Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To think there shouldn't be a right to *protest*

185 replies

Bathingnow · 13/01/2026 13:24

People constantly repeat that the right to protest is some kind of sacred democratic principle that must be protected at all costs. I genuinely do not understand why this is taken as an unquestionable truth. What about the rights of everyone else? What about the right to go to work, get children to school, attend hospital appointments, or simply go about daily life without being obstructed, shouted at, or intimidated?

I fully support the right to dissent. People should be able to express views that challenge the government, corporations, or any other powerful body. That is a basic part of a free society. Free expression means being allowed to say unpopular things without fear of punishment. It does not mean having a free pass to disrupt other people’s lives or hold them hostage to your cause.

If you believe for example climate change is an emergency and the government should “just stop oil”, fine. Argue your case. Write letters to newspapers. Lobby MPs. Stand in Speaker’s Corner and shout yourself hoarse. Post endlessly on social media. Organise debates, whatever. All of that is legitimate and entirely compatible with democracy. None of it requires blocking roads, gluing yourself to infrastructure, or preventing ordinary people from getting where they need to be.

The idea that making life miserable for strangers somehow advances your cause is absurd. Blocking an ambulance, stopping a parent getting to work, or preventing someone from attending a funeral does not win hearts and minds. It just creates resentment. You are not enlightening people. You are inconveniencing them and expecting applause for it.

This applies to every issue, whether it is climate change, Gaza, housing, or anything else. A cause does not become morally superior simply because the people shouting about it feel very strongly. Once a protest crosses the line into infringing on other people’s civil liberties, it stops being a protest and starts being coercion.

Democracy should protect free speech and peaceful expression. It should also protect the public from disruption imposed by self appointed activists who believe their views trump everyone else’s rights. If exercising a so called right to protest requires trampling over the freedoms of others, then that right needs serious limits. I see no reason why the ability to disrupt daily life should be treated as some untouchable democratic virtue.

OP posts:
The6thQueen · 13/01/2026 22:49

“On the other hand, that doesn't mean that groups have the right to do things like shut down trains, or break into buildings, or sabotage planes, or interfere with the police doing their work. You can call that a protest but it's also illegal and doesn't fall under "expressing dissent as a group."

That’s illegal though and not under right to protest.

Removing the right to protest in order to stop the above illegal acts is like throwing the baby out with the bath water. It’s not a valid or proportionate response.

Right to protest is vital. There are laws to protect it. Breaking and entering is illegal, interfering with police work is illegal and there are methods in place to give consequence to that.

Shoplifting is illegal. A very simple solution would be to stop more than 10 people going into a supermarket at a time, monitoring each of them with cctv. This is a disproportionate response which infringes on their rights, much like stopping protesting because some people carry out illegal acts whilst doing it. 🙄

*edited for grammar

Holdonforsummer · 13/01/2026 21:36

Erm, take a look at what is happening in Iran right now and tell me you want to ban protesting.

Bathingnow · 13/01/2026 21:00

TempestTost · 13/01/2026 17:58

In a way there isn't really a special right to protest. There is a right to dissent, a right to express that dissent publicly, and a right to get together with other peopel and do those things.

I would say those are all core rights in a democracy.

Where it becomes more complicated is when you get to questions like, what responsibility does the state have to facilitate this kind of public dissent? And what happens when the public dissent begins to affect others.

So we might say, the state should try to make sure that when there is a public gathering for purposes of expressing political dissent, they need to try and make some space for that. So maybe they need to be willing to issue permits to groups for gatherings, for example. Maybe they need to tell the police to be restrained when making sure a protest doesn't get out of hand.

On the other hand, that doesn't mean that groups have the right to do things like shut down trains, or break into buildings, or sabotage planes, or interfere with the police doing their work. You can call that a protest but it's also illegal and doesn't fall under "expressing dissent as a group."

There are grey areas though,for example, is a sit-in on government property a protest, or trespassing? Which is why sometimes they are let go, and sometimes people can be arrested. But I think usually the line is where the protest really starts to infringe on others who are going about their business. You can protest, but you can't tell everyone else they have to bear the consequences of it.

Exactly.

OP posts:
Bathingnow · 13/01/2026 20:59

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

flatterlylatterly · 13/01/2026 20:16

Tastesodd · 13/01/2026 19:50

I think so. At least lots of passionate and robust answers appreciating our democratic rights on this AI generated post.

Yes it's good to see. These rights can quietly disappear if we don't hang on to them. Obviously protesters should not intimidate or injure the public but we have laws for that .

AncientMarina · 13/01/2026 19:59

MyLimeGuide · 13/01/2026 19:32

Yeah i agree with you OP protesters are annoying as hell.

It's this kind of erudite contribution that wins hearts and minds.

If only we could all be this compelling and erudite there would be no need for protest marches and we could win our cases with the pen alone.

Fgfgfg · 13/01/2026 19:57

There will be a lot of women on here who benefit from buses that lower and allow pushchairs to be wheeled on. How do you think that happened? Did bus operators think it would be nice if we adapted our buses so people didn't have to fold up pushchairs whilst juggling babies and shopping or was it an accidental byproduct of the campaigns by disabled people for accessible public transport? People stopped traffic, chained themselves to the buses that they could not use, and actively campaigned for changes to allow disabled people the right to access public transport. Were people inconvenienced? Yes. Do I as an able bodied person resent their actions? No, and neither should you OP.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-54862889
Excellent clip on the fight for accessible transport. Also features the actor and disability activist Liz Carr (Silent Witness)

Protester held by police

The disabled activists who brought London to a halt

Disabled rights have changed significantly since 1995, when the Disability Discrimination Act was passed, but activists say the fight isn't over.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-54862889

Tastesodd · 13/01/2026 19:50

flatterlylatterly · 13/01/2026 19:45

Good point. Is this is yet more propaganda?

I think so. At least lots of passionate and robust answers appreciating our democratic rights on this AI generated post.

flatterlylatterly · 13/01/2026 19:45

PumpkinSparkleFairy · 13/01/2026 13:31

This is a very tedious argument OP, sorry.

How do you think you got the vote?? I mean really.

Good point. Is this is yet more propaganda?

The6thQueen · 13/01/2026 19:37

MyLimeGuide · 13/01/2026 19:32

Yeah i agree with you OP protesters are annoying as hell.

What a privileged world you come from, where your own inconvenience is your priority.

MyLimeGuide · 13/01/2026 19:32

Yeah i agree with you OP protesters are annoying as hell.

Tastesodd · 13/01/2026 19:26

Bathingnow · 13/01/2026 14:43

I thought I was clear enough in the OP. I even used chatgpt to make my points clear.

You should absolutely have the right to voice dissenting opinions. You should absolutely not have the right to stop other people going about their daily lives.

Alas. Says it all. If I can be bothered I'll get my AI to reply.

Tastesodd · 13/01/2026 19:10

Bathingnow · 13/01/2026 17:50

Numbers isn't an issue in itself. If you wanted to organize 10k people coming to Parliament and raising your voices, I'd be fine with that. Even if an unintended consequence is car/public-transport traffic.

What I have an issue with is Tom making Harry's life miserable because he's unhappy about something in his own life. Your right to make your displeasure known should stop at the point where you actively infringe on other people's rights to live their lives.

What makes the person with an agenda more important than the rest of us?

Just curious are you using chatgpt?

LVhandbagsatdawn · 13/01/2026 18:51

Bathingnow · 13/01/2026 17:45

I would actually be okay with protests at appropriate venues, eg Parliament. But when it directly affects ordinary people, that's an injustice.

In what way is a protest inherently different from a child throwing a tantrum until it's parents give in?

It may have escaped your notice, but the govt aren't our parents. They are elected representatives, nothing more.

Neither are the public children.

The public in this country have a very heavy say in the rule of law and so forth, although many are not aware of it because it is often very historic and many people won't come into contact with it during the course of their life. It is why we have trials by jury - you are not convicted by some lofty official or by the crown or by the govt, but by your peers. There is even a concept in our legal system (although not formally written down) of jury nullification, where even if the jury believes someone is guilty they can still return a not guilty verdict if they believe the law is unjust.

I think some background reading on our history, our constitution and how our legal system operates might be beneficial.

The6thQueen · 13/01/2026 18:50

Bringemout · 13/01/2026 18:42

On the inconvenience thing I’ve never seen a protest where people are annoying and thought “oh wait, they may have a point”. I think “what an inconsiderate wanker, I really hope they fuck off soon and take their rubbish with them”.

I support protest but who’s really convinced by any of that?

Few articles for you to read to see why;

https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/greeceatlse/2025/03/24/the-power-of-protest-examining-mass-mobilizations-impact-on-social-change/

https://www.bps.org.uk/psychologist/legitimacy-protest

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10162496/

https://www.bbc.co.uk/future/article/20190513-it-only-takes-35-of-people-to-change-the-world

They’re relatively unbiased authors, with behavioural science backgrounds, although I’m aware the BBC isn’t considered such by all.

The Power of Protest: Examining Mass Mobilization’s Impact on Social Change - Greece@LSE

Introduction Do protests matter? Can mass mobilisations truly drive social change? Recent events in Greece have reignited this longstanding debate about protest efficacy. Throughout history, mobilisations have been a defining feature of democratic proc...

https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/greeceatlse/2025/03/24/the-power-of-protest-examining-mass-mobilizations-impact-on-social-change/

The6thQueen · 13/01/2026 18:42

Simonjt · 13/01/2026 18:40

Thousands of women threw a tantrum in that case, if you disagree I have to assume you have never voted? As after all you wouldn’t wish to gain for something you’re against. Or are you happy to benefit from protests?

Apparently, we should just use our votes to bring about change. The irony has escaped OP’s notice that the very reason all of us (non-aristocratic and female) have those votes is because of protest. They’re spouting utter nonsense - I’m not normally this brusque, but this is nonsensical 😂

Bringemout · 13/01/2026 18:42

On the inconvenience thing I’ve never seen a protest where people are annoying and thought “oh wait, they may have a point”. I think “what an inconsiderate wanker, I really hope they fuck off soon and take their rubbish with them”.

I support protest but who’s really convinced by any of that?

Simonjt · 13/01/2026 18:40

Bathingnow · 13/01/2026 17:45

I would actually be okay with protests at appropriate venues, eg Parliament. But when it directly affects ordinary people, that's an injustice.

In what way is a protest inherently different from a child throwing a tantrum until it's parents give in?

Thousands of women threw a tantrum in that case, if you disagree I have to assume you have never voted? As after all you wouldn’t wish to gain for something you’re against. Or are you happy to benefit from protests?

The6thQueen · 13/01/2026 18:33

Bathingnow · 13/01/2026 17:50

Numbers isn't an issue in itself. If you wanted to organize 10k people coming to Parliament and raising your voices, I'd be fine with that. Even if an unintended consequence is car/public-transport traffic.

What I have an issue with is Tom making Harry's life miserable because he's unhappy about something in his own life. Your right to make your displeasure known should stop at the point where you actively infringe on other people's rights to live their lives.

What makes the person with an agenda more important than the rest of us?

Again, laughable - so it’s ok if it disrupts someone else, but not you? London is alright to upset, people who work in and around the Palace Westminster are OK to be inconvenienced, but not the rest of us 🤣🤣

Stompythedinosaur · 13/01/2026 18:31

Bathingnow · 13/01/2026 16:43

Being obstructed from going about your daily life is an injustice.

I think you must live a life of privilege to think this!

I also imagine to profit daily from the many rights others have protested for.

If you believe significant changes (such as voting rights for women, equal pay, equality laws of all kinds really) would have been generously gifted by a benevolent government without the protests that went into fighting for these, you are naive.

Oppressors never stop oppressing just because you meekly ask, don't be silly.

SerendipityJane · 13/01/2026 18:19

When I was at primary school, our road was a rat run. As traffic increased in the 1970s after a series of near misses all parents raised worries with the council continually. Letters, meetings etc. For 3 years.

Then, of course, a lad was killed - 9 year old younger brother of a lad in my class.

Parents took matters into their own hand and had a sit in across the road. Cars backed up for getting on for half a mile.

My DM attended. This was despite the fact the we lived on the school side of the street so never had to cross a road. But DM did it for the community. And (along with a dozen other mums) got arrested for her trouble. (You can see where I get it).

Within 2 weeks a temporary barrier had been fitted - made permanent a year later.

AncientMarina · 13/01/2026 18:09

Bathingnow · 13/01/2026 17:52

You what? It would always be wrong to block someone else's driveway, even if you're doing so in the name of your Very Important Cause.

Sorry Emmeline, you can't park there.

AncientMarina · 13/01/2026 18:08

Have you ever cared about anything enough to want to protest OP?

Perhaps workers rights? The environment? Anti war protest? Anti nuclear? Animal rights?

Having done so I can tell you it's a right rush, you really feel what it is to be human and to stand up and be counted. To be there amongst hundred/thousand/tens of thousands of other people and make your voice heard.

More than voting, it's above and beyond.

I for one am glad the suffragist movement got up out of their chairs and made merry hell. What if all that stopped forever?

PGmicstand · 13/01/2026 18:04

MeganM3 · 13/01/2026 13:29

Because writing letters to your MP or posting on twitter doesn’t lead to any actual change.
The government often only takes action, or reverses their plans when people start taking physical action and making life difficult.

Most protesters don’t want to interrupt the average person, it’s an unfortunate side effect of getting seen and heard. If we look back in history, god what an inconvenience the suffragettes must have been. But where would we be now without all the havoc they reeked.

Yes action is usually the only way to achieve any results. If people aren't being inconvenienced and disrupted (and consequently businessws etc beinf impacted) then there is not any incentive for change to happen.
It's only through protests that we have many of the rights we do.

With regard to being able to say what you want without consequences that's dangerous. At the present time there seems to be a rise in people spouting racist, ableist, homophobic and misogynistic views. They're entitled to have a view but when they start moving to hate speech then there definitely should be consequences.

Fernsrus · 13/01/2026 18:04

Protest is NOT directed at ordinary people. I suppose you mean Israelis? Any directing at Israelis in Uk is wrong. Directing at what the Israelis state in Israel has done, and is still doing, is fair enough.Lets not pretend here that this thread was started by a disinterested party.

Swipe left for the next trending thread