Protestville
Peter Hoskin 11:01am
With anti-Heathrow-expansion protestors scaling the roof of Parliament - and sparking all kind of security concerns in the process - it's worth asking when & whether protests cross the line of decency.
It's a question that Benedict Brogan's certainly tackling over at his excellent blog. He takes a hard-line on the matter. Brian Haw and his ilk were yesterday described as "a disgusting bunch" whose public profanity is (technically) illegal. And now today's protestors are dismissed as "idiots".
But does that mean we should clamp down on such protestors? Or can we pardon their methods on the basis that they're not doing any particular harm? The answers aren't obvious, but - whatever they are - I suspect their application should be equal in all cases.
Put it this way: I have no doubt that I Want a Referendum's mass-lobby of Parliament today will be nothing less than a decorous affair, but should a few voices be raised in anger - and, even, a few swearwords uttered - I don't think I'll be on the phone to the police. It would be hypocritical - and perhaps even antidemocratic - of me to act differently in the case of protests I'm not sympathetic to.
What do CoffeeHousers think?
Previous
Comments
adrian drummond
February 27th, 2008 1:05pmCertainly not. When a government can now ignore a significant manifesto commitment, set up pointless taskforces, consultations and national debates (having already made their decisions) what options are people left with? Parliament is in a mess of their own making.
Kevyn Bodman
February 27th, 2008 3:08pmI'm not a fan of Greenpeace and am very sceptical about man-made climate change. But I think that their recent demonstrations at the Palace of Westminster and at Heathrow are a very good way for them to make their point, an entirely understandable tactic with an insignificant downside for the general public. No injury done, as far as I know no property damage done but if there has been it's been minor. Lots of publicity for their cause and plenty of embarrassment for the authorities. I've also been impressed by the stunts of Fathers4Justice for the same reasons. Doubtless there will be outrage from people saying that the Greenpeace demonstrators could have been terrorists, but they weren't. And Greenpeace are not responsible for what others who might try to breach security might try to do. It would be preferable if government were more open to representations from voters but we've seen enough evidence in recent years that government are liars. They have chosen their own course of action and are following their own agenda, and will brush aside the rights and wishes of the people if they want to. I foresee violence, I am not advocating it but predicting it, if the disconnection that exists between the politicians and the ordinary people continues to grow. I celebrate peaceful demonstrations and I'm even tempted to welcome these stunts, inconvenient though they might be for some. As for foul language, it can be both unpleasant and offensive, it is illegal. But let's keep a sense of proportion about how much damage it really does. Not much.
Kevyn Bodman
February 27th, 2008 3:20pmMr. Hoskin, I've just had a look at a few items over at Benedict Brogan's blog.And you think it's an 'excellent blog'? Let's try to keep some proportion in our use of language. If you think that's 'excellent' what words are left that can be used for: Archbishop Cranmer, Nanny Knows Best, or the incomparable, and the Speccie's very own, Melanie Phillips.
Max Kaye
February 27th, 2008 4:37pmKevyn Bodman is more temperate and even-handed than me. I am shamelessly partisan and tend to accept as necessary the antics of those protestors whose cause I support, and rail strongly against those 'hooligans disrupting civilisation as we know it' whenever I disagree with them.
In this instance I'd have expressed my opinion of the protesters' cause by way of water cannon. On the other hand, had they been campaigning for a referendum on the EU Treaty I'd shower them with roses.