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.

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

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.

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)

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.

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 .

Exactly.

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

“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

I’d much rather bear the consequence of inconvenience due to protesters than bear the consequence of losing my rights and liberties because I have no voice anymore.

There are people on the thread arguing that things like this are within the definition of protesting.

There are people saying that the point of protesting is to make things difficult and unpleasant so the government does what they want.

I have at various times on MN seen people say that those yahoos that broke into the military base, people blocking low enforcement, people stopping trains from running, or blocking highways, are all legitimate forms of protest so they shouldn't feel legal consequences.

I suspect that kind of approach is informing the OPs stance on this, since she said that gathering and voicing dissent is fine in her view.

Heavy traffic caused by people using roads for their intended purpose is not the same as people deliberately blocking roads to make a point.

A protest might make traffic slow due to congestion. But there are also protesters who block traffic to be a pain in the ass. Or deliberately stop trains that affect thousands of people, even potentially millions. There was a protest in my country where a group stopped trains for over a week.

OP's post explains why democracy is so precarious. Giving away rights without even realising it.

Exactly this. Thank you for that link.

How would you fit in 1 or 2 million into Parliament sq? and what about the inconvenience they cause when getting there/leaving?

I don't think anyone is saying toddler tantrums should be banned, i look at the ones i had to put up with now and they were really funny! esp the one when she went bananas because she couldn't get another ride in a Noddy car at a shopping centre... i like reminding her of that one😂

With the best intentions, you appear to be trying to equate blocking your neighbour in with a car (which is criminal) with say people marching to let their feelings known on Fox hunting, Iraq, Brexit, ID Cards, Migration...or in previous years - votes for women.... sure i get the Gaza Protests are bit tiresome but if these were banned, then i'm sure the authorities, inc this Govt, would seek to ban them all.

With kindness, I do suggest you take a peek at history books at some point: I take it you own property and vote? Two things you wouldn’t have if it weren’t for the more troublesome Pankhurst.

People have bought the rights we have now with their own blood. And now we have a generation of people so uneducated that many of us are actually calling to have our own rights removed to curtail rights for others. It makes me so sad.

Yeah, like those Iranians causing so much inconvenience. 🙄

Yes it’s fine for people to protest as long as it’s not YOU that can’t get to hospital, can’t get to work, can’t get to the funeral, or it’s not your property that’s being damaged.

Can you find an Iranian accessible Internet forum to post on so that they know not to inconvenience people there?
OTOH they aren’t really being allowed by their government and are being shot/executed instead so is this what you’d like to happen to stop protests?
Don’t assume a very hardline government couldn’t happen here - we’d still be licking the boots of the ruling classes here if we’d always just sent letters - oh but we probably couldn’t have sent them, education rights.
I counter protest at hotels - I could be tempted to agree people shouldn’t be protesting outside them, though I’d say they’re intimidating the vulnerable. However, it is one of the Ltd ways by which they can demonstrate their frustration at immigration/hotel costs to the point the government may take notice - and tbf they are taking notice of the loudest views on the street with their immigration policies. However much I dislike and disagree with this personally, there is no world where only my view rules, or should do, and everyone must be allowed what here are becoming limited protesting rights - we should all fight to keep them and use them.
There are many rules - you’re obviously not allowed criminal activity just because you’re on a protest and would be arrested. This can be disorder not just violence. There are time frames to reduce this ‘inconvenience’ as well. There are section 14s used to stop them happening and/or to limit them as well.
I am worried to see that for some people their own convenience trumps rights for others - not actually society friendly when you think about it.

You don’t have a “right” to get to work, you have a “responsibility” and part of that responsibility is checking the route and making adjustments or at least communicating issues to your manager.

Of course people should have a right to peaceful protest.

Can I ask again why people don't make a point of inconveniencing MPs, government buildings, CEOs and Head offices?
Why is it always the people that can afford it the least that get to suffer?

This.

That rather leaves a bad taste if you are a wheelchair user who could not board a bus because it was filled with pushchairs.

They do. You just don't notice because it's not inconveniencing you. And it doesn't tend to get news coverage because it's not inconveniencing the general public. Since we live in a democracy, politicians respond best to things that affect large numbers of the electorate and may affect their chances of re-election. Therefore protests that involve large numbers of people either actively protesting or annoyed that they are inconvenienced by it tend to receive the most news coverage and the quickest responses.