Are there limits to Political Protest?

[El Pibe]

I have to say I'm having a little trouble pinning down what you're arguing Chippy.

I think I stand with you but hard to tell on the shifting sands.

You say that the ukuncut protest must be legitimate because there were no arrests, which whilst possibly true in this case is not a great measure of things given that police someties allow laws to be broken for public order interests, using evidence gathered to arrest further down the line.

I mean remeber the riots, they often sat back and watched wholesale theft and vandalism in a bid not to escalate the violence.

From what I've read there are actually few arrests at EDL events, these mostly for public disorder offences.

The EDL have been very careful about their positioning in terms of incitement to racial hatred and largely stayed on the right side of the law, meaning your opposition comes from your instincts and feelings that this is posturing and deep down inside they are racists who would like to incite violence.

Whilst I largely agree that this is probably true of many of its supporters it is extremely shaky ground when banning an organisation in a democracy.

Conversely you suspect that ukuncut's heart is in the right place so don't feel inclined to do anything about them, when actuyally there might well be a case to be made under harassment laws.

It's an interesting question you pose about context, but I guess the strict answer is that there is no issue with either of your examples. The more realistic answer is that there's no way your hypothetical group, let's call them Better Rights For Pederasts, would be granted licence for such a protest, almost certainly with their own safety in mind as a lynch mob would turn up.

While no fan of Islam4UK (see also Al-Muhajiroun and its various incarnations), I think they're a bunch of idiots, I think that protesting military action in Afghanistan in the light of the apathy and stifled debate around the deployment is a very healthy thing to do, and doing it in Tunbridge Wells on a wet wednesday probably won't get the cause much publicity, so why not doing it in an emotive context?

[Chippy Minton]

I'm not sure how to make myself any clearer, but I'll have one last shot.

I think the EDL is a racist and violent organisation and because it incites these things it was right their march through Tower Hamlets was banned.

I do not think UK Uncut harassed Nick Clegg or broke any laws and so therefore it was right it wasn't banned.

[Huguenot]

The UK Uncut exercise was explained clearly by their own representatives:

They wanted to make politics personal.

In doing so they wanted to rubbish ideas, intelligence and coherent debate.

They didn't want Nick Clegg to make decisions based on well thought out solutions to difficult problems, they wanted explicitly to harrass and intimidate him through the humilation and incapacitation of his friends, family and neighbours.

In effect they were made hostage to the agenda of UK Uncut, a minority direct action group whose activities are only different from the Red Brigade in terms of degree. To endorse this kind of politics is to facilitate it.

Whether Clegg was there or not is irrelevant - it is the intent that counted.

That aside it is also blatantly stupid. Making any decision 'personal' only entrenches positions and polarises debate to the extent that meaningful action is impossible.

[Huguenot]

Can I add, that I'm absolutely staggered by the proposal that those who disagree with elected local councillors should go and harrass them outside their house?

There is absolutely no role for a mob in achieving political goals. This is absolutely insane.

[joylobo]

It is such a point of discussion in which you may get many different answers....but for me I think yes there are limits in every thing they why not in this.

[????]

What huge said. I'm flabbergasted peoiple think this is alright... presumably becuase it's the 'ghastly ConDems (geddit) and people who aren't seen as progressive deserve any smears, harrassment, vitriol etc etc just because they don't share the 'progressives' world view...what an inclusive viewpoint

[RosieH]

And I'm staggered at the notion that politics shouldn't be personal. But then I'm of the persuasion that the personal is political. The cuts are having a direct, personal and hugely detrimental effect on real lives, while the government tells us to go and have a street party.

To suggest that responding with a street party protest is "explicitly to harrass and intimidate him through the humilation and incapacitation of his friends, family and neighbours" seems a little histrionic to me. Where have UK Uncut said that that was their explicit intent? I'm a subscriber, wasn't on anything I had from them on email / social. Wasn't on any interview or statement I've seen from them. Certainly wasn't the reported experience of people involved.

People are on their knees and being forced to sleep under bridges in the pouring rain for unpaid work experience, so that those untroubled by austerity can enjoy a lovely stewarded pageant. Don't tell me it's not personal.

Bread and circuses. Only, you know, without the bread.

[????]

People are on their knees and being forced to sleep under bridges in the pouring rain for unpaid work experience, so that those untroubled by austerity can enjoy a lovely stewarded pageant

Obviuosly that story is going to run and run in all usual places until any private company - and do you know what, they aren't all bad - will stop giving work experience beacuse it's "evil capitalism' rather than in many cases a genuine chance to give people some useful experience. So they'll leave them signing on and that's it. Still Polly Tonybee et al will feel they've done the 'underclass' a favour and boast about it at their Hampstead soirees.

[RosieH]

I have no problem with genuine work experience that potentially leads to a job, or at the very least developing skills that could lead to a job. This did neither. And the magnificent metaphor of the jobless serfs sleeping in the rain to wait on royalty would be hilarious if it weren't also true.

But yet another "one off" from a government that forces people to degrade themselves for their benefits is ok, while a harmless street party isn't?

Something's more a little arse about tit about that.

[????]

It's the precedent of inavding people's privacy because you don't agree with them. It's pretty strightforward - yes you hate 'them' but it's still not right. Where were they when Tony, Gordon et al invaded Iraq on fabricated tosh by the way?

[uncleglen]

John Prescott is obviously going to make this 'jobseekers sleeping under the bridges in the pouring rain and working for nothing' thing his pet project for the forseeable. I heard that the jobseekers were volunteers (probably the only way they could get there); the coach driver brought them to London too early and so they had to 'make-do' unfortunately. Hopefully they should get a CV entry from this, if not another offer- and if they are able bodied why not? There are plenty of unemployed collecting benefits AND doing cash-in-hand work.

Have you seen the state of Finsbury Square?

[RosieH]

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It's the precedent of inavding people's privacy

> because you don't agree with them. It's pretty

> strightforward - yes you hate 'them' but it's

> still not right. Where were they when Tony, Gordon

> et al invaded Iraq on fabricated tosh by the way?

I guess that's where we differ - I don't see it as invaded privacy. I really don't. And not just because I think the coalition's a bunch of c**ts. There was't trespass, there wasn't intimidation or harassment. Everything that I've seen or heard about it shows it to have been rather polite.

I'd have been just as happy had they done likewise around the Iraq war - although that raises an interesting point. Maybe it's precisely because of the failure of the protests against the war that people felt they weren't being heard and needed different tactics. If a million people marching has no effect, perhaps it's time to look at something more bespoke.

[StraferJack]

Blair's house has been surrounded by people

back in 2004

not over the war mind you, but people have done it

[StraferJack]

oh wait - an anti-war vigil outisde Blair's house

[????]

And do you support that? Infact, argubly what Blair was doing WAS illegal whereas all Clegg has done is be deputy PM of a govermenemt implementing some policies which many people in the country actually agree with. The 6th form rantings of uncut and the middleclass tossers camped outside StPauls are a bunch of quasi-lefties having a wet dream because its like the 80s again as far as I'm concerned, nothing to do with actually trying to get our country in a stronger position to deal with problems like inequality of opportunity and poverty. So many people on the left just absolutely refuse to acknoledge that so there are many people who don't shrae their ideas of solving these but do care just as much. Adolescent, unthinking tribalism in my book.

[StraferJack]

I deliberately have been staying out of as many arguments as possible ? but when you started to justify your position by saying ?doing it to Clegg is wrong and why didn?t people do it to Blair? I thought haaaaang on a minute, you?re just throwing mud now and provided examples of people doing just that

Do I agree with it (protesting outside politicians homes?) - Short answer is ?no?. Longer answer is it?s hard to see the Clegg example as anything but a tea party compared with previous examples and too much is being made of it

You don?t need to beat the Blair?s-illegal-war drum with me ? I and many other have been saying exactly that since day 1

But your anti-left tirade seems odd given that it was the countryside alliance who doorstopped Blair in 2004 ? it?s a tactic used by all sides

As for the rest of your post, you seem to be getting angry again, tilting at some leftish-shaped windmills in a generalised way but has got little to do with what is being discussed here

[RosieH]

Have you talked to any of them before you dismissed them, Quids?

Because your post just comes across as an anti-leftie rant (the ubiquitous reference to Toynbee, really..?) Or maybe it's more that in your day, people did it properly: poll-tax riots n that. If you don't think this is the way to go about things, what would you suggest instead to get their voices heard?

The pageant workers debacle was an absolute gift to the left - but only because it's SO appalling, so ridiculous, so extreme, and the poetic juxtaposition of the jobless under a bridge while the monarchy sails blithely by is what makes people who wouldn't ordinarily care take notice. The real people to be fucked off with here are the ones who are perpetrating this kind of diabolical action - not the ones who use it to make political hay to try to bring it to an end.

People are right to be angry. People are right to protest. Thank fuck they are. Thank fuck not everyone's completely apathetic as all the world goes to hell in a handcart. I think a street party is a peculiarly British and witty riposte - more power to their cake making elbows I say.

[????]

if you want to see the world truly going to hell in a hand cart visit go to Greece...that's where continually spending money you don't have gets you. In the maentime just the 10% we've cut off our annual budget defeceit has everyone squealing (but especially middle class, er, lefties) and the polls marginally rejecting it (see also France), if we don't get this sorted really unplasant as it is going to be, then there is a car crash further down the road for us all to some degree, but especially the weak and the poor and the underprivileged. My rejection of them (uncut etc) is based entirely on their economic luddism and let's be honest they're, in the main, all pretty middleclass too.

I'm taking an entirely non-emotional marxist perspective on this, it's just economics.

the rich aren't the answer btw. There's only a few million upper rate tax payers (most of all are hardly rich and I'm guessing a significant proportion of posters on here) and, even I was surprised, just a handful 200 or so earn more than ?10 million. There aren't enough 'rich' to tax this away anf good luck to any party raising the basic rate of tax to say 40% to deall with the defeceit by taxation solely. The budget defeceit is massive, our liabilities are grwing long term (pensions and healhtcare to an ageing population) and we need to deal with it.

Uncut etc can carry on putting hands over their ears and screaming as much as they like but we have austerity now or calamity in the future.

[????]

To be clear - of course it was disgusting what happened with the Job Seekers - although I heard one guy on the news saying he found the experience extremley valuabel,obvioulsy angling for a job and I'd employ him tomorrow - but some tory conspiracy to provide their chums with free labour or a cockup...mmm, I know what I think

By the way now Harrii's gone I've only got Tonybee.

And to SJ - blimey, I thought I'd clearly made the point that politicians shouldn't be harrassed at home, and even unprompted tea parties by very nice, humourous, middle class people is that as was the action by the hunters etc. I seem to remember the Hunters getting pretty thoroughly condemned although their action was more unpleasant.

[Chippy Minton]

Hmmm...a reference to Greece, and moving back to the OP's question - perhaps what has gone on there, with the rioting/petrol bombing the police etc should be considered the limit to political protest rather than "The 6th form rantings of uncut and the middleclass tossers camped outside StPauls" and "unprompted tea parties by very nice, humourous, middle class people" ?

[El Pibe]

Just as an addendum to quids' rantings about our politicians I thought I might quote this gem i found in a blog somewhere

Miliband: don?t think he?d come round at night and steal your garden gnomes, but you wouldn?t lend him any money.

Cameron: Would steal your garden gnomes and then break them in an act of purple-faced spite.

Clegg: Would steal your garden gnomes, then come round your house pretending to be a concerned neighbour and nick your wallet.

Brown: would steal your children and replace them with garden gnomes.

Blair: a sort of black hole of distrust, where distrust flips over into its opposite in another part if the multiverse and you pay him to take your children away and carry the garden gnomes to the van for him while he lectures you about rights and responsibilities.

Hunt: A kind of obsidian cinder of bad faith. He is tolerated because he is perceived not so much as a human being but as physical evidence of original sin.

[Loz]

Balls: Sit him down, give him a pointy hat and a fishing rod and... voila! A garden gnome.

D Milliband. Purchased a garden gnome, called it 'Ed' and threw it off a bridge.

Major: Talks to garden gnomes. Oh, yes.

Thatcher: Sold all the UK's garden gnomes at a discount

Clinton: Accidentally shagged a garden gnome

George W: Once lost a game of chess to a garden gnome.