The Politics of Protest

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

Here in Canada I've noticed some bizarre inconsistencies in how the police, courts, and public opinion react to various protests. There seem to be deep disagreements about what methods of protest are acceptable.

In recent years we've seen first nations and environmentalist activists block major railroads, pipelines, and highways for weeks and months on end. These eventually get disbanded, but only after imposing huge economic costs.

During COVID, we saw anti-mandate protestors establish months-long roadblocks and encampments. There were even armed anti-mandate groups who camped out by the US border. This attracted a bizarre mix of weak/delayed police responses and, simultaneously, the use of unprecedented federal interference in the personal bank accounts of protestors and their supporters.

Now there is a wave of campus protests re: Israel-Gaza. Some Universities and their local police departments have allowed students to set up little encampments so students can protest 24/7. Meanwhile, others have defended students' right to protest during the day, but have drawn the line at tent cities on private property.

The inconsistent responses to protests have laid bare some fundamental disagreements about what our freedom of expression, peaceful assembly, and association actually entitle us to in practice. This has raised some questions I'm trying to wrestle with:

How should law balance the right to protest against the rights of others who may be adversely impacted by such actions?

At what point should the state enforce a democratically-supported decision against a vocal minority of supporters?

How should the right to protest interact with private property laws?

What role does public opinion play in shaping the police and government response to protests? Should it have an influence, and if so, to what extent?

How should protestors balance the need to inconvenience people to get their attention vs. the risk that they'll turn more people against their cause?

Is the coherency of protestors' demands, or the plausibility of their proposed mechanisms to achieve change, matter in how they're treated legally? Is there a point at which a protest can be so incoherent, or its aims so unrealistic, that it no longer constitutes valid political speech?

[Jamiet99uk]

There is a lot to unpick here. You're asking at least 10 separate questions. I'd like to comment on some of this. Putting a marker here to try to remind myself to reply later.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

There is a lot to unpick here. You're asking at least 10 separate questions. I'd like to comment on some of this. Putting a marker here to try to remind myself to reply later.

My intention here was to offer some introductory thoughts on a complex issue + some discussion questions I thought were interesting.

I don't expect anyone to engage with the whole post at once and I'm very open to hearing others' views on related issues that weren't explicitly mentioned above too!

[Octavious]

The traditional view of the right is that everyone should have the right to protest about any issue so long as it doesn't inconvenience anyone else. The ideal protester stands on his soapbox in Speaker's Corner where he either makes for an amusing tourist attraction or is ignored completely. This is, of course, utterly ridiculous, but it does seem that the left are adopting a similar stance for protests that they don't happen to agree with.

The worst thing that happened to protest in the UK was the war in Iraq, when genuinely huge crowds marched pretty much everywhere they could get away with and were ultimately ignored completely by both the Labour government and the Tory opposition. The belief that protest can make a difference died for a lot of people at this time, and we have never really recovered.

To make an attempt to address some of your questions (which on occasion I do try to do), I do approve of laws that make protesting difficult. I find the message of the protest is greatly amplified if the people making the protest face consequences and do it anyway

[MajorMitchell]

Citizens having freedoms of political expression are a core part of democracy

Like jamiet99UK I would like to elaborate but, not today.
Busy, it's 7.30am local time & I have to replace a pulley on a v6 engine, field hockey at 12.30pm.at Goolwa, open mic fund-raiser comedy show 8pm Happy Valley Football Club

[orathaic]

The traditional view of the right is that everyone should have the right to protest about any issue so long as it doesn't inconvenience anyone else. The ideal protester stands on his soapbox in Speaker's Corner where he either makes for an amusing tourist attraction or is ignored completely. This is, of course, utterly ridiculous, but it does seem that the left are adopting a similar stance for protests that they don't happen to agree with.

The worst thing that happened to protest in the UK was the war in Iraq, when genuinely huge crowds marched pretty much everywhere they could get away with and were ultimately ignored completely by both the Labour government and the Tory opposition. The belief that protest can make a difference died for a lot of people at this time, and we have never really recovered.

To make an attempt to address some of your questions (which on occasion I do try to do), I do approve of laws that make protesting difficult. I find the message of the protest is greatly amplified if the people making the protest face consequences and do it anyway

There is some questions then about the effectiveness of that form of protest.

Did marching against the Iraq war fáil to have any effect? Then should the protestors have blocked road (maybe marched along the M25)... French farmers know how to protest, driving their tractors (slowly) towards Paris, clogging up the entire countries major routes...

That remains a public protest but becomes harder to ignore. How far should protestors go if the continue to be ignored? What could anti-war protestors have done? (Blockaded military based to prevent people getting to work would probably have seen an immediate reaction in the name of national security)

Irish protestors of late have started going outside politician's houses. And eventually someone pissed off the wrong politician and the government decided to act...

I don't think it is on to intimidate people put of politics like this, threatening their family is not ok. But that is the point where a peaceful (but disruptive) protest becomes an intimidation campaign directed against an individual (with power) rather than against a more general public/state.

We shall see how these group perform today as Irish local and EU elections ar held, and whether these protest tactics made enough noise to get anyone elected.

[Octavious]

I think it depends on quite a few factors, which can vary in how influential they are.

The first is how much the government wants to fight. If you have a Tory government, say, and your protest group are a bunch of hard left hippies that nobody likes supergluing themselves to the road, then it doesn't matter what they want or how easy it is to achieve as the government benefits more from being seen showing a firm hand.

Then you have factors such as the economic cost to the country, the personal cost to various groups of people and how important those groups of people are to the government, reputational cost on the world stage (particularly important if you're in a nation hosting the Olympics or something)... and far too far down the list you get political integrity and the duty of care to the people. At the end of the day whether or not the protesters have a point should at least be considered...

[orathaic]

I think from the protestors perspective there is a seperate consideration.

To build a movement you need a few things. Community - standing in solidarity with each other on the street is a positive in itself. Wins - seeing the community of like minded people achieve some victories, however small, can embolden a movement. Leadership - a clear vision for what you want to achieve and how it can be done.

Is the point of disruptive tactics to force to government of the day to capitulate, is it to build you community by raising awareness, is it to build momentum within the established community by winning a small victory (costing the state/economy), or is it ultimately achieving the goals set out by the leadership? (Like Irish direct action activists taking a hatchet to US military hardware (a plane) - in defence of people being bombed in Iraq).

There is a place for Street protests outside Downing Street, for occupying college campuses and for boycott and divestment campaigns... But each may have different goals.