Have You Ever Formally Protested or Boycotted Anything?

[Magpie]

I'm glad all turned out well. But I feel as if I needed to get into the embassy, I shouldn't have to "ask" any protesters if I may be let in. That just doesn't seem right to me, but maybe I'm wrong.

Wouldn't you politely say "Excuse me, can I get by?" if anyone was in your path? For any reason?

I assume you don't expect the sidewalks to clear, any time you want to walk down them. Especially if you know head of time that there's going to be a crowd.

 

[Party.Of.4-NY>>>FL]

Violence should never be the response.
To dismiss all the protesters and what they were protesting because some people were out of control is wrong though. See that's exactly what I was talking about in my previous post. Instead of actually looking at all points, you just use the bad apples as an excuse to dismiss the whole thing rather than trying to understand the larger issue.

To the bolded:
I agree completely. It's never a good idea to put everyone, or even half of everyone, in to the same "basket". It's often a mistake, as you stated, to, "use the bad apples as an excuse to dismiss the whole thing rather than trying to understand the larger issue."

Could not agree more. Thank you for posting.

 

[Domo]

I will officially boycott the DIS for the next sixty seconds...

HAH.

 

[Party.Of.4-NY>>>FL]

Wouldn't you politely say "Excuse me, can I get by?" if anyone was in your path? For any reason?

I assume you don't expect the sidewalks to clear, any time you want to walk down them. Especially if you know head of time that there's going to be a crowd.

It is reasonable, in my opinion, to think that having to ask permission to enter an area that is currently inaccessible due to the formation of a "human chain" could make some people uncomfortable.

 

[Magpie]

With all due respect, Berkley was not a "protest" it was a riot and when you resort to rioting, your message does become invalidated by your own actions. Same with any other "protest" that becomes a riot.

Rioting doesn't invalidate the message, though I agree that it definitely runs the risk of souring people and alienating your supporters.

For example, I can absolutely get behind the message of better conditions for egg-laying hens, without supporting a protester who burns down a hen house. That protesters actions were criminal, but they don't invalidate the message or mean that I will now be all, "To heck with hens! Let them suffer! Battery cages for everyone!"

 

[TLSnell1981]

From what I read you're right about the people who instigated the violence were "protesters" ... complete with the quotation marks. They were agitators who interrupted the peaceful protest already taking place. So, the positive take away you should have is that there were indeed peaceful protesters who have no association whatsoever with the people who perpetrated the violence.

I don't know, who they are, but this has become an all too familiar scene, over the last few years. No one seems to denounce this violent behavior. If this isn't the desired message...someone needs to change it. Any positive was completely lost. IMO

 

[Magpie]

It is reasonable, in my opinion, to think that having to ask permission to enter an area that is currently inaccessible due to the formation of a "human chain" could make some people uncomfortable.

The area was not "inaccessible". Merely crowded. And yes, I recognize that some people do have psychological issues that make dealing with crowds difficult. If that's the case, then perhaps it would be best for them to visit on another day. (All scheduled appointments had been re-booked a week earlier, according to the media.)

When it comes to free assembly and peaceful protest, I don't think we're required to try to ensure that no one feels at all "uncomfortable". By way of analogy: Pictures of dismembered babies make ME feel quite uncomfortable, but I don't begrudge that group their right to protest on Parliament Hill every year. I simply avoid them.

 

[robinb]

I don't know, who they are, but this has become an all too familiar scene, over the last few years. No one seems to denounce this violent behavior. If this isn't the desired message...someone needs to change it. Any positive was completely lost. IMO

I don't know what news sources you follow, but this kind of violence is always denounced.

 

[AnnaFloridaLover]

I have gotten points but I am afraid if I say what it was I will get them again, but one time it involved Santa.

I just LOL'd when I read that.

 

[Party.Of.4-NY>>>FL]

And when all the speakers had their say, over 1000 people joined hands in a completely peaceful human chain, which stretched all the way around the Embassy.

The area was not "inaccessible". Merely crowded. And yes, I recognize that some people do have psychological issues that make dealing with crowds difficult. If that's the case, then perhaps it would be best for them to visit on another day. (All scheduled appointments had been re-booked a week earlier, according to the media.)

When it comes to free assembly and peaceful protest, I don't think we're required to try to ensure that no one feels at all "uncomfortable". By way of analogy: Pictures of dismembered babies make ME feel quite uncomfortable, but I don't begrudge that group their right to protest on Parliament Hill every year. I simply avoid them.

I quoted your previous post. In it, you use the words, "human chain which stretched all the way around the Embassy." You then went on to describe it as "merely crowded" in your later post. That to me is that inaccessible. Not inaccessible in terms of not physically being able to access it, but more in terms of it possibly being a sign of disrespect to the 1000 people that were forming the human chain.

This is not, as you stated, "a psychological issue that makes dealing with crowds difficult." Defining it as such is nothing more than a failed attempt at blaming the potential victim of a crowds assumption that they have a right to form human chains and block public areas. If there was a human chain of people blocking a roadway would you honk your horn and expect them to graciously move out of your way? Any normal person that was looking to avoid conflict would try to find a different roadway. This is what a normal person would do. And it would NOT mean they have "psychological issues"

 

[TLSnell1981]

I don't know what news sources you follow, but this kind of violence is always denounced.

I'm a surfer, so various sources. I will say, actions speak louder than words.

 

[sunshinehighway]

With all due respect, Berkley was not a "protest" it was a riot and when you resort to rioting, your message does become invalidated by your own actions. Same with any other "protest" that becomes a riot.

The thing is though the actual issue doesn't just become invalid. Also you seem to be grouping anyone who believes in that issue in with the people who rioted. All you're really doing is coming up with an excuse to ignore an issue. That's exactly how people become so divided and problems get bigger and never get resolved.

 

[TLSnell1981]

Rioting doesn't invalidate the message, though I agree that it definitely runs the risk of souring people and alienating your supporters.

For example, I can absolutely get behind the message of better conditions for egg-laying hens, without supporting a protester who burns down a hen house. That protesters actions were criminal, but they don't invalidate the message or mean that I will now be all, "To heck with hens! Let them suffer! Battery cages for everyone!"

It definitely can invalidate the message, even it's a worthy cause.

 

[eeyoreandtink]

It definitely can invalidate the message, even its a worthy cause.

I would agree, in the sense that the violence, not the message, becomes the takeaway for most people. When you start looting and destroying property, I no longer care what the protest was about.

 

[sunshinehighway]

I don't know, who they are, but this has become an all too familiar scene, over the last few years. No one seems to denounce this violent behavior. If this isn't the desired message...someone needs to change it. Any positive was completely lost. IMO

I disagree with that. People do denounce violent behavior. I think the problem comes in when it's expected to just denounce the whole cause because of violent behavior. People on an opposing side will often make focus on bad behavior and any attempt to bring the discussion back to the real issue is seen as condoning violence.

 

[Magpie]

I just LOL'd when I read that.

I once got points for quoting lyrics from "Under the Sea"...

 

[eeyoreandtink]

I disagree with that. People do denounce violent behavior. I think the problem comes in when it's expected to just denounce the whole cause because of violent behavior. People on an opposing side will often make focus on bad behavior and any attempt to bring the discussion back to the real issue is seen as condoning violence.

I don't think the violent behavior in riots IS denounced that way it has been in the past. I feel like its becoming more accepted as a mainstream way of expressing an opinion, which is troubling.

 

[AnnaFloridaLover]

Let's pretend for a minute and say that the world got so crazy that women weren't allowed to vote anymore. I imagine almost all women here would freak out and probably protest. If a few of the protests have a scattering of violence take place does that invalidate the entire issue?

 

[AnnaFloridaLover]

I once got points for quoting lyrics from "Under the Sea"...

Off to google "lyrics from Under the Sea"... lol

 

[Magpie]

I quoted your previous post. In it, you use the words, "human chain which stretched all the way around the Embassy." You then went on to describe it as "merely crowded" in your later post. That to me is that inaccessible. Not inaccessible in terms of not physically being able to access it, but more in terms of it possibly being a sign of disrespect to the 1000 people that were forming the human chain.

This is not, as you stated, "a psychological issue that makes dealing with crowds difficult." Defining it as such is nothing more than a failed attempt at blaming the potential victim of a crowds assumption that they have a right to form human chains and block public areas. If there was a human chain of people blocking a roadway would you honk your horn and expect them to graciously move out of your way? Any normal person that was looking to avoid conflict would try to find a different roadway. This is what a normal person would do. And it would NOT mean they have "psychological issues"

Actually, I wouldn't honk, I would lean out the window of my car and say, "Can I get by, please?"

And, if it was a circumstance like the one earlier this week, they would wave me by with smiles and reform their chain behind me.

Also, having had to visit the Embassy myself several times last year, I must confess that "accessibility" is not a word I ever associate with that building, regardless of whether there are protesters ringing it or not. One cannot bring anything larger than a very small purse inside the first door. That purse will be searched before you enter. You will then stand for at least half an hour in a small glass vestibule with as many other people as they can pack in with you. You will be buzzed one at a time through a metal blast door. Once through, they will confiscate your small purse, your cellphone, your house keys and anything else you have on you. You will walk through a metal detector and be patted down. Having passed this gauntlet, you will now be directed to a waiting room with hard plastic chairs and all the staff in kiosks behind bulletproof glass. Where you will almost certainly wait for about four or five hours past your "scheduled" meeting time. Periodically, the TV up in the corner will instruct you on what to do if the embassy is invaded by armed gunmen.

So, given all that, having to ask a protester to let me by, barely registers on my scale of things that make me "uncomfortable".