Protest or Riot: What's the Difference?

 Greetings,

The protest is a legitimate form of political resistance and statement. It is a legitimate way to make a political issue made known. Let me be first clear about this at the beginning of this discussion. I have no issue with people gathering and marching, or gathering in a public place and making speeches. The issue is where it becomes a criminal activity, and the supposedly blurry line in between, that in fact is not so blurry.

A Protest

The protest march disrupts traffic and the normal flow, this is its purpose. This is the way the individuals involved gain attention for its cause. The amount of people marching, the banners displayed, chanting slogans and statements, often now the use of bullhorns. All of these things are designed to draw the person's eye to the march, to draw the attention to the issue which is being made known.

In some places, these marches are organised with the local law enforcement agencies so roads can be closed so there are no incidences with traffic, and so they can be on-hand to offer assistance, and to provide a measure of prevention of criminal incidences. The ones where they are organised in this fashion with law enforcement notification, with permission to march, these are most often peaceful marches. There are few incidences and little law enforcement involvement as a result.

The presence of law enforcement will increase with the number of protesters, they respond to the number of people in the march. They also respond to the nature of the crowd. This will decide what sort of gear they will bring with them when they arrive at the march. The law enforcement personnel respond to the actions of the protestors, this is an important note that must be remembered as we go along.

Can certain law enforcement agencies be heavy-handed in their treatment of protestors? Yes. Is there a recorded history of law enforcement agencies being heavy handed in their treatment of protestors in certain countries? Yes. These facts are acknowledged. However, it must also be acknowledged that there are some who have violent and criminal intent when they involve themselves in the marches.

The Other Protest

There are other protest marches, where individuals gather with the intention of highlighting a political purpose, however they are also there with criminal intent. They are also there with criminally disruptive intent. There is a difference between this sort of march and the one described above. There are the same banners, marching, slogans and chanting, bullhorns being used. 

However within the crowd there are a group of individuals who are intent on disrupting the march and causing violent activity to occur. These violent activities often occur when marches of different political or social ideals meet. Regardless of ideology, religious or political, there are those who will cause violence and criminal activity, for that is their reason for being there. These individuals are often masked and carry weapons, they have violent intent.

Criminal Activity

A person who strikes another person is guilty of assault, it is a criminal charge, it is as simple as that. It doesn't matter what creed, colour or ideology the other person is, or if they are expressing their political beliefs, the person has just committed assault. A person who strikes a police officer is guilty of the same charge. A person who throws an object through a window, strikes a car with another object, or destroys something is guilty of vandalism at the least, wilful damage at a higher charge, both of which are also criminal charges. The person has just committed a criminal act.

When a group of protestors starts committing the acts described above, or other such criminal acts including assault, looting as a result of breaking windows, they have turned their political gathering into a criminal gathering; they have turned their protest into a riot. It has turned the lawful assembly (the protest) into an unlawful assembly (a riot) and the law enforcement agencies have a responsibility to act to protect the lives and the property of the public. Law-abiding persons should disperse and immediately disassociate themselves from such an assembly.

A law enforcement officer who sees a criminal act in process is duty-bound to attempt to arrest that individual, because they have committed that criminal act. Not because they are a protestor. Not because they are an oppressive part of the system, but because they have committed a criminal act. If the individual had not committed a criminal act the law enforcement officer would not be arresting the individual.

Result

A person can go to a protest and march for their particular cause. They can join like-minded individuals and march through the streets shouting their slogans and singing their songs to bring attention to their cause. The organisers of the march should allow the police to know about the protest, to give legitimacy to the march and the cause, in some places it also legalises the assembly.

So long as the individuals march in a peaceful fashion and do not commit any criminal acts there should be no entanglement with law enforcement. For some causes they believe that any attention they get is good, because it spreads their cause around; this should not be the aim of a protest, a peaceful protest while it does not get much publicity in the media, will not get the people involved branded as criminals either. Think about your true intentions, and choices. Then think about their consequences.

Cheers,

Henry.

One Day Causes and One Day Politics

 Greetings,

So, Australia Day is upon us again, as per usual there is the protest about how Australia's indigenous people have been treated in the past. It should not be doubted that I think that they were treated poorly in the past, they were. Native peoples were treated poorly by colonial powers as a rule rather than an exception and this is seen throughout the world. Some were treated worse than others, but this is not the time nor the place to make comparison. This is an examination of the current protests, and protests in general, and their sustainability. Or more to the point, those who participate in them on a populist basis...

Why is that one day a year people feel that they can get all cross about how people have been treated, because it happens to be a particular celebration that day, yet they do nothing about the same cause for the rest of the year? I find this particularly populist and weak. We find this with many political issues and many causes. People will get on the bandwagon while it is popular, but as soon as it is out of the public eye, i.e. off the media, or finished for that particular day, then they stop making their complaints and demonstrations. This can be seen with many different political issues and many different causes.

I will cite a few causes to begin with... first let us begin with, the big one, Climate Change. This one seems to be on people's minds whenever there is a Climate Change Summit, or some government makes some decision about which way they are going on some paper, but then it dies down pretty quickly again. So, this one affects the entire planet. Yet, there is little said about it on a regular basis, only when the media picks up on some story and spreads it around the world for people to get agitated. So this one is left to the dedicated people, and us to recycle as we do normally.

Terrorism. Another global phenomenon. So everyone thinks that because COVID-19 has struck that the terrorists are all going to go back into hiding and give everyone a break? The extremists in countries are just going to put down their weapons? No, sorry, doesn't work like that. Even when the cameras are not pointed at the latest terrorist incident, they are still occurring. People don't get to hear about the thousands of terrorist incidents which happen in countries because they don't involve the right people, so there is no media coverage. Is anyone voicing protest about these incidents? Campaigning for their right to live in peace? 

Black Lives Matter. Months ago you could not go on social media without seeing posts about the horrid way people of colour were being treated by the law enforcement agencies in the United States. This spread all over the world, there was nowhere you could escape it. Now, you see the occasional bumper sticker, if you manage to get outside. The occasional post on social media, but this has died down. Not popular any more, who is doing anything about it?

Gun Control. One that always stirs the pot. There is a shooting at a shopping mall, or mostly at a school, mostly in the United States that gets screened around the world, thanks to the internet and the media, and people start looking at gun violence. Then they start trying to compare their own gun control laws with the United States. This one only rears its head when some person shoots lots of people. Other than that it is not popular enough, so who bothers?

Income Gap. Not as sexy as all the rest so it rarely gets media time. The media still has the policy, "If it bleeds, it leads." There is still an income gap, and it is only getting worse. The gap between the rich and the poor is not a gap it is a trench and it gets wider and wider and the politicians do not want to know, "In Australia there is no official measurement of the extent of poverty." (Parliament of Australia) Where is the fight and protest for them? Where is the argument for these people? Where is the action?

These are five causes which have been pointed out, all of which are current. Yet there is no media coverage. There is no social media coverage for them. There is only what is popular to complain or be offended about today, depending on what celebration day it is. If people were serious they would continue their protest beyond the single day causes, beyond the popular protest, beyond the popular media coverage and make it part of their lives, take political action, but most don't and most won't. This is the problem with the world. People care only when it is convenient and when it is popular, then it is forgotten. Words are cheap. When action is asked, then you find out who cares. There are a lot of keyboard warriors out there, few real ones.

Cheers,

Henry.

Taking Political Action

Greetings,

The following discussion is about political action and what it means to take political action. There are people who think that they are taking political action when they are actually not. They believe that they are trying to make a difference but they are actually not really. So the following will discuss methods of taking political action and their effects.

Not Political Action

There are some who think that political action is as simple as making people aware of injustice. This is only a very mild form of political action, if it can even qualify. People think that spreading information is sufficient political action for them to feel satisfied with themselves about having "done something" when in actual fact, most of the time it really does not qualify unless the information is of a truly restricted nature i.e. like whistle-blower level. So there are two actions which people think they are being political, but they are mostly just stirring the pot, and not really having particularly much effect.

Article Cross-Posting

Our social media feeds seem to be filled with people complaining about the actions of government or corporations. They seem to be filled with articles shared from various sources, some are reputable and some are not so reputable about various issues. Posting these articles does make people aware of the issues which are about, but it does not qualify as political action. Neither does a long rant underneath it in the comments. It raises awareness but does not do much else.

The "Meme"

Memes seem to have sprung up all over the place. Some of them are down-right hilarious, unfortunately these are not the ones that are being discussed here. The ones that are being discussed here, and "images with words attached" is the general definition which is being used here, are ones which are designed, like the articles above to stir people to action. For the most part, the most action that will be seen is some comment in the section below on a social media site. Much like Article Cross-Posting above, this does not qualify as political action. It may raise awareness of some social or political injustice, but it is not political action. It will not affect the government or corporations whom the meme is about.

Political Action

For something to qualify as political action it has to have an effect on the establishment. This means that either the government or a corporation has to stop and take notice of the action of the individual. this is the reason why the previous actions do not qualify as political action. They inform people, but so do journalists as part of their everyday job, and most of them would not think they are being political. The most important thing about this list is that while it covers the full extent of political action it does not in any way condone any sort of violent act against any individual or entity.

Voting

When political action is discussed this is the most common form which is recognised. Once every three or four years the voting public can decide to change the government. This is political action as the government, and corporations to a point, need to take notice of how people are voting and convince them to vote for them to keep them in power. This is the simplest and laziest form of  the use of political power and some people even decline to exercise this properly, and in some nations, at all. This is not the only way that an individual can exercise political power or effectively pressure the government or corporations.

Signing petitions

There are hundreds, if not thousands, of active petitions currently active and they are not all that difficult to find. Thanks to the internet we have organisations such as change.org which have made them electronic which means that we do not even have to sign on a piece of paper, but can sign from the comfort and convenience of our own homes. Signing these petitions is a form of political action as once the signatures are acquired they can be presented to politicians to present the view of the people on a particular issue. Where a person puts their contact details with their signature it holds more weight and, depending on the petition, could bring the person to notice of certain agencies. Of course there is a risk with any real political action that is to make a difference. However, in the same way as Voting, this is a relatively lazy form of political action, especially with the convenience of internet, electronic petitions.

Writing to Ministers

Any person may write to a Minister or Member of Parliament. A letter will carry more weight if the individual is a registered voter, and even more if the individual is one of that Member's constituents. Of course it will carry more weight if the letter is backed up with evidence and is not simply a rant or a complaint. The point being that writing to a Minister or Shadow Minister takes some effort, and this is appreciated by the reader and thus this is taken into account when the letter is read. This carries far more weight than simply signing a petition because you have taken the time to share your thoughts on a particular subject, which is obviously of importance to you. It can also easily be claimed that letters carry more weight than petitions because of the time taken to write them, especially when they are well-researched. The combination of letters and petitions is also useful. This is a form of political action which people do not seem to be as aware of as they should be.

Writing petitions and collecting names

Hasn't this been covered? No, the previous was merely signing the petition. This is writing the petition and collecting the names, being the instigator of the action. Just as it was previously stated, a combination of letters and petitions is a way of making people listen to issues which are present in a community. The letters and the petitions should be sent one after the other, and the petition should always be followed up by another letter so that the issue cannot be forgotten. Petitions are designed to gather a "ground-swell" of support for a cause. They are also useful for gaining contacts with people who may be willing and able to assist further in the cause. This form of political action has a long historical record.

Protesting

Protesting is the most well-known form of political action because it is public. The 1960s and 1970s made protesting famous, but it existed and was used well before this time. This, again, is the idea of using a "ground-swell" to demonstrate that there are a large group of the population which are concerned about a particular issue or set of issues. For many they are just an inconvenience which block roads and stop the flow of traffic, and this is actually their point. Protests are designed to make people take notice by causing an inconvenience through the massing of individuals. The other idea behind protests is that there is greater safety and greater force in numbers. One person can be ignored, but when hundreds of people get together, it is more difficult to ignore. Protests, for the most part, are designed to be non-violent, and the ones which turn violent are usually the result of a small group of people on either or both sides of the protest which stir up trouble. Protests are a form of political action which demonstrate an individual's dedication to a cause.

Violent Political Action

The forms of political action which have been described previously are intended to be non-violent. The prime one which can turn violent is the protest, which, as discussed, is usually the result of a radicalised group of individuals within the whole which cause the protest to turn violent. There are forms of violent political action which often make the news, which will be mentioned here, but not heavily detailed, as they are not the focus.

Terrorist acts are acts of violence perpetrated to cause fear for a social, political, or religious aim. These acts are usually perpetrated against civilian targets rather than military targets and are designed to cause disruption. They have previously been used as a form of political action and been used effectively so to bring governments to the negotiating table. Their nature has changed in recent times, as has the approach to them. Such actions are now considered criminal and not a legitimate form of political action.

Driven further along terrorist action can turn into revolution, but this requires the support of a large part of the population to succeed. Or at least complicity with a large part of the population to succeed. This is the most radical form of political action and involves taking over the entire government, usually by force.

Conclusion

There have been various forms of political action discussed. Clearly non-violent political action should always be the aim of the individual toward gaining their goals. What should also be noted is that there are more ways of exercising legitimate political power than just through the ballot. These should be taken into account. When a person truly supports a cause then these actions will be present. Posting articles and memes on social media is good for raising awareness but it does little else. More needs to be done to be considered "politically active".

Cheers,

Henry.