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

[adriana]

Dear John Smith,
if you wish we may continue this conversation at the new Matilda list.
Of course I agree with your first paragraphs: they are approximately the 
same foundations as mine for stating the unlawful right to protest and 
the illegal right to dissent. But here you are confused and confusing:

>  It also follows that our obedience to,
>> or resistance to, what the police chiefs consider to be 'the law' is a
>> tactical question, not a principle to be elevated above all else.
>> 
>> This is the political way to approach this question. We cannot get very far
>> if we instead regard 'rights' as absolute, abstract, existing for all time
>> and all places. Where did they come from - God???? 

Rights of course not granted by God, who assigned kings and your Queen 
of England as well; but: it also follows that our obedience to the 
police chiefs, regarded as a tactical question, should not include our 
semantic approach to rights. And yes a political way is compatible with 
a semantic and literary way, contrary to this and prior government's 
education policies which have removed all study but for pragmatic, 
so-called scientific and technological branches.
>  but I would just note that they (Stop the war coalition) publically denounced the oppressive
>> restrictions placed on their legal protests, and acquiesced to these
>> restrictions under protest. What they did was no different to what the G8
>> group decided to do, when a meeting unanimously assigned myself and Jillian
>> Creasey to try to negotiate with the police a route for a legal
>> demonstration on the first day of the criminals' visit.
>> 

No, they didn't, as far as i know only the Green party and this anti-G8 
group denounced the "oppressive restrictions". Anyway, it would be 
interesting to have a journal or a report written of those negotiations 
you just mentioned above, and make them public to the other protesters 
(this list included of course) so we may get to know which were these 
limitations you had to acquiesce with in the first place.
> To the extent that we go down the road advised by Adriana
>> and others, we will succeed only in deepening our isolation, aggravating
>> still further our disunity,

What road am i advising, "adriana and others"?
All i am asking for is some light on these secret negotiations.



John Smith wrote:

> Dear anti-G8
> 
> Laws concerning the right to protest, the right to strike, to free speech
> and to elect political representatives codify what has and what has not been
> conquered through the political pressure and actions of millions of people
> who have gone before us. These rights were extracted from our exploiters and
> oppressors, who are constantly probing for openings and pretexts to erode
> and reverse these legally-established rights. 
> 
> It follows from these observations that our task is to exercise our legal
> rights, to denounce and resist attempts to restrict these rights, and to
> struggle instead for these rights to be extended in law and in practice. It
> also follows that our rights will never be secure while the exploiting,
> oppressing minority remain in power. It also follows that our obedience to,
> or resistance to, what the police chiefs consider to be 'the law' is a
> tactical question, not a principle to be elevated above all else.
> 
> This is the political way to approach this question. We cannot get very far
> if we instead regard 'rights' as absolute, abstract, existing for all time
> and all places. Where did they come from - God???? 
> 
> 
> To accuse the StWC of 'betrayal' for negotiating a legal protest with the
> police is extremist, divisive and nonsense. I hold no brief for the StWC,
> but I would just note that they publically denounced the oppressive
> restrictions placed on their legal protests, and acquiesced to these
> restrictions under protest. What they did was no different to what the G8
> group decided to do, when a meeting unanimously assigned myself and Jillian
> Creasey to try to negotiate with the police a route for a legal
> demonstration on the first day of the criminals' visit.
> 
> If we ('we' meaning the anti-G8, StWC and all progressive forces) were
> unable to dissuade the G8 from coming to Sheffield in the first place, and
> unable to defend our right to protest in the middle of our city, this is a
> reflection of the balance of forces, of our relative isolation, of our
> disunity, of our failure to mobilise more than a fraction of one per cent of
> this city's inhabitants.
> 
> There is no short cut to winning the confidence and the participation of
> *the majority*. To the extent that we go down the road advised by Adriana
> and others, we will succeed only in deepening our isolation, aggravating
> still further our disunity, and providing our enemies with the pretexts they
> need to undermine still further the legal rights which our forefathers and
> foremothers fought for.
> 
> 
> John S
> 


-- 
"Porque o único sentido oculto das cousas 
   É elas não terem sentido oculto nenhum" (A. Caeiro)

http://www.sheffield.dissent.org.uk/
http://wiki.sheffieldsocialforum.org.uk/G8
g8-sheffield mailing list
g8-sheffield at lists.aktivix.org
http://lists.aktivix.org/mailman/listinfo/g8-sheffield