-
I was going to say that the first thing that comes to my head re protests is marching - which while disruptive is planned.
I think the difference with these protests is that they apply classic obstacle based protest - like stopping workers from say cutting down trees - to a large section of the public going about their ordinary lives. That contrasts with someone doing their job which will cause a particular harm/action.
hugo7-
I guess one of their main points might be that a large section of the public really need to become more familiar with the issue they're protesting about?
-
I think the difference with these protests is that they [affect] a large section of the public going about their ordinary lives
Yeah, but it's a collective issue. The basic message is that not enough is being done and we have to change everything. This makes everyone confront that. If you're driving a car and get stuck behind what is ostensibly a climate change protest, then you'd have to be very dim not to put 2 and 2 together. It doesn't make motorists bad, we just all have to confront the need for change.
The angry reaction from lots of people is part of the confrontation not a reason to stop it.
I actually asked someone who hated the insulate Britain protests if they were more or less likely to insulate their (new) home as a result, and they actually said they thought about it already and were now less likely to insulate purely to spite the cause of IB.
My first thought was that this is a reason to stop this kind of action, but then I realised that people like that only argue against these protests on grounds of their effectiveness. Her entire point was "Of course I think climate change is important etc, but I think this is the wrong way to go about it". This is the basis of all the criticism against disruptive protest. The only way to counter this argument is to keep going, because it will always be used against you whatever you do. If you keep going then they have to confront it eventually
If a protest is worthwhile it will start with angry confrontation but if the core message is incontestable then all the false arguments against it will be found out, if you just keep going.
To undermine everything I just said, there are clear lines you shouldn't cross, mainly violence, so the details matter.
owl
neu
I think conflating protest and strike is not particularly helpful. The point of a strike is that you withdraw your labour to demonstrate how valuable it is. Protest doesn't have that aspect and is more about raising awareness of a cause / strength of feeling?
Organising a massive march (like the Iraq war / student / People's Vote) highlights a democratic deficit. High-impact actions by small groups do not necessarily do the same.
There's also the question of who gets to determine which causes are "important" enough for disruptive protest to be allowed. Anti-lockdowns / covid vax? Anti-Welsh second home ownership?