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

[Bathingnow]

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.

So in your eyes it's bad to be doing it to highlight injustice, but OK to save a few pennies on using a car park or to avoid a few yards extra walk ?

I absolutely believe in right to protest … also free speech which is sadly now not so supported … I remember my old grandad many years ago would say .. I may not agree with what you say but I fight for your right to say it … shame we have lost that … how do we know what others think if we do not listen …

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.

There already isn't any blanket right to protest which causes disturbance. It just seems a bit oddly interpreted sometimes, imho. So standing around outside an Israeli owned restaurant in North London and intimidating customers is somehow a protest. Ok.

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.

What I have an issue with is Tom making Harry's life miserable because he's unhappy about something in his own life.

I can barely think of a disruptive protest where the protester is unhappy about something in their own life. Protests on a disruptive scale are always about something that has impact on many people's lives.

No, it would not be an injustice. If you were doing it in furtherance of a cause you’d be protesting, and if you were doing it for your own convenience you’d be a prick.

For months on end every single year the football season causes disruption, traffic chaos, parking problems, antisocial behaviour, blocked streets etc.

Regularly big sporting events or cultural events do the same.

Why should this be acceptable?

Why is that more important than disruption cause by people standing up for something you believe in?

.

You are so wrong.

Not more important but AS important, for me was the point where the only way I could get equality or change the law was by direct protest. We where getting old trying all the polite ways.

Society chose to deem us unimportant, we felt we had to make ourselves important even if through what we could do negatively.

The aim wasn't specifically to inconvenience others, it was to force publicity that we wouldn't be passive anymore, but the question reporters asked us all the time was 'what about others being inconvenienced?' Our answer was 'what about us being more than inconvenienced, actually stopped from participating in life?'
No one is more important than the other, but if we say only the strong get their needs met, it leads to the weaker finding ways to make the strong listen.

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.

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.

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?

Sorry Emmeline, you can't park there.

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.

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.

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 🤣🤣

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?

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?

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 😂

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.

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.

Just curious are you using chatgpt?

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

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