[g8-sheffield] Re: the right of unlawful protest

[@@]

> It does mean that we should refuse to accept the discourse of 
> 'il/legal protest(ors)'.
> 
> What should that translate to in practice? It's at least a serious
> argument for:
> 
> - refusing to take part in a particular 'legal protest' if the terms 
> are unacceptable (e.g. an arbitrary restriction on numbers) -
> distancing ourselves from any attempt to define a protest which is 
> otherwise acceptable as a 'legal protest'

Thank you so much for expressing my views so accurately, Dougald.
I am trying to remember how the events occurred in my personal agenda:
the demo scheduled for 6,30 or so around Cathedral was published
together with the Rice for dinner event and leaflet distributed for them
both as if the same organizers were promoting both events. This leaflet
which i can produce any time was at the convergence place. I am just
making quick comments exercising my right to comment: not criticising
anybody or judging anyone for having done this or that: let's try to
keep this impersonal: the 100  protesters who were voluntarily penned in
were not aware of the restrictions imposed on their demo, were not aware
of previous negotiations with police authorities and were not aware of
how the mainstream media were going to portray their performance (in
relation to the criminalized impromptu groups). STop the war coalition
did not dare lose their niche of political power by refusing humiliating
terms such as a restricted number of protesters. I guess Muslim groups
have no other resource, but StoptWCoal could have acted in a more honest
way towards all protesters, rather than manipulating us and making us
believe we were protesting for the right to protest...

Hurrah for the group staging the guantanamo base prisoners and censored
mouths in the background.







dougald hine wrote:

> Laws are made by parliament (usually the government's rubber stamp) 
> and executed by the government itself.
> 
> When we protest against governments and their actions, we are 
> reminding them that power belongs to the people and is at best loaned
>  (often grudgingly) to those who exercise it.
> 
> If we accept the government's right to classify our protest as legal 
> or illegal, we are giving up the very power we are meant to be 
> asserting.
> 
> This does not mean that:
> 
> - breaking the law is good because laws are bad - only people who
> break the law are real protestors - it isn't totally acceptable for
> people (like Kathleen, not to mention myself) to make a pragmatic
> decision not to take actions which could get them arrested because of
> personal circumstances
> 
> It does mean that we should refuse to accept the discourse of 
> 'il/legal protest(ors)'.
> 
> What should that translate to in practice? It's at least a serious
> argument for:
> 
> - refusing to take part in a particular 'legal protest' if the terms 
> are unacceptable (e.g. an arbitrary restriction on numbers) -
> distancing ourselves from any attempt to define a protest which is 
> otherwise acceptable as a 'legal protest'
> 
>