Will anyone protest the Pope

[RuleBritannia]

Imagine how much more effective those protests would have been if they were done illegally, if they flooded the roads of the CBDs before opening hours, if they'd stormed Government Houses, Parliaments.
In other words, if they'd risked something simply by protesting.

OK, so every time there are enough people who don't like something the government is doing gets mad enough they have a riot and storm buildings? Who chooses what issues to riot and storm buildings about? Suppose the BNP feel unrepresented and get enough louts together to burn down a communist office. That OK too? FFS.

You don't know you have been born.

Please, mass civil disobedience is democracy in action, it's the rule of the people. A bunch of twats from the BNP is not the same thing.

OK, this is the first time the term 'mass civil disobedience' has been used and I agree. It isn't the same thing. But the key word is 'mass'. Who is to say when a movement is truly a 'mass' one? We take a view - we take sides using our own perspective as the one in the right. Most people here assume for example, that the protests in Iran are 'right' and reflect mass opinion. The reality is so mixed I doubt if anyone knows. There are millions who probably support and Islamic republic in more or less its present form.

And yet if the protesters won (which seems unlikely) people would say it was a 'victory'.

In the Poll Tax Riot example I used earlier, it was public opinion at the time that only 2% of the population supported the Poll Tax, yet only a few thousand protested, most people are too affraid to go up against the government (who do have the monopoly of violence).

In a country like Iran it's even more dangerous to go up against the government, a death sentence without trial is a likely punishment.

[Valden]

Maybe a step too far, but one man became an idol. What I'd be interested to see is the rest of that photo. It's amazing what they cut out, and how much it can change the feel of the photo.

Here's a couple more of him-





Not sure if I can agree that it's a step too far. Sure, he died. But he died protesting something he was so passionate about, he was willing to die over it.
And to me, that in itself, is amazing. That takes a shit load of courage to do.

These days people just wander around holding signs with words that are often not even spelled correctly. That wont get anything productive done at all, and really, it's a waste of time.

People may remember the most infamous Vietnam photo of the girl hit by napalm? All along the side are journalists taking pictures. The photo goes from horrifying to disgusting.

It's also a powerful image as well.

[Valden]

In the Poll Tax Riot example I used earlier, it was public opinion at the time that only 2% of the population supported the Poll Tax, yet only a few thousand protested, most people are too affraid to go up against the government (who do have the monopoly of violence).

In a country like Iran it's even more dangerous to go up against the government, a death sentence without trial is a likely punishment.

Or being murdered by a solider, like Nada was. The video of her death is not only shocking, it's also powerful.

[Coito ergo sum]

http://www.slate.com/id/2249130/

The Pope Is Not Above the Law
The crimes within the Catholic Church demand justice.
By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Monday, March 29, 2010, at 1:53 PM ET

Pope Benedict XVI
One by one, as I predicted, the pathetic excuses of Joseph Ratzinger's apologists evaporate before our eyes. It was said until recently that when the Rev. Peter Hullermann was found to be a vicious pederast in 1980, the man who is now pope had no personal involvement in his subsequent transfer to his own diocese or in his later unimpeded career as a rapist and a molester. But now we find that the psychiatrist to whom the church turned for "therapy" was adamant that Hullermann never be allowed to go near children ever again. We also find that Ratzinger was one of those to whom the memo about Hullermann's transfer was actually addressed. All attempts to place the blame on a loyal subordinate, Ratzinger's vicar general, the Rev. Gerhard Gruber, have predictably failed. According to a recent report, "the transfer of Father Hullermann from Essen would not have been a routine matter, experts said." Either that—damning enough in itself—or it perhaps would have been a routine matter, which is even worse. Certainly the pattern—of finding another parish with fresh children for the priest to assault—is the one that has become horribly "routine" ever since and became standard practice when Ratzinger became a cardinal and was placed in charge of the church's global response to clerical pederasty.

[Trolldor]

*snip*

As ever BAA you make your mind up about an issue and then go hunting for so called 'evidence'. Your casual recommendation that violent protest would be a really cool thing is mind-numbing.

Once again you've added words and ideas to my posts that are not there. Try again.

[Trolldor]

This image is the epitome of bravery, to stand up aginst the might of the PLA, if his fellow comrades had the courage to stand with him the world might be a better place today:

In the 'complete' photo all along the side there are hundreds, thousands of onlookers behind barricades.

[charlou]

Imagine how much more effective those protests would have been if they were done illegally, if they flooded the roads of the CBDs before opening hours, if they'd stormed Government Houses, Parliaments.
In other words, if they'd risked something simply by protesting.

Yep, reminds me of the Poll Tax Riots, no pussy footing about with peaceful marches, just some good old fashioned looting, vandalism and civil disobedience, the result? No more Poll Tax and see you fucking later Margaret Thatcher, job done.

Wouldn't that be neat? I can't help but think a lot of people are just too damn scared to go that far. The risk of being sent to prison can be scary to some.

But now this man, Thích Quảng Đức...


Certainly knew how to protest!

Maybe a step too far, but one man became an idol. What I'd be interested to see is the rest of that photo. It's amazing what they cut out, and how much it can change the feel of the photo.


People may remember the most infamous Vietnam photo of the girl hit by napalm? All along the side are journalists taking pictures. The photo goes from horrifying to disgusting.

OK, so every time there are enough people who don't like something the government is doing gets mad enough they have a riot and storm buildings? Who chooses what issues to riot and storm buildings about? Suppose the BNP feel unrepresented and get enough louts together to burn down a communist office. That OK too? FFS.

You don't know you have been born.

Once again you've added words to my post. Try again. When you figure out where you went wrong then I'll answer you.

No. Its horrific.

How narrow. So all you see in that picture is fire? Nothing at all about the man gets through to you?

As ever BAA you make your mind up about an issue and then go hunting for so called 'evidence'. Your casual recommendation that violent protest would be a really cool thing is mind-numbing.

I haven't seen baa advocate violence. I read that he's advocating civic disorderliness, disobedience and disruption as a more effective form of protest than orderly, carefully choreographed gatherings, but falling short of violence and destruction.

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.

[Lozzer]

Maybe a step too far, but one man became an idol. What I'd be interested to see is the rest of that photo. It's amazing what they cut out, and how much it can change the feel of the photo.

Here's a couple more of him-





Not sure if I can agree that it's a step too far. Sure, he died. But he died protesting something he was so passionate about, he was willing to die over it.
And to me, that in itself, is amazing. That takes a shit load of courage to do.

These days people just wander around holding signs with words that are often not even spelled correctly. That wont get anything productive done at all, and really, it's a waste of time.

People may remember the most infamous Vietnam photo of the girl hit by napalm? All along the side are journalists taking pictures. The photo goes from horrifying to disgusting.

It's also a powerful image as well.

He's really hot.

[RuleBritannia]

People may remember the most infamous Vietnam photo of the girl hit by napalm? All along the side are journalists taking pictures. The photo goes from horrifying to disgusting.

[Valden]

He's really hot.

[Lozzer]

According to the journalist who took this amazing picture the Buddhist Monk never moved or cried out in pain. He just sat there in the great infernal blaze as his flesh was eaten by the fire. Reportedly, his heart remained in tact and became an object of worship.

[Trolldor]

People may remember the most infamous Vietnam photo of the girl hit by napalm? All along the side are journalists taking pictures. The photo goes from horrifying to disgusting.

Could have sworn there's one with Journalists, or maybe I'm mixing it with another. Anyway,

This is what you normally see:


Notice the Soldier at the back? Normally you don't even see him properly.
Those are the photos I grew up with.

[Trolldor]

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?

[JimC]

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?

We used to hand out "Don't register for the draft" forms, knowing we would get arrested...

But our middle-clas parents always bailed us out...

I did get thumped at a demo once, by a redneck...

He was too big to thump back!

[Pappa]

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.