosieH]

I think this is a take on it that's worth reading (though I'm sure it will elicit a chorus of "they would say that"s).

I'm with Chippy and Pibe on this. I don't think it crossed a line. Unlike the Countryside Alliance protest referred to in the article, it involved no intimidation.

I find myself breathing a sigh of relief (and the giving up of the occasional skip of joy) that at long, long last, it feels like people (some, not enough) are engaging in the political process once more.

If there had been trespass or intimidation, I would have felt differently about this protest - and indeed, I've walked away from protests where I feel a line has been crossed - but I would have felt perfectly comfortable being a part of this.

If anything, I find it a rather witty response to a terrible situation (no money, no job? don't worry, have a fucking party for the jubilee! or the olympics! that'll make everything just tickitty boo, and you might get pissed enough to forget about your perilous state). Qu'ils mangent de la brioche, indeed.

Annoying someone is quite different from harrassing them. Better to offer them a slice of cake than to cut off their heads, no?

[El Pibe]

"mature sensible people with important abilities and vital skills [in] politics"

Sadly that ship has sailed.

No we get political science students, researchers, fleet street's less principled hacks, McKinsey consultants and PR experts.

[Loz]

Chippy Minton Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> We've been through this before Loz - you know my views on that EDL march, but if you need reminding see:

> http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?20,736932,page=1

>

> For clarity -

> a) No

Yet you would ban the EDL? (maybe my question was muddled with an excess 'all'. I think "Do you think peaceful marches by anyone through Tower Hamlets should be banned" is better?)

> b) No

Yet you think the UK Uncut protest was fair?

I'm not sure clarity was actually achieved here.

[Chippy Minton]

Yes, I find your questions are muddled, but I'll try again.

a) I believe the EDL promotes a message of hate that incites violence and racial discriminiation so yes, I would ban them.

b) No I don't think protest like this by anyone is fair (I wouldn't allow the EDL to do this, for example). I think the UK Uncut protest was fair for numerous reasons as I've already outlined above.

[Brendan]

Sorry but that is a bit of a nonsense. The right to protest and free speech in general have bugger all to do with what anyone thinks is fair. That is sort of the point.

It is a different story though if a criminal offence is actually being committed. Arguably both the protests that are being spoken of here could have a danger of straying into the territory of harassment or inciting racial hatred respectively.

But whether a protest goes on or not should not get decided upon on the grounds of whether the subject matter is somehow valid.

[Chippy Minton]

If you're saying the EDL could incite racial hatred, I disagree. I think they do incite racial discrimination and violence, which is illegal.

What UK Uncut did wasn't illegal. Some may think it was harassment, but clearly the police didn't because they didn't arrest anyone.

[Loz]

See, this is the issue, Chippy. You can't just believe in the right to protest for causes you agree with.

I've said it before, but Noam Chomsky said it best: "If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all."

[Chippy Minton]

You are putting words in my mouth Loz.

I would like to see the EDL banned because I believe they incite racial discrimination and violence, not simply because I "don't agree" with them. I abhor the BNP, but I stated earlier in the thread that I would have allowed them to protest as I don't believe they pose the same threat as the EDL.

Out of interest, would you never ban any protest? Do you not think society needs to have boundaries to protests?

Where, for example, do you stand on Islam4UK protesting at Wootton Bassett?

Or an extreme hypothetical - convicted child molesters campaigning for a change in the law protesting outside a school?