Surely the line is when you put down the placard and pick up a brick?
Just because you're doing it out anger towards a policy doesn't
negate the fact that smashing stuff up is against the law.
A protest is supposed to change things by either gathering enough
of the people behind you so come an election you can vote out the cunts.
Or make said cunts afraid of being voted out at the next election they
change now in the hope you'll vote for them again.
Just because you call something a protest does not excuse you from acting within the law.
Also, No socialist worker banner = Not a protest.
Didn't see one banner during these events.
[edit]
As a case in point. Let's bring up the BNP, NF EDL etc.
Now they would much rather this country was a little whiter.
Would it be an acceptable protest if they were to travel to an area and smash in shops owned my non-whites? Or burn down the houses of refugees?
In their head it's a protest.
(
Cerebus Sticky! Sticky! Stick! Stick!, Wed 17 Aug 2011, 12:52,
Reply)
I'm not going to dispute the difference between rioting and protesting, nor am I going to defend people who wilfully cause harm to other people.
You are correct in your distinction. But I will say this:
The article I linked to should demonstrate how the authorities are prepared to manipulate existing laws to punish political protesters, especially non-violent protesters, in an effort to prevent future protest.
What I'm trying to say is this: If they can put you down for 4 years for advocating a riot that never took place, how long before they extend that principle and lock up political activists who call for or suggest a protest, such as the Fortnum & Masons occupation, on the pretext that what they are advocating may break a law?
On legal grounds there isn't a distinction between motivations.
So if I said "we should occupy the TopShop on Oxford Street because billionaire owner Phillip Green pays less tax than me" on Facebook I could be arrested for 'inciting people to break the law'. Which law? Something like a 'public order offence' or 'Breach of the Queen's Peace' which is generally what political activists get locked up for.
This isn't too much of a stretch of either the imagination or the legal precedent that this case has set. How hard is that to grasp?
(, Wed 17 Aug 2011, 13:58, Reply)
Well if your occupying a building against the wishes of the owner then you are breaking the law.
What you have to ask yourself is if you believe in the cause enough to take the punishment.
Also you site the example of the F&M "occupation". That was miles away from the violent protests
the these two were convicted of trying to provoke. The police would probably use the law to
get the FB page taken down though not likely to earn you a 4 year span.
I don't get this generation with their attitude to direct action. The Animal Liberation Front never expected
to be let off if they were caught. The hunger strikers never expected last minute medical intervention.
You believe in a cause enough you decide to act outside of the law then bear in mind two things.
1) Be prepared to get caught and do the time knowing that it is worth it.
2) Hope that the public sympathise with you and vote along those lines encourage by your example.
Do not hijack someone else's protest march that they bothered to organise and set out an agreed route.
Do not break the law expecting daddies lawyer to sort everything out as it's just jolly japes.
And remember just because it's a left wing protest don't expect to be treated any lighter than if it were a rightwing one. To give a mirror image of your F&M occupation. What if the EDL started occupying mosques?
(
Cerebus Sticky! Sticky! Stick! Stick!, Wed 17 Aug 2011, 15:48,
Reply)