How do you feel about "inconvenient" protesting

[joshuaayt]

What's the point of a protest that doesn't bother people? It's not going to accomplish anything, is it? You're just going to be standing there, being visibly cross about something, and people who are already on your side are going to look at you and think "Aw yeah now there's a group I can get behind". People who aren't are going to ignore you, and nothing will change.

Realistically, if the issue you're protesting is important enough TO protest, you're probably inconveniencing people a lot less than the actual issue is. For example: Innocent people being murdered by figures of authority? Pretty damn inconvenienced.

A protest happens because there's a problem that should not exist, and can not be allowed to exist any longer. Police are killing folks? You bother the goddamn hell out of people, and force other people who are in charge of this sort of thing to deal with it. The government can ignore a petition, or a cross group of people on the side of the road- so you make something they physically cannot ignore.

 

[Akjosch]

Also:
RIOTING does nothing but make you, your cause, and your community look like SAVAGES.

Isn't it weird how virtually nobody says this when white folks riot?

Actually, literally every time somebody does that over here in Europe, people call them savages (and similar). For a quick example, see the comments on this picture [http://imgur.com/gallery/RuyWK] from Greece, 2011.

On topic: As long as lives aren't endangered (blocking way for ambulances, blocking entrances and exits of hospitals and clinics, blocking fire escape routes, outright rioting and setting things and people on fire, ...), protesters can and should inconvenience me and others all they want. A good protest is one which shuts down the public life in the area. It gets attention and shows that people care about some issue deeply.

 

[Something Amyss]

Nope, occasional traffic jams are simply an unavoidable byproduct of free movement for large numbers of people being made more efficient and less burdensome on others, while an illegal blockade deliberately prevents free movement from taking place at all, as alternate routes have typically been made illegal, and when available cannot be accessed from the point in which the blockade is taking place.

Nice loaded language. Of course, it's not a byproduct of free movement, it's an inhibitor to it, but it seems you're okay with that.

Actually, literally every time somebody does that over here in Europe, people call them savages (and similar).

That you have to qualify it with "in Europe" was probably a sign of something.

 

[Kopikatsu]

Jay Walking is one that they are technically doing if they are blocking a road. So there's that.

Okay, that's a place to start from. I guess the next question is, is incarceration a permissible response to jaywalking? It seems like something that's answered with a ticket and a fine, not imprisonment.

It's illegal to protest in such a way that blocks traffic without a permit. As I highly doubt the protesters actually went and got a permit for it, they can all be arrested on those grounds. The reason you need a permit is so that the police can go out and set up detours and such to assure that people can still get where they need to go.

 

[visiblenoise]

I'd rather it didn't happen, and I think it's rarely the right way to go about things (it's basically ransom), but I keep it in perspective. I kinda think about it in the same way that I regard "acts of God" - if a protest causes me to be late or not be able to get somewhere, it was out of my hands and there's no point in stressing out over it.

 

[Akjosch]

Actually, literally every time somebody does that over here in Europe, people call them savages (and similar).

That you have to qualify it with "in Europe" was probably a sign of something.

No, not really. I just make sure that others know which perspective I'm using when talking about something. We have an international audience here, so such details are important.

 

[EvilRoy]

Charged with what? What is the specific crime being committed?

There are a lists of laws about impeding traffic, unlawful assembly, disturbing the peace... on and on. I'm not going to spend the time listing all the specific statutes on a city and state level.

Probably for the best you're not in charge of arresting or prosecuting anyone, then. I'm willing to believe protesting in a highway is illegal, but in absence of actual statute, people really ought not to be arrested.

In most cities it is illegal to block traffic - intentionally or unintentionally - if the blockage was avoidable. You can get ticketed for obstructing traffic by standing and refusing to move from a sidewalk, or by being an idiot and getting stuck in the middle of an intersection because you pulled forward when the lane wasn't clear.

This is 100% a municipal thing though, so all though the US, Mexico and Canada you will find different wordings for the laws. For instance, in Regina, Jaywalking is (was? been a long time) totally legal. The law is worded in such a way that obstructing traffic is what gets you ticketed, rather than the actual act of dashing across the street. Idea being that if nobody is around it doesn't matter if you jaywalk. The laws can also take a different form altogether. Sometimes obstructing traffic or pedestrians is acceptable "so long as there is a good reason" (if you have to halt people from barreling into a dangerous place), but this almost never applies to police. Causing an obstruction that leaves emergency services unable to work, even if that service is a lone cop on a bike, will usually get you ticketed.

Something to note will this all, I guess, is that it is also usually legal for police to escort you to a suitable location to write the ticket. That can mean to the cop shop, to the McDonalds across the street, or to a quieter section of the neighborhood. Because the police have similar responsibilities when it comes to safe interaction (if they stop to write you a ticket in the middle of a march it is reasonable to assume that one or both of you could be jostled or knocked over). This can take the form of loading groups of people into the wagon to await processing at the local station, assuming there are a large number of people to be ticketed.

Edit:

Haaaahahaha "intestinally blocking traffic". Aaaah spellcheck, if only I could get close you could guess better.

 

[Something Amyss]

No, not really. I just make sure that others know which perspective I'm using when talking about something. We have an international audience here, so such details are important.

Which seems like you're tapdancing right around the point in question.

 

[Akjosch]

No, not really. I just make sure that others know which perspective I'm using when talking about something. We have an international audience here, so such details are important.

Which seems like you're tapdancing right around the point in question.

What question, this one?

Also:
RIOTING does nothing but make you, your cause, and your community look like SAVAGES.

Isn't it weird how virtually nobody says this when white folks riot?

My point is: In my area (most of Europe), I just don't see that happening. No matter if it's the "white folks" or the Turkish or Arab minorities, if they behave like savages, they are called savages.

 

[Cowabungaa]

God, people always parrot that people should stick to "peaceful methods" like those of Martin Luther King and Gandhi but apparently even they are just a bunch of "selfish, childish assholes".

Guess it's time for that MLK quote:

"Over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro?s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen?s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to ?order? than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: ?I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action?; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man?s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a ?more convenient season.?

Yup, everyone is for equality and justice and all in a vague nebulous way, up until they are inconvenienced or have to admit there's an actual problem.

And it's like that with every problem. Climate change and the general pollution caused by our consumption oriented society? Oh yes it's important to do something about it. Actually making a sacrifice by doing things like cutting meat consumption of accepting higher prices for things like more environmentally friendly goods? Hell no!

In the end, it's a matter of scope. People see themselves out of it, especially when they're not directly affected by anything. If the status quo is good for you you don't want it to go, it's a natural thing but often also quite a crappy thing.

 

[Thaluikhain]

And it's like that with every problem. Climate change and the general pollution caused by our consumption oriented society? Oh yes it's important to do something about it. Actually making a sacrifice by doing things like cutting meat consumption of accepting higher prices for things like more environmental goods? Hell no!

In the end, it's a matter of scope. People see themselves out of it, especially when they're not directly affected by anything. If the status quo is good for you you don't want it to go, it's a natural thing but often also quite a crappy thing.

Very true, especially your second paragraph, though not sure climate change is a good example, there's a lot of people who aren't willing to do anything personally, but want their government to do something. Passing that along to one's representatives doesn't seem that bad to me. Doesn't work so well for social problems that are already legislated about though.

 

[Cowabungaa]

And it's like that with every problem. Climate change and the general pollution caused by our consumption oriented society? Oh yes it's important to do something about it. Actually making a sacrifice by doing things like cutting meat consumption of accepting higher prices for things like more environmental goods? Hell no!

In the end, it's a matter of scope. People see themselves out of it, especially when they're not directly affected by anything. If the status quo is good for you you don't want it to go, it's a natural thing but often also quite a crappy thing.

Very true, especially your second paragraph, though not sure climate change is a good example, there's a lot of people who aren't willing to do anything personally, but want their government to do something. Passing that along to one's representatives doesn't seem that bad to me. Doesn't work so well for social problems that are already legislated about though.

It's the perfect example really. The excuse I always hear is "My tiny contribution doesn't make a difference" which is a complete fallacy; it's all the tiny contributions combined that are making the difference, hell it's all those tiny negative contributions that cause that problem in the first place. People's inaction to change now keeps it in place.

The same way of thinking goes for this issue. They see a protest inconveniencing them and think "This is just a protest that does nothing, and I'm inconvenienced. I don't want that. This is pointless for me."

Bottom line is; people can't see the big picture, can't see beyond their own small lives. And that's a big problem. And it's people who's gotta change, in that both issues are alike too. They're problems of our culture and culture goes way past legislation. And for a culture to change it's people's gotta change.

 

[lowtech redneck]

Nice loaded language. Of course, it's not a byproduct of free movement, it's an inhibitor to it, but it seems you're okay with that.

Its a byproduct of the highway and road system, the purpose of which, like I said, is to make free movement for large numbers of people possible without a.) even worse traffic conditions and b.) endangering the lives and property of others by driving as the crow flies across any passable obstacles without any traffic laws. I thought my meaning was obvious from the context, that's why I wasn't more specific. And yeah, I'm a pretty big fan of the highway and road system, preferring occasional traffic jams to the likely alternatives.

And what loaded language? Illegal? As another poster pointed out, legal blockades involve the creation of alternate routes, along with signs set up so that travelers don't get trapped without any way of getting out.

 

[direkiller]

Charged with what? What is the specific crime being committed?

There are a lists of laws about impeding traffic, unlawful assembly, disturbing the peace... on and on. I'm not going to spend the time listing all the specific statutes on a city and state level.

Probably for the best you're not in charge of arresting or prosecuting anyone, then. I'm willing to believe protesting in a highway is illegal, but in absence of actual statute, people really ought not to be arrested.

It's typically a tiny fine.
In PA it's $5+ cost for failure to yield to traffic on a highway.
http://www.dvrpc.org/transportation/safety/presentations/pdf/2009-07/Gary_Modi_PennDOT.pdf (slide 4)
The arrest tend to happen for failure to obey a lawful order, when a police orders you to the side of the road.

 

[Erttheking]

The problem with society is that plenty of people condemn the doing of things like inconvenient protesting, yet doing stuff like that is how our ancestors won the rights we enjoy daily.

I mean last summer there was a massive protest at a local grocery chain that I work at when a CEO who was going to raise prices and cut employee benefits took charge. The warehouse workers went on strike and a ton of customers boycotted the shelves. Plenty of people had to buy their groceries at a more expensive store and plenty of workers lost hours. But we got our old CEO back.

Sometimes you gotta get your hands dirty if you want to do anything.

 

[tippy2k2]

He didn't say that those statutes don't exist, just that he wasn't going to list all the specifics.

I know. I asked him to prove it's illegal, and he said, "No, I won't, so take my word for it." I make it a personal policy not to take the word of someone who refuses to prove what he says.

There were no arrests at my states highway protest but I Googled around and found this:

http://www.firstcoastnews.com/story/news/local/2014/12/08/protesters-slow-traffic-on-i-95-nb-in-jacksonville/20088207/

20 people were arrested and charged with "criminal obstruction of a roadway, a misdemeanor offense. One protester, though, was charged with battery on a law enforcement officer, a felony charge." (this protest had a few fists fly when the cops moved to break it up; hence the battery charge for one individual).

 

[Erttheking]

The problem with society is that plenty of people condemn the doing of things like inconvenient protesting, yet doing stuff like that is how our ancestors won the rights we enjoy daily.

I mean last summer there was a massive protest at a local grocery chain that I work at when a CEO who was going to raise prices and cut employee benefits took charge. The warehouse workers went on strike and a ton of customers boycotted the shelves. Plenty of people had to buy their groceries at a more expensive store and plenty of workers lost hours. But we got our old CEO back.

Sometimes you gotta get your hands dirty if you want to do anything.

Our ancestors refined the art of protesting, people today can't protest for shit. I'd love to see a major protest today that was as elegant, refined, thought out, purposeful, and organized as those of our ancestors.

Google Market Basket. The store I worked at. It's actually a pretty big store, it's spread all throughout New England. We protested there for a solid month, even when people like me (Part timers) almost lost our jobs. The entire community rallied around us...god damn it it was awesome.

 

[Erttheking]

The problem with society is that plenty of people condemn the doing of things like inconvenient protesting, yet doing stuff like that is how our ancestors won the rights we enjoy daily.

I mean last summer there was a massive protest at a local grocery chain that I work at when a CEO who was going to raise prices and cut employee benefits took charge. The warehouse workers went on strike and a ton of customers boycotted the shelves. Plenty of people had to buy their groceries at a more expensive store and plenty of workers lost hours. But we got our old CEO back.

Sometimes you gotta get your hands dirty if you want to do anything.

Our ancestors refined the art of protesting, people today can't protest for shit. I'd love to see a major protest today that was as elegant, refined, thought out, purposeful, and organized as those of our ancestors.

Google Market Basket. The store I worked at. It's actually a pretty big store, it's spread all throughout New England. We protested there for a solid month, even when people like me (Part timers) almost lost our jobs. The entire community rallied around us...god damn it it was awesome.

Nice! What were you protesting for? You followed the 4 rules right?

Getting our old CEO back, who kept the prices low and was big on employee benefits.

Yup, we did.

 

[Baresark]

Part of me is really annoyed by it. But if it's for a good cause I will be inconvenienced.

I lose a lot more patience when a protest or movement is not cohesive or gets co opted by people with their own agenda. You lose me right away with that one. Like in the occupy Wallstreet movement. I would have a lot more respect for you if you had cohesive ideas. Way back in the day, during war protests about Vietnam, they movement was cohesive. Others attached themselves to it for their own reasons, but when words were said, it was in service to what the protest was about.

Hell, in 2004 I attended some anti-war protests myself, and that is what they were about.

 

[Uncle Comrade]

Sensible advice snip

What is this 'be civil' nonsense? Everyone knows that the only real way to get people on your side is to harass them until they give in. Nobody pays attention to organised protests with well-defined goals and sensible solutions, only an angry, disruptive rabble can make them sit up and take note.

No movement has ever brought anyone round to their way of thinking by being reasonable, you need to bully them into agreeing with you. (Pro Tip: Make sure to tell them that if they don't completely support you, they must therefore be in favour of black people getting shot/minimum wage workers not earning enough to live on/whatever. Because nobody can argue with that logic, they'll have no choice but to join you. Throw in that MLK quote for good measure, it really gets people on your side, and doesn't sound condescending at all.)

Logic, reason and courtesy never changed anything. Only by massively inconveniencing people and shouting down all opposition can you really get something done. That's what I've learned reading this thread, anyway.