undefined | Better HN

0 pointsslibhb4y ago0 comments

We have a word for "blocking infrastructure" as a form of protest: civil disobedience.

I'm sympathetic to (some) of the aims of the protesters but I think they've made their point and should go home. Still, this move by Trudeau seems like an overreaction considering there's been little/no violence.

0 comments

ALittleLight4y ago

One thing I've never understood about protests of the "you've made your point" variety is what they're supposed to do. I'm thinking of the Women's March and things like that, where there's a scheduled day and people walk around and then they are done. What is that supposed to do? It's less of a protest and more of a parade in my opinion.

The trucker protest, on the other hand, I can understand what it is supposed to do. Make people uncomfortable, block critical infrastructure, force the government to do what you want. But, if truckers just leave, then we're back to "What's the point of this?"

chaps4y ago

One thing they do is raise the bar for "public interest" scales used in legal matters. For example, protests make it more difficult for a government agency to claim information retrieval is "unduly burdensome" when compared against the public's interest. That reinforces the capabilities of journalism and so their message is more easily consumed by a wider public. In theory, anyway.

oneplane4y ago

A protest is a sign of disagreement, and a signal for change... not a "We are a small, non-representative but loud group. Now give us what we want."

If the point of a protect is go 'get your way', it's essentially a crappy "Might makes right" play. Might as well not vote, ignore all the rules etc. Society doesn't work if you pick-and-choose at scale.

ALittleLight4y ago

Civil rights protests against segregation, for example, would see protesters filling up or blocking restaurants that would refuse to serve black customers. Basically - you won't serve black people, we will put you out of business. Sometimes the police would come and arrest people, and that would win sympathy for the protesters, because even people who thought "Maybe black people shouldn't eat be allowed to eat at restaurants" might feel pangs of sympathy at seeing people arrested for just sitting at a restaurant counter.

Now, you can say "The trucker protest isn't as important as civil rights" but that's just a "You shouldn't be protesting" argument. Racists thought civil rights protesters shouldn't be protesting too. If the protesters believe their cause is actually important then it makes sense to protest. But, it only makes sense to protest in ways that are likely to result in changes. Symbols are fine, but empty symbolism isn't enough for something you think is really important.

3 more replies

jessaustin4y ago

If society keeps on "working", the protest wasn't effective. We never got any changes for the better by voting.

JamisonM4y ago

Civil disobedience as I support it is a non-violent action. A lot of people cite these protestors as "non-violent" but there have been many incidences of protestors attacking or intimidating residents as well as intimidating the police to resist enforcement actions so I don't regard the current occupation in Ottawa as meeting that threshold.

I think that anyone following closely would have to concede that police conduct and the lack of enforcement is a product of the threat of violence, but I certainly concede that it might be the case that immediate enforcement /might/ result in nonviolent resolution - it just seems very unlikely.

anonporridge4y ago

I'm not following these protests closely, but aren't you going to have a minority of violent people in any protest? That's just the nature of argry, large groups.

If that's your bar for "violent protest", then it's trivial for anyone to disrupt any protest by injecting interlopers to try to trigger an explosion. There's evidence that undercover police tried to instigate violence and looting in the BLM protests. Couldn't that be happening here too?

JamisonM4y ago

I agree that in any large group there can and will be agitators, but given the dug-in nature of the Ottawa protest it is reasonable to consider the relationship between the lack of enforcement, the relatively small number of participants, and the intimidation that has occurred (as testified to by the OPS).

I think it is lost on most people not following closely that the day-to-day protest headcount is quite low, easily under 1,000 people, probably well under 500. Any normal crowd control policing unit could disperse such a small group, the police do not do so despite many instances of having done so and clear legal authority to do so.

_-david-_4y ago

Can you name a protest of this size that hasn't had a little bit of violence?

JamisonM4y ago

The funny thing about the occupation of Ottawa is that it is very small! There have been many protests on parliment hill itself with ten times the headcount without incident.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/photos-climate-strike-...

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

ALittleLight4y ago

chaps4y ago

oneplane4y ago

A protest is a sign of disagreement, and a signal for change... not a "We are a small, non-representative but loud group. Now give us what we want."

ALittleLight4y ago

3 more replies

jessaustin4y ago

If society keeps on "working", the protest wasn't effective. We never got any changes for the better by voting.

JamisonM4y ago

anonporridge4y ago

I'm not following these protests closely, but aren't you going to have a minority of violent people in any protest? That's just the nature of argry, large groups.

JamisonM4y ago

_-david-_4y ago

Can you name a protest of this size that hasn't had a little bit of violence?

JamisonM4y ago

The funny thing about the occupation of Ottawa is that it is very small! There have been many protests on parliment hill itself with ten times the headcount without incident.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/photos-climate-strike-...

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse