to think people who say the Suffragettes were terrorists are missing the bloody point?

[IfyouseeRitaMoreno]

Apparently this idea is quite common amongst the young, and has been advanced to me by a Certain Male Member of my family, as well as being discussed today in DS's school. I'm kind of

After googling it the suffragettes did do some pretty extreme stuff (a bomb plot for example) but only after decades not being listened to by Lloyd George and other stuffy parliament knobheads.

No righteous political movement has been entirely without some violence. South Africa had its casualties by the ANC.

Besides they didn't actually kill anyone.

One persons terrorist is another persons freedom fighter.

Some "suffragettes" were more akin to terrorists but they were a tiny percentage but the vast majority of these women were brave, amazing people without whom we as women would be in a very dangerous world which is saying something considering how bad some things for women still are!

So what you're saying is that the end justifies the means, in essence.

So what you're saying is that the end justifies the means, in essence.

I suppose I must be although depending on the desired end, the level of violence and the exhaustion of peaceful methods.

My FIL still says Nelson Mandela was a terrorist (he lived and worked in SA in the ‘70s) We don’t get on.

Perhaps the London tube bombers could be pardoned in 100 years' time as well

And the ANC were also terrorists. Anyone who kills innocent people in an attempt to terrorise a people, nation or, government into submission no matter how 'righteous' their cause is is a terrorist. Political change can be achieved without commiting murder, plenty of righteous causes have triumphed without bloodshed or the attempt at bloodshed. I suggest you go on isisnet to discuss how a 'righteous cause' can justify any means, they'll love you.

They should not be pardoned for acts that put other people at risk. Acts we would now see as terrorism. Regardless of the cause!

The ANC plotted to bomb school children for reference. Definitely terrorists.

I suggest you go on isisnet to discuss how a 'righteous cause' can justify any means, they'll love you.

But that’s the point. The suffragettes didn’t actually kill anyone. Equating them to ISIS is a bit bonkers (which was also the comparison made in the “discussion”.
Saying they’re terrorists is a wilful exaggeration.

The ANC were terrorists. This isn't a moral judgement, it's simply applying a definition of what terrorism is. The fact that terrorism might be done in pursuit of a worthy cause doesn't make it not terrorism. There's nothing in the definition of terrorism that takes into account the worthiness of the cause.

I think that nobody was killed was more luck than judgement.

But the actions of the police and prison staff was disgusting too.

The right to vote was hard won and not an immediate win either - 1918 was just the beginning. Even 100 years later we're still woefully under-represented in Parliament and local govt. that needs to be addressed

Also Lloyd-George wasn't fundamentally opposed to women's suffrage but wanted to ensure votes were balanced.

Asquith was a whole other scenario.