‘Get off your bike and walk’: Female cyclist “petrified” after man grabs bike and refuses to let go

I'm just working out what form of direct action the Bike Liberation Militia of the Evil Cycling Lobby should take.  Currently I'm going with "go for a ride".

chrisonatrike wrote:

I'm just working out what form of direct action the Bike Liberation Militia of the Evil Cycling Lobby should take.  Currently I'm going with "go for a ride".

I'm a fan of that. The more that motorists see cyclists happily pootling along whilst they are stuck in traffic, the better. In a lot of ways, cycling on public roads in the UK is a protest, but it's annoyingly anti-disruptive and every motorist that decides to cycle makes the traffic flow better.

chrisonatrike wrote:

Can you think of any cause that "won" where you can show that disruptive protest appears to have been the key?  Unfortunately the ones I can think of all had several different types of pressure at once - making a single "cause" hard to point at.  So disruptive protest (or an "armed" / "violent" wing or at least credible threats from same), political movements, "ground-up" action - and possibly "other change in circumstances" too.

Thinking of Northern Ireland, changes in status for black people in the US, women's suffrage in the UK, gay rights, reversal of apartheid laws in South Africa...

It's tricky to know how to define non-disruptive protests as surely any protest has to disrupt everyday behaviour or else it will simply be ignored.

Ghandi's salt march is a good example where non-violent disruption was pivotal in changing British colonialism.

It's a good example!  It certainly sticks in the mind, inspired people at the time, shocked some of the British and likely changed opinions (worldwide) over the longer term.  However it did not achieve either its immediate goals nor rapidly change the situation with the British.  Overall the change (independence) appears to have taken a long time and come about through a mix of lots of factors (there were certainly economic changes and even terrorist campaigns for example).

So maybe it's "necessary but not sufficient"?

chrisonatrike wrote:

It's a good example!  It certainly sticks in the mind, inspired people at the time, shocked some of the British and likely changed opinions (worldwide) over the longer term.  However it did not achieve either its immediate goals nor rapidly change the situation with the British.  Overall the change (independence) appears to have taken a long time and come about through a mix of lots of factors (there were certainly economic changes and even terrorist campaigns for example).

So maybe it's "necessary but not sufficient"?

Found this short read by Kevin A. Young that makes the case for sustained, disruptive protests: https://www.yesmagazine.org/opinion/2020/07/08/history-protests-social-change

Also found this open letter: https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/commentary-and-opinion/in-defence-of-the-non-violent-disruptive-protest-an-open-letter/5104551.article

Quote:

The factors which open the floodgates to waves of protestors, which cause them to abandon social norms and speak out, emanate from the perception that the status quo is in some way broken. That the way things have been is oppressive and must change. So protestors seek to disrupt; not with wanton abandon, nor with glee, but out of desperation to have voices heard which have for too long been passively forgotten or actively silenced.

And yes that sometimes spills over into disruption, into social unrest.

This is unfortunate, but often inevitable, and is the essence of taking to the streets to effect change. Keyboard warriors (this one included) can be ignored out of hand; marching masses cannot.

To paraphrase the stand-up comedian Kae Kurd (because dark humour gets us through dark times): 'If the person you’re protesting against is happy with your means of protest…then that’s not really a protest, is it?'. An idea echoed by another comedian/political commentator, Trevor Noah, host of the Daily Show: 'There is no "right way" [for the Have Nots] to protest because that’s what protest is'.

Such is the nature of every truly seismic act of civil disobedience, of every successful movement for the advancement of the underprivileged that there ever has been or ever will be.

From the 14th century English Peasants’ Revolt, to the Suffragettes sticking it to the patriarchy in the early 20th, to Martin Luther King proclaiming 'I have a Dream' in 1963, the story is the same. The Haves disregard the Have Nots until the downtrodden cause a sufficient nuisance that they can no longer be ignored.

So when a vocal minority of Haves chastise the Have Nots by saying 'you’re being far too disruptive', the response from protestors should simply be 'thank you…that’s the point'.

So non violent but disruptive protests are ok directly outside abortion clinics?

Rich_cb wrote:

So non violent but disruptive protests are ok directly outside abortion clinics?

I'm not sure that I agree with people protesting so that they gain control over other people's bodies and reduce healthcare outcomes. I think there's something pernicious about trying to enforce misguided ideas onto people that are in a vulnerable place. It strikes me as a pinnacle of victim blaming.

I think there's also a nasty political under-current with the U.S.'s current obsession with abortion. One of the political aims of criminalising abortion is to reduce the number of women who are able to vote (and especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds) as they do not allow criminals to vote.

Protesting to equalise people's rights is totally different to protesting so that you can oppress others. I'd say that protests outside abortion clinics may well be within their rights, it also smacks of bullying.

The problem is that as soon as you start defining what is an acceptable form of non violent protest you are automatically restricting the right to protest.

Personally, as long as your protest doesn't damage property or endanger people I'm happy for it to go ahead.

Rich_cb wrote:

The problem is that as soon as you start defining what is an acceptable form of non violent protest you are automatically restricting the right to protest. Personally, as long as your protest doesn't damage property or endanger people I'm happy for it to go ahead.

It's not the form of the non violent protest, but what they are protesting for.

Would you allow said protests to go ahead unencumbered by restrictions?

Rich_cb wrote:

Would you allow said protests to go ahead unencumbered by restrictions?

People should have a right to protest and there's often various lines drawn over the level of disruption and whether or not certain behaviour is acceptable or not, so there obviously should be some restrictions e.g. setting fire to abortion clinics should be considered arson. However, if a significant number of people are committing arson and are prepared to stand up for their position and willingly go to jail for their anti-abortion beliefs, then I'd consider that it's a topic that deserves more communication.

What worries me more though, is when an over-represented group of people (rich, white, christians) are using their right of protest to deny the voices of the under-represented.

A similar question could be posed about the January 6th protests and whether they should face justice for their beliefs. And again, I am not sympathetic to them as they were looking to deny the rights of many voters. To be fair, though, that was not really an organised protest, but a failed coup.

Clearly arson would fall outside the realms of non violent protest as would January 6th.

We do have restrictions on the rights of people to protest outside abortion clinics and there are frequent calls for these to be strengthened.

Meanwhile we have protests in which property is deliberately damaged, Colston Statue and various XR related shenanigans spring to mind and these are deemed to not be criminal offences.

Rich_cb wrote:

Clearly arson would fall outside the realms of non violent protest as would January 6th. We do have restrictions on the rights of people to protest outside abortion clinics and there are frequent calls for these to be strengthened. Meanwhile we have protests in which property is deliberately damaged, Colston Statue and various XR related shenanigans spring to mind and these are deemed to not be criminal offences.

Damaging the Colston Statue was deemed to be a criminal offence (criminal damage) and there most certainly was a court trial. However, the jury were specifically asked if they believed a conviction for criminal damage was a “proportionate interference” with the defendants’ rights to freedom of expression, thought and conscience. You may also note that the defendants did not try to hide what they did in an attempt to escape justice.

You'll also note that there was plenty of debate about the statue, but despite being an insulting testament to the proceeds of slavery, the Merchant Venturers managed to disrupt all the attempts to get the statue removed (i.e. follow the will of the people).

Again, there's a huge difference between protest giving a voice to the unheard or conversely, protest being used to oppress a minority.

As for XR related shenanigans, they most certainly have been deemed criminal offences: https://extinctionrebellion.uk/category/trials/

The people who carried out the damage to the statue were found 'not guilty' of criminal damage.

Given that they freely admitted their role it stands to reason that the court found that the damage did not constitute a criminal offence.

Similarly Extinction Rebellion protesters were found not guilty of criminal damage (smashing windows at a bank) despite admitting the offence and providing "no defence in law".

Once 'the right sort' of violent protest becomes tolerated we leave ourselves open to a Jan 6th type event when the 'wrong sort' of protestors decide that they will also resort to violence.

On a less apocalyptic scale we also embolden those who vandalise LTNs.

Rich_cb wrote:

The people who carried out the damage to the statue were found 'not guilty' of criminal damage. Given that they freely admitted their role it stands to reason that the court found that the damage did not constitute a criminal offence. Similarly Extinction Rebellion protesters were found not guilty of criminal damage despite admitting the offence and providing "no defence in law". Once 'the right sort' of violent protest becomes tolerated we leave ourselves open to a Jan 6th type event when the 'wrong sort' of protestors decide that they will also resort to violence. On a less apocalyptic scale we also embolden those who vandalise LTNs.

I think you're arguing in bad faith there.

The Colston Statue and XR protesters have systematically had their voices not heard for decades, so there was only really one way for them to proceed.

LTN "protestors" meanwhile have had plenty of opportunities for their overly loud voices to be heard and even then, they don't stand up for what they believe in and be prepared to face the consequences of their actions. Similarly, the Jan 6th protestors have been trying almost any tactic to elude justice.

There's also an important difference - The Colston Statue was private property damaged for the public benefit whereas anti-LTN protestors are damaging public property for typically their own private benefit.

I think you're the one arguing in bad faith.

There is absolutely no distinction between somebody who damages a statue that they don't like but that has remained standing due to local politics and someone who damages a planter or bollard that exists for similar reasons.

Once violence is tolerated our entire democracy is at risk. January 6th should be a wake up call to that.

Unfortunately people continue to justify violence that they agree with and ignore the inevitable consequences of violent protest becoming acceptable.

If it's ok for XR to smash up an office block because they 'havent had their voice heard for decades' then why can't anti abortion protestors smash up an abortion clinic? Abortion has been legal since 1968 so it's been plenty of decades since they were 'listened to'.

'There's only really one way for them to proceed' after all...

Rich_cb wrote:

I think you're the one arguing in bad faith. There is absolutely no distinction between somebody who damages a statue that they don't like but that has remained standing due to local politics and someone who damages a planter or bollard that exists for similar reasons. Once violence is tolerated our entire democracy is at risk. January 6th should be a wake up call to that. Unfortunately people continue to justify violence that they agree with and ignore the inevitable consequences of violent protest becoming acceptable. If it's ok for XR to smash up an office block because they 'havent had their voice heard for decades' then why can't anti abortion protestors smash up an abortion clinic? Abortion has been legal since 1968 so it's been plenty of decades since they were 'listened to'. 'There's only really one way for them to proceed' after all...

This is getting tiresome.

The Colston statue wasn't just a case of "don't like it", but a clear endorsement of slavery. Availability of abortion has unequivocably improved people's health and welfare which is why the archaic laws were overturned. It's not just a case of "we haven't had our way for a few years", but a case of "we've always been oppressed".

This isn't going anywhere, so I doubt I'll continue responding to this discussion (other discussions welcome, though).

A 'clear endorsement of Slavery' is one interpretation. Other people had different interpretations.

Likewise an LTN planter may represent a safe cycling route to one person and an increased amount of pollution to another.

Once we allow violence to be used by one set of people who feel alienated by the political process we open the door for a lot of other alienated groups to decide that violence is the only way forward.

XR can't even claim to be alienated, the UK has probably done more politically to achieve net zero than any other major economy. The result is one of the biggest reductions in CO2 of any major economy. The idea that the political process isn't working and XR have no choice but violence is laughable.

Gosh - this seems to be an outbreak of relativism - wasn't expecting that!

If an LTN planter (or indeed statue) represented a cheesecake for me, and I ate it, would you say that was fair protest, criminal damage or would you call for urgent medical attention (for them to take me away)?

Would you be in favour of the Chinese government's approach to protest?  After all, I'm sure the protesters were breaking the law!  They could have damaged those tank tracks (or other state property e.g. the protesters themselves) ...

Leaving aside extremes I don't think anyone's here's "allowing violence".  As pointed out the Colston protesters had their day in court and I believe (not been following closely) the XR folks have / will.  As presumably would people vandalising planters - again not aware that anyone's been nicked for that yet.

As you know most humans have the tendency to minimise the (currently) illegal / socially unacceptable actions of those whose aims they broadly support.  This can be quite distasteful but I would be wary of "you didn't condemn it - so you're inciting it" or even "...so you as good as did it yourself".

Our figures on the CO2 by the way - broadly the same trend as Germay over the last 3 decades (World bank data).  Maybe this is largely us outsourcing our heavy / polluting industries and smoky heaters?  (Emit elsewhere.) Just look at Ukraine catching up though!  I've thrown Armenia and Rwanda in for scale - note both are going in the wrong direction.

From your graph we've seen a 40% reduction over that timescale whereas Germany have seen approximately 33%.

A lot of the initial drop was from outsourcing our industry but over the last 10-15 years it's been predominantly driven by domestic improvements.

My point about protest was that violent protest cannot be normalised. If we start allowing violent protest against certain groups and for certain causes we set our society on a very dangerous path.

Non violent protest should be cherished and protected but violent protest should not and can not be tolerated.

chrisonatrike wrote:

Can you think of any cause that "won" where you can show that disruptive protest appears to have been the key?  Unfortunately the ones I can think of all had several different types of pressure at once - making a single "cause" hard to point at.  So disruptive protest (or an "armed" / "violent" wing or at least credible threats from same), political movements, "ground-up" action - and possibly "other change in circumstances" too.

Thinking of Northern Ireland, changes in status for black people in the US, women's suffrage in the UK, gay rights, reversal of apartheid laws in South Africa...

If you consider the Selma march in 1965 a disruptive protest then that could be one. The Civil Rights Act had already been passed in 1964 but little had changed in the Southern states. This was the first time a demonstration where the Police used extreme violence to deter a peaceful march had been nationally televised. It galvanised not only civil rights protesters but also politicians and a large part of the population who previously had not been confronted so directly with the reality of being black in 1960's America.

Another contender could be action by the trade union Solidarity in Poland. They bought down the Communist government and hastened the collapse of the entire Soviet Union.

[/quote]

Isn't it just the result of denying protests?

I don't mean to accuse you of being sexist or racist, but when a society has an entrenched power base that ignores the rights and voices of whole classes of people, then disruptive protest is about the only thing that works.

[/quote]

Depends what you mean by 'works'. The main function of disruptive protest is to allow people who feel powerless to air their objection, frustration or distress about an issue when nothing seems to be happening about it. The main effect, however, is to form antagonisms, entrench an 'us and them' mentality, and stiffen the resolve of governements not to submit to the protestors. Many would see that as 'weak' government. (And I speak as a former participant in many disruptive protests).

Bikeylikey wrote:

Depends what you mean by 'works'. The main function of disruptive protest is to allow people who feel powerless to air their objection, frustration or distress about an issue when nothing seems to be happening about it. The main effect, however, is to form antagonisms, entrench an 'us and them' mentality, and stiffen the resolve of governements not to submit to the protestors. Many would see that as 'weak' government. (And I speak as a former participant in many disruptive protests).

Taking the Suffragette movement as an example, would women have got a vote if they just asked politely? Probably the key to getting results is to hold a sustained disruptive campaign (and possibly violent though that tends to spring from the protests being stopped with police violence) and then after people have gotten used to it, they can then graciously announce that they are stopping the disruption/violence to engage in talks. That way, the govt. can save face and declare that they are only negotiating due to the cessation of disruptive tactics although they (govt) would never have thought of negotiating without the disruptive protests.

Completely agree, except fpr the deplorable use of 'gotten'

In parliament Square there is a statue to convicted and jailed terrorist Nelson Mandela...

hawkinspeter wrote:

Jenova20 wrote:

Act in an extreme way and you'll get an extreme reaction. When your protest becomes disruptive, violent or destructive it should be curbed. At that point you're pretty much just rioting.

If everyone thought like you then women still wouldn't have the vote and slavery would be a lot more common.

If everyone thought like them voting rights would still be linked to owning property and the House of Lords would still be the dominant house.

Radical change has always come through disruptive protest.

hawkinspeter wrote:

Jenova20 wrote:

Act in an extreme way and you'll get an extreme reaction. When your protest becomes disruptive, violent or destructive it should be curbed. At that point you're pretty much just rioting.

If everyone thought like you then women still wouldn't have the vote and slavery would be a lot more common.

There's better ways to get what you want. The suffragettes in the UK were a terrorist movement. They mailed bombs and killed people. If you have to rely on violence for your cause then you can't reason or debate with logic and compassion.

Jenova20 wrote:

There's better ways to get what you want. The suffragettes in the UK were a terrorist movement. They mailed bombs and killed people. If you have to rely on violence for your cause then you can't reason or debate with logic and compassion.

...and when reasoning with logic and compassion leads to getting ridiculed and ignored, what avenues are left?

I can't think of any significant changes to human rights that have come from politely asking people in power to relinquish some of that power.

Jenova20 wrote:

AlsoSomniloquism wrote:

Although I do like you think climate control activists are toxic to be around days after we had such extreme temperatures in Europe.

Act in an extreme way and you'll get an extreme reaction. When your protest becomes disruptive, violent or destructive it should be curbed. At that point you're pretty much just rioting.

if protest isn't disruptive, it isn't gonna be effective. History shows this to be true.  
 

"Pretty much just" is doing an awful lot of work there. 

Jenova20 wrote:

Act in an extreme way and you'll get an extreme reaction. When your protest becomes disruptive, violent or destructive it should be curbed. At that point you're pretty much just rioting.

Is there any form of public protest that could not be classed as "disruptive" to some degree? Even if two people meet to protest, say, outside the Russian embassy, they could be said to be disrupting the passage of people on the pavement. The logical conclusion of "curbing" any protest on the grounds that it was "disruptive" is that nobody would be allowed to protest except within the confines of their own home. Something I'm sure our current Home Secretary would be overjoyed to enforce if she thought she could get away with it.