25 points

People in here are arguing about whether the government should be able to allow or disallow protests, i.e. “legal” or “illegal” protests.

I think Denmark has a good middle ground solution to this: Protests must be declared to the police ahead of time, so they know it is happening. Note that this is not an application or an ask for permission! You always have permission, you only have to make the police aware that you are protesting, so they can monitor it and ensure it follows law and order and doesn’t turn violent.

permalink
report
reply
9 points

France works that way as well.

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points
*

On paper, but the city will still say “Friday’s not good for us, how about next never?” Then the protest still happens but now the police can say the protest was announced too late and is violent while setting a corn field on fire with their tear gas. Which just happened this weekend.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Should be like, two days or more’s warning is the only requirement, they can’t say no. In Denmark, it’s 24 hours but they can prevent it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Well, there’s the theory and the practice…

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points
*

You always have permission*

* terms and conditions may apply

permalink
report
parent
reply
23 points

Protestation IS democracy you fucking fascists.

permalink
report
reply
-31 points

Legal protests are. Illegal protestation is anarchy.

permalink
report
parent
reply
33 points

There is no such thing as an illegal protest. That is a concept made up by the people being protested against so that they can squash it. Protests are not supposed to be “convenient”. They are not supposed to be comfortable or nice or pretty. They are supposed to force people to face the issue and band together to bring about real change.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-20 points

That’s not how it works. There is no country where protesting in the middle of the street without a permit is legal. There absolutely is something like illegal protesting, and what Just Stop Oil did was one example. Protests are about being seen, not causing inconvenience or even danger. You are not above the law just because you’re protesting. Getting a permit and demonstrating outside the white house would have been the correct way to go about this.

The only people who banded together as a result of this protest were angry drivers banding together to remove the nuisance, and climate deniers who got radicalized by the rage, seeing Just Stop Oil protests.

permalink
report
parent
reply
15 points

Guys, I’m planning to cause a traffic jam, and you all are invited.

Oh wait, that’s just normal traffic. Oh well, see y’all in jail.

permalink
report
reply
6 points

It is not acceptable anywhere. This “in a democracy” bit is just taking away blaim from dictator who do this kind of stuff all the time.

permalink
report
reply
12 points

No, the point of the sentence isn’t to take away blame. It is to compare them to dictatorships. I.E. Add more blame

permalink
report
parent
reply
-10 points

I still don’t understand why JSO is bothering common folk with their protests, go block politicians - you know, the people who YOU want to make the treatise to stop the use of oil!

I agree with what they want (though it would’ve been nice if they had a plan how to slow down our oil use, but then again they’re no experts on that), but I do think they’re being dumb on how to achieve it. You don’t see Union Strikers block off a highway to get what they want, they’ll instead block off some plant where they work - now that makes sense! Go bother politicians.

permalink
report
reply
12 points

The problem with “they should have a plan” is that we have viable plans and nobody that’s currently benefiting from oil will take any steps towards implementing them.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.

!climate@slrpnk.net

Create post

Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.

As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:

How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:

Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

Community stats

  • 4.4K

    Monthly active users

  • 2.6K

    Posts

  • 8.9K

    Comments

Community moderators