You are reading a single comment by @sniffy and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
-
'Disruption is not violence'
Disruption is simply disruption. Nobody besides yourself, mentioned violence.
sniffy-
sniffy... you said "not peaceful". A definition of peaceful is "not involving violence" - the moment you said "not peaceful" you suggested it was violent.
My final words on the matter. I pretty much agree with most of what is on this thread, but I dislike the idea that the victim's family should have some sort of rights over how others respond to a death on the roads (which I believe was inferred or implied by some, intentionally or not), because that death affects us all, not just the family... but obviously others should respond more sensitively than this guy does.
You're all 90-99.99% right, argument over.
653-7410
It is a peaceful protest. Disruption is not violence.
If you believe that the protest is counter-productive then obviously you have a right to campaign against it, and another reason to dislike the organisers, but I stand by my point. I share your reservations but I struggle to see how peaceful protest can attract so much ire when the cause is such a good one.
I dislike the gneral tone of this thread which seems to me to be suggesting that this guy is wrong to eercse his right to peacefully protest and encourage others to do the same. He might be an arsehole. He should probably get full consent from the families or wait two weeks and then protest the site not naming the victim. But he still has a right to peacefully protest which is absolute - certainly greater than other people's rights to tell him where and when and how to peacefully protest.