Will anyone protest the Pope

[Trolldor]

The reason I say this is because people protest, they shout, they hold placards and write songs, and then the Government ignores them and they go "Well, we tried our best".

[Pappa]

The reason I say this is because people protest, they shout, they hold placards and write songs, and then the Government ignores them and they go "Well, we tried our best".

Yeah, but if they turn nasty, it gives the Government opportunity to vilify them (often quite successfully). By attacking their person via their moral choice to be destructive, the Government rubbishes their cause too. Plus they risk personal injury and death.

[Trolldor]

They don't have to turn 'nasty' though.

[Pappa]

They don't have to turn 'nasty' though.

By 'nasty' I mean anything that is non-peaceful. Even peaceful demos can turn nasty sometimes because the police wish to remove the protesters from wherever it is they are.

[RuleBritannia]

I agree that the more disruptive protests seem to draw more active concern and response, baa, but I think it's a tad naive and/or idealistic to believe it's possible to have such a disruptive protest where people must be fired up enough about an issue without at least some protesters stepping over the line to violence and destruction, and without the authorities stepping in, either preemptively (inflammatory) or as a response. As I said, these kinds of protests do seem to get attention and result in action, though.

Of course it'd be naive to actually have one and assume it'd go exactly according to plan, but if you don't risk anything nobody's going to pay attention to you. If you don't show that you're willing to lose something for the fight, then how much do you really have invested in it?

I don't agree with that. I think the risk is not relevant to the outcome. I've been to lots of demonstrations, some peaceful, some disorderly, and some violent. While I agree that sometimes, civil disobedience is the only valid way to get a point across, often it can be counterproductive. The media control the opinions of the public, and if the editor disagrees with the objectives of the protesters they will be cast in a negative light. If they've used vandalism, intimidation or even violence, then his job is made very easy indeed. Also, any members of the public who see the protest either first hand, or in the media are far more likely to be sympathetic to the protesters if they act non-violently.

Getting arrested serves no particularly good purpose, and I don't know if you have first hand experience of riot police, but in my experience they are generally very unpleasant people... (seriously, who would voluntarily choose a career like that? A violent bully perhaps?). I was almost killed by a mounted police officer at a protest once. Is that a fair level of risk to the average protester?

That said, sometimes the Government refuses to listen to any twee protest, when they see destructive vandalism, they sit up and pay attention.

It definitely depends on the context and also on the hype before the even and the spin after the event. Both of these are more important that the even itself (IMO) in forming public opinion.

I disagree with the bolded, I think the risk is relevent to the outcome, if you have nothing to lose by being unsuccessful in your protest, then you're actually in a win-win situation.

[Coito ergo sum]

Vatican attacks New York Times over abuse coverage

Reuters – Pope Benedict XVI waves to the faithful as he leaves after his weekly audience in St. Peter's Square …
Slideshow:Papacy and the Vatican
By Philip Pullella – Thu Apr 1, 1:11 am ET
VATICAN CITY (Reuters) – The Vatican attacked The New York Times on Wednesday for its coverage of the sexual abuse of children by priests, rejecting accusations that Pope Benedict had mishandled a series of abuse cases before he was elected.
Signaling it had decided to take the gloves off in its reaction to coverage of sexual abuse, a Vatican statement referred specifically to two reporters and a columnist. (http:/www.vatican.va/resources/resources_card ... 10_en.html)
"I ask the Times to reconsider its attack mode about Pope Benedict XVI and give the world a more balanced view of a leader it can and should count on," said the 20-paragraph statement written by Cardinal William J. Levada.

Read More: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100401/ts_nm/us_pope_abuse

[Trolldor]

Apparently the truth is 'unbalanced'.

[Pappa]

Wow... you'd think they'd realise by now that it's too late for the denial tactic. Shocking stuff from Benny, but are we surprised?

[Coito ergo sum]

South Park nails it, as usual: http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/104226/