5 ms·

They are aiming to be arrested. That's part of the point. Whilst remaining entirely peaceful. Peaceful does not mean cooperative. Climbing onto roofs is entire

They are aiming to be arrested. That's part of the point. Whilst remaining entirely peaceful. Peaceful does not mean cooperative. Climbing onto roofs is entirely peaceful protest, and I think you have misunderstood what vigilante means. I see no delivery of summary justice in climbing onto a roof.

throwawaysea 7y ago
No, it is not peaceful. A peaceful protest must get appropriate permissions from local authorities to be a lawful assembly (this is true in the US and I am assuming the UK has similar law). Such an assembly would take place on public property. Climbing onto roofs is a violation of private property that they have no right to access. A peaceful protest must be non-disruptive and not take away from others. Blockading bridges is. It peaceful. It is stealing time, value, and safety from others. They are vigilantes because they claim to be pushing for justice where the law failed them. But in reality their arguments and extreme demands simply have failed to persuade people to the extent they desire through democratic processes. That doesn’t give them the right to blockade bridges in London.
- Miner49er 7y ago
  A protest that is non-disruptive accomplishes nothing.
- dekken_ 7y ago
  > A peaceful protest must get appropriate permissions from local authorities. Define "authorities", therein lies the rub. Authority is earned not assumed. If they were authorities the protests would be unnecessary
  - throwawaysea 7y ago
    It depends on the jurisdiction. Usually there’s a process defined in local law to get approval for an assembly. In the US people do not have a universal right to protest when and where they want. Regarding your note on authority: it is indeed earned and not assumed - it is encoded in law and in a Democracy, through elections. Certainly the protesters have no authority because they’ve failed to change the law or win elections. These protests amount to them wanting to get undue attention or undue changes because they’ve failed to succeed under the framework of their society.
- SolaceQuantum 7y ago
  "A peaceful protest must be non-disruptive and not take away from others." I've literally never heard of this before. I thought that a peaceful protest was one where violence (ie. assaulting people, destroying property) didn't occur.
- NeedMoreTea 7y ago
  Civil disobedience can be entirely peaceful, but disruptive and non-cooperative. Intending quite intentionally to steal time and value, but not safety from others. It is stealing time and effort from the authorities that has achieved change across history. Sometimes with violence which is obviously no longer peaceful, sometimes not. Police time. Court time. Parliamentary discussion time. In the one year XR have existed, surprisingly the issue has surged in the UK opinion polls - ie more in the UK find the climate crisis an important issue than did before. There has been a much increased level of exposure in the media, and in parliament. To me, inconvenient though it may be, that is simply democracy working as intended. An entirely non-disruptive march or demo is, democratically, not a peaceful protest, it's an irrelevance. It's a nice day out and little else, and achieves a similar level of change.
- PhasmaFelis 7y ago
  So in your way of thinking, when MLK was arrested in Birmingham for leading a civil rights march after the city had banned all forms of protest, and when others were arrested for sitting quietly at whites-only lunch counters, they were committing violence and they deserved to be arrested?
- bryanlarsen 7y ago
  Any definition that would consider Gandhi a violent protester is quite suspect.

throwawaysea 7y ago

No, it is not peaceful. A peaceful protest must get appropriate permissions from local authorities to be a lawful assembly (this is true in the US and I am assuming the UK has similar law). Such an assembly would take place on public property. Climbing onto roofs is a violation of private property that they have no right to access. A peaceful protest must be non-disruptive and not take away from others. Blockading bridges is. It peaceful. It is stealing time, value, and safety from others. They are vigilantes because they claim to be pushing for justice where the law failed them. But in reality their arguments and extreme demands simply have failed to persuade people to the extent they desire through democratic processes. That doesn’t give them the right to blockade bridges in London.

Miner49er 7y ago
A protest that is non-disruptive accomplishes nothing.
dekken_ 7y ago
> A peaceful protest must get appropriate permissions from local authorities. Define "authorities", therein lies the rub. Authority is earned not assumed. If they were authorities the protests would be unnecessary
- throwawaysea 7y ago
  It depends on the jurisdiction. Usually there’s a process defined in local law to get approval for an assembly. In the US people do not have a universal right to protest when and where they want. Regarding your note on authority: it is indeed earned and not assumed - it is encoded in law and in a Democracy, through elections. Certainly the protesters have no authority because they’ve failed to change the law or win elections. These protests amount to them wanting to get undue attention or undue changes because they’ve failed to succeed under the framework of their society.
SolaceQuantum 7y ago
"A peaceful protest must be non-disruptive and not take away from others." I've literally never heard of this before. I thought that a peaceful protest was one where violence (ie. assaulting people, destroying property) didn't occur.
NeedMoreTea 7y ago
Civil disobedience can be entirely peaceful, but disruptive and non-cooperative. Intending quite intentionally to steal time and value, but not safety from others. It is stealing time and effort from the authorities that has achieved change across history. Sometimes with violence which is obviously no longer peaceful, sometimes not. Police time. Court time. Parliamentary discussion time. In the one year XR have existed, surprisingly the issue has surged in the UK opinion polls - ie more in the UK find the climate crisis an important issue than did before. There has been a much increased level of exposure in the media, and in parliament. To me, inconvenient though it may be, that is simply democracy working as intended. An entirely non-disruptive march or demo is, democratically, not a peaceful protest, it's an irrelevance. It's a nice day out and little else, and achieves a similar level of change.
PhasmaFelis 7y ago
So in your way of thinking, when MLK was arrested in Birmingham for leading a civil rights march after the city had banned all forms of protest, and when others were arrested for sitting quietly at whites-only lunch counters, they were committing violence and they deserved to be arrested?
bryanlarsen 7y ago
Any definition that would consider Gandhi a violent protester is quite suspect.