How do you feel about "inconvenient" protesting

[chikusho]

Yes, people should only speak out about the injustices they are suffering at a time and place where it is convenient for me.
Besides, if they are protesting something I don't care about, or am not directly affected by, it can't really be that important anyway.

 

[FirstNameLastName]

From reading this thread you would think Martin Luther King and Ghandi were the only people in history to have a political opinion.
It really isn't as clear cut as:
Bring down public infrastructure = Guaranteed victory.
Don't bring down public infrastructure = Guaranteed fail.

People have protested in every form throughout history, and every method has had it's share of success and failure. We really need to get rid of this notion that disallowing people to bring down public infrastructure is somehow the "death of activism", that somehow nothing will ever change if people are only allowed to use the thousands of other protest methods at their disposal.
You can disagree with people's opinions on this matter all you like, but realistically, a protest is intended to change public opinion. No matter how much you call people entitled for wanting to use the roads they are legally entitled to use, that doesn't change the fact that plenty of people will think less of you and your movement for impeding their lives. So disruptive protests are not the be-all-end-all of activism that they seem to be portrayed here.

 

[Panzer Camper]

A lot of people here are missing the point of the inconvenient protests like blocking roads. They are illegal!!! And you should go to jail for doing them.

You block the roads, cops come and probably ask you to move your protest somewhere legal, and you say "NAY!!! I care so much about this issue I am willing to go to jail for it!" Then you go to jail for like 4 hours or whatever depending on the manner of your offense and go about your merry way ticket in hand. News covers the events and people go "Wow, they were willing to go to jail over that?" And if it's a stupid issue in the eye of the public like a group blocks major highways because they think peanutbutter is racist against smurfs then they accomplish nothing, but if they do the same thing over how blacks aren't allowed to own cars or something, people might be stirred to their side.

Not saying I agree or disagree with what they are protesting but for all the people that believe illegal protests should just be legal because you obiously agree with misunderstand how reality works when people you don't agree with then go protesting.

 

[JimB]

He didn't say that those statutes don't exist, just that he wasn't going to list all the specifics.

I know. I asked him to prove it's illegal, and he said, "No, I won't, so take my word for it." I make it a personal policy not to take the word of someone who refuses to prove what he says.

 

[maneyan]

Wow, the sheer selfishness evident here is really freaking depressing. So I take it strikes are morally deplorable as well? They inconvenience you as hell. Large-scale protests are SUPPOSED to inconvenience people, force the ones in power to change their minds, decide that the cost of changing this or that is less than the cost of not changing it because these protesters will continue. Oftentimes these things are done even though they're illegal, civil disobedience is a tool of democracy and all this banging on about it breaking laws of "unlawful assembly" and bla bla bla... Governments have no inherent right to tell people "no you can't object to what we're doing". They can make laws forbidding it but fuck those laws. The world changed because people worked together, dug their heels in and inconvenienced society enough to force change upon it. Again, to all of you people denouncing this. Do you, then, claim Ghandi and MLK shouldn't have done what they did? Let me quote V for vendetta here

the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well, certainly, there are those who are more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable. But again, truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. I know why you did it. I know you were afraid. Who wouldn't be? War, terror, disease. They were a myriad of problems which conspired to corrupt your reason and rob you of your common sense. Fear got the best of you, and in your panic you turned to the now high chancellor, Adam Sutler. He promised you order, he promised you peace, and all he demanded in return was your silent, obedient consent.

This is what it boils down to, people who think it's more important that they're not "inconvenienced" than that injustices are addressed are the ones who allow these things to happen. Sorry, but by taking a stance against these kind of protests you're implicitly giving your approval to injustices not being addressed because "it's inconvenient". People have struggled, fought and indeed DIED in the battle against injustices in society. Let's just as an example take the Czech Velvet Revolution, the massive protests that led to the fall of the Czechoslovak communist regime. You bet your ASS people were inconvenienced by the months of massive demonstrations and protests and a whole lot of people probably didn't care THAT much about the communist regime and just wanted to get on with their lives. So tell me, should Czechoslovakia still be a communist regime, should the blacks of America accept being second class citizens? Should India have submitted to remain a colony to Britain? None of these things changed without a whole lot of inconvenience.

And please: don't tell me "well that's different because those causes MATTER". Matter to who? The Trayvon Martin case certainly matters to a whole lot of people since it is so emblematic of how black people in america, no matter if they're gangsta or well-dressed and well behaved, all too often are massively disadvantaged. The minimum wage debate matters to the people who, despite working 60 hours a week, can't do more than live from paycheck to paycheck at best(and please please PLEASE don't give me this social-darwinistic "herp derp well minimum wage people are inferior creatures who don't deserve to be able to make a decent living anyway" bullshit). The desire for convenience and harmony is fertile soil for tyranny and the people are SUPPOSED to stand up for what they believe in. If that inconveniences you, well tough luck, move to a dictatorship and you won't have to be inconvenienced by people fighting for their rights.

 

[joshuaayt]

What's the point of a protest that doesn't bother people? It's not going to accomplish anything, is it? You're just going to be standing there, being visibly cross about something, and people who are already on your side are going to look at you and think "Aw yeah now there's a group I can get behind". People who aren't are going to ignore you, and nothing will change.

Realistically, if the issue you're protesting is important enough TO protest, you're probably inconveniencing people a lot less than the actual issue is. For example: Innocent people being murdered by figures of authority? Pretty damn inconvenienced.

A protest happens because there's a problem that should not exist, and can not be allowed to exist any longer. Police are killing folks? You bother the goddamn hell out of people, and force other people who are in charge of this sort of thing to deal with it. The government can ignore a petition, or a cross group of people on the side of the road- so you make something they physically cannot ignore.

 

[Akjosch]

Also:
RIOTING does nothing but make you, your cause, and your community look like SAVAGES.

Isn't it weird how virtually nobody says this when white folks riot?

Actually, literally every time somebody does that over here in Europe, people call them savages (and similar). For a quick example, see the comments on this picture [http://imgur.com/gallery/RuyWK] from Greece, 2011.

On topic: As long as lives aren't endangered (blocking way for ambulances, blocking entrances and exits of hospitals and clinics, blocking fire escape routes, outright rioting and setting things and people on fire, ...), protesters can and should inconvenience me and others all they want. A good protest is one which shuts down the public life in the area. It gets attention and shows that people care about some issue deeply.

 

[Something Amyss]

Nope, occasional traffic jams are simply an unavoidable byproduct of free movement for large numbers of people being made more efficient and less burdensome on others, while an illegal blockade deliberately prevents free movement from taking place at all, as alternate routes have typically been made illegal, and when available cannot be accessed from the point in which the blockade is taking place.

Nice loaded language. Of course, it's not a byproduct of free movement, it's an inhibitor to it, but it seems you're okay with that.

Actually, literally every time somebody does that over here in Europe, people call them savages (and similar).

That you have to qualify it with "in Europe" was probably a sign of something.

 

[Kopikatsu]

Jay Walking is one that they are technically doing if they are blocking a road. So there's that.

Okay, that's a place to start from. I guess the next question is, is incarceration a permissible response to jaywalking? It seems like something that's answered with a ticket and a fine, not imprisonment.

It's illegal to protest in such a way that blocks traffic without a permit. As I highly doubt the protesters actually went and got a permit for it, they can all be arrested on those grounds. The reason you need a permit is so that the police can go out and set up detours and such to assure that people can still get where they need to go.

 

[visiblenoise]

I'd rather it didn't happen, and I think it's rarely the right way to go about things (it's basically ransom), but I keep it in perspective. I kinda think about it in the same way that I regard "acts of God" - if a protest causes me to be late or not be able to get somewhere, it was out of my hands and there's no point in stressing out over it.

 

[Akjosch]

Actually, literally every time somebody does that over here in Europe, people call them savages (and similar).

That you have to qualify it with "in Europe" was probably a sign of something.

No, not really. I just make sure that others know which perspective I'm using when talking about something. We have an international audience here, so such details are important.

 

[EvilRoy]

Charged with what? What is the specific crime being committed?

There are a lists of laws about impeding traffic, unlawful assembly, disturbing the peace... on and on. I'm not going to spend the time listing all the specific statutes on a city and state level.

Probably for the best you're not in charge of arresting or prosecuting anyone, then. I'm willing to believe protesting in a highway is illegal, but in absence of actual statute, people really ought not to be arrested.

In most cities it is illegal to block traffic - intentionally or unintentionally - if the blockage was avoidable. You can get ticketed for obstructing traffic by standing and refusing to move from a sidewalk, or by being an idiot and getting stuck in the middle of an intersection because you pulled forward when the lane wasn't clear.

This is 100% a municipal thing though, so all though the US, Mexico and Canada you will find different wordings for the laws. For instance, in Regina, Jaywalking is (was? been a long time) totally legal. The law is worded in such a way that obstructing traffic is what gets you ticketed, rather than the actual act of dashing across the street. Idea being that if nobody is around it doesn't matter if you jaywalk. The laws can also take a different form altogether. Sometimes obstructing traffic or pedestrians is acceptable "so long as there is a good reason" (if you have to halt people from barreling into a dangerous place), but this almost never applies to police. Causing an obstruction that leaves emergency services unable to work, even if that service is a lone cop on a bike, will usually get you ticketed.

Something to note will this all, I guess, is that it is also usually legal for police to escort you to a suitable location to write the ticket. That can mean to the cop shop, to the McDonalds across the street, or to a quieter section of the neighborhood. Because the police have similar responsibilities when it comes to safe interaction (if they stop to write you a ticket in the middle of a march it is reasonable to assume that one or both of you could be jostled or knocked over). This can take the form of loading groups of people into the wagon to await processing at the local station, assuming there are a large number of people to be ticketed.

Edit:

Haaaahahaha "intestinally blocking traffic". Aaaah spellcheck, if only I could get close you could guess better.

 

[Something Amyss]

No, not really. I just make sure that others know which perspective I'm using when talking about something. We have an international audience here, so such details are important.

Which seems like you're tapdancing right around the point in question.

 

[Akjosch]

No, not really. I just make sure that others know which perspective I'm using when talking about something. We have an international audience here, so such details are important.

Which seems like you're tapdancing right around the point in question.

What question, this one?

Also:
RIOTING does nothing but make you, your cause, and your community look like SAVAGES.

Isn't it weird how virtually nobody says this when white folks riot?

My point is: In my area (most of Europe), I just don't see that happening. No matter if it's the "white folks" or the Turkish or Arab minorities, if they behave like savages, they are called savages.

 

[Cowabungaa]

God, people always parrot that people should stick to "peaceful methods" like those of Martin Luther King and Gandhi but apparently even they are just a bunch of "selfish, childish assholes".

Guess it's time for that MLK quote:

"Over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro?s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen?s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to ?order? than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: ?I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action?; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man?s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a ?more convenient season.?

Yup, everyone is for equality and justice and all in a vague nebulous way, up until they are inconvenienced or have to admit there's an actual problem.

And it's like that with every problem. Climate change and the general pollution caused by our consumption oriented society? Oh yes it's important to do something about it. Actually making a sacrifice by doing things like cutting meat consumption of accepting higher prices for things like more environmentally friendly goods? Hell no!

In the end, it's a matter of scope. People see themselves out of it, especially when they're not directly affected by anything. If the status quo is good for you you don't want it to go, it's a natural thing but often also quite a crappy thing.

 

[Thaluikhain]

And it's like that with every problem. Climate change and the general pollution caused by our consumption oriented society? Oh yes it's important to do something about it. Actually making a sacrifice by doing things like cutting meat consumption of accepting higher prices for things like more environmental goods? Hell no!

In the end, it's a matter of scope. People see themselves out of it, especially when they're not directly affected by anything. If the status quo is good for you you don't want it to go, it's a natural thing but often also quite a crappy thing.

Very true, especially your second paragraph, though not sure climate change is a good example, there's a lot of people who aren't willing to do anything personally, but want their government to do something. Passing that along to one's representatives doesn't seem that bad to me. Doesn't work so well for social problems that are already legislated about though.

 

[Cowabungaa]

And it's like that with every problem. Climate change and the general pollution caused by our consumption oriented society? Oh yes it's important to do something about it. Actually making a sacrifice by doing things like cutting meat consumption of accepting higher prices for things like more environmental goods? Hell no!

In the end, it's a matter of scope. People see themselves out of it, especially when they're not directly affected by anything. If the status quo is good for you you don't want it to go, it's a natural thing but often also quite a crappy thing.

Very true, especially your second paragraph, though not sure climate change is a good example, there's a lot of people who aren't willing to do anything personally, but want their government to do something. Passing that along to one's representatives doesn't seem that bad to me. Doesn't work so well for social problems that are already legislated about though.

It's the perfect example really. The excuse I always hear is "My tiny contribution doesn't make a difference" which is a complete fallacy; it's all the tiny contributions combined that are making the difference, hell it's all those tiny negative contributions that cause that problem in the first place. People's inaction to change now keeps it in place.

The same way of thinking goes for this issue. They see a protest inconveniencing them and think "This is just a protest that does nothing, and I'm inconvenienced. I don't want that. This is pointless for me."

Bottom line is; people can't see the big picture, can't see beyond their own small lives. And that's a big problem. And it's people who's gotta change, in that both issues are alike too. They're problems of our culture and culture goes way past legislation. And for a culture to change it's people's gotta change.

 

[lowtech redneck]

Nice loaded language. Of course, it's not a byproduct of free movement, it's an inhibitor to it, but it seems you're okay with that.

Its a byproduct of the highway and road system, the purpose of which, like I said, is to make free movement for large numbers of people possible without a.) even worse traffic conditions and b.) endangering the lives and property of others by driving as the crow flies across any passable obstacles without any traffic laws. I thought my meaning was obvious from the context, that's why I wasn't more specific. And yeah, I'm a pretty big fan of the highway and road system, preferring occasional traffic jams to the likely alternatives.

And what loaded language? Illegal? As another poster pointed out, legal blockades involve the creation of alternate routes, along with signs set up so that travelers don't get trapped without any way of getting out.

 

[direkiller]

Charged with what? What is the specific crime being committed?

There are a lists of laws about impeding traffic, unlawful assembly, disturbing the peace... on and on. I'm not going to spend the time listing all the specific statutes on a city and state level.

Probably for the best you're not in charge of arresting or prosecuting anyone, then. I'm willing to believe protesting in a highway is illegal, but in absence of actual statute, people really ought not to be arrested.

It's typically a tiny fine.
In PA it's $5+ cost for failure to yield to traffic on a highway.
http://www.dvrpc.org/transportation/safety/presentations/pdf/2009-07/Gary_Modi_PennDOT.pdf (slide 4)
The arrest tend to happen for failure to obey a lawful order, when a police orders you to the side of the road.

 

[Erttheking]

The problem with society is that plenty of people condemn the doing of things like inconvenient protesting, yet doing stuff like that is how our ancestors won the rights we enjoy daily.

I mean last summer there was a massive protest at a local grocery chain that I work at when a CEO who was going to raise prices and cut employee benefits took charge. The warehouse workers went on strike and a ton of customers boycotted the shelves. Plenty of people had to buy their groceries at a more expensive store and plenty of workers lost hours. But we got our old CEO back.

Sometimes you gotta get your hands dirty if you want to do anything.