Agreed that if they can't garner public support they are pursuing the wrong tactics.
I do think it's baffling that so many truly believe the voting public and their elected representatives are going to prevent climate disaster. Its getting far far too late for that.
Civil disobedience is always going to inconvenience somebody though. Confining protest to the times and places that the government can ignore it is as good as stopping it happening altogether.
So was it ok for Trump supporters to storm the Capitol in an attempt to disrupt the counting of the Electoral College votes? That was ‘civil disobedience’ wasn’t it?
Gardening in Central Norfolk on improved gritty moraine over chalk ... free-draining.
Agreed that if they can't garner public support they are pursuing the wrong tactics.
I do think it's baffling that so many truly believe the voting public and their elected representatives are going to prevent climate disaster. Its getting far far too late for that.
The voting public is you and me too. If the public isn't going to change after all the publicity about climate change far, then stopping them going about their business isn't going to do much either. I don't know the answer but I can tell when things aren't working. Why can't climate protesters?
It's not individual change which is going to make the required drop in CO2 emissions, though obviously we all need to do what we can. It's vital that the government sees fighting climate change as their most important task, bar none, or the world is likely to be uninhabitable for millions of us in the foreseeable future. How can the voting public influence the government without taking direct action?
Since 2019 I've lived in east Clare, in the west of Ireland.
There's legally defined actions for petitions to government both national and regional. A petition with enough signatures results in a government response, get more and there's a Westminster debate. There's democratic means available to these people.
The debates are widely regarded as a waste of time. MPs don't have to turn up, and often many don't, they're free to spout misinformation and ignore the counterarguments. If you want a democratic alternative to protest then you have to show you're listening to the people and stop taking the pseudo-authoritarian stance that we're seeing now.
Boris says protesting his government's lack of action should result in a prison sentence but sexually harassing a 12 year old girl is just a bit of harmless wolf whistling and people shouldn't be so uptight. The man couldn't be more tone-deaf if he tried.
If you can keep your head, while those around you are losing theirs, you may not have grasped the seriousness of the situation.
I think you have a bit of a rosy view of democracy @Dovefromabove. It's not a perfect system at all - no system is - it is just the system that currently prevails (like capitalism) in the west. Do you think that people should just have used the vote for civil rights in the States when the ruling bodies don't want to listen? How does that work in your mind? In that BBC list of protests the point was in most cases that the ruling body just didn't want to listen and had to be forced into action.
I'm not advocating violence and disruption at all. Does that make sense? BUT I do see that, over time, certain protests had an effect that appears to be beneficial - and those protests used methods that I normally find unacceptable. But freedoms and the rights to have those freedoms have been fought for. Fought. They weren't all voted in. Do you think Marcus Rashford forced Boris into a move by shaming the gov? Should Marcus have just voted Boris out? He could have also stood for parliament to get his point across. How would that have worked? - time was vital. I can fully understand that the climate people see time running out at an alarming rate. Should they wait before making their point? Do you think that Marcus - with his profile - could just use that profile to be a front page item? He didn't need to do anything else - he used the tools he had - his profile. The press wanted the story - David and Goliath - the poor kid made good taking on the gov on a moral issue. For the insulation people (whether right or wrong), I would assume that they thought a 'normal' protest would just have been relegated to page 11. They want the gov under pressure. They don't want climate to drop off the front page. How do you do that? Wait four years and hope that the next gov just listens? It's a total dilemma. Would I be saying the same if their cause had not an iota of merit in my eyes? I don't know.
Do I think the insulation bunch's message is getting across? Not sure. As I said earlier, there is a fine line isn't there between getting a message across (and keeping it at the fore) and alienating people.
As for other ideologies waiting for cracks in democracy, protest is a pillar of democracy isn't it? Isn't the lack of protest exactly what happens in certain other dogmatic ideologies? What you see is the curtailing of the press, restrictions on protest - as the ideology can't be challenged. Democracy has to be challenged - it should be like science - it has to evolve and test what it thinks it knows. That is protest, lobbying, press pressure...they are vital parts of democracy. We have law. If the protest breaks the law, the law is there. If anyone breaks the law, gov's included, they should be subject to that law.
I think you have a bit of a rosy view of democracy @Dovefromabove. It's not a perfect system at all - no system is - it is just the system that currently prevails (like capitalism) in the west. Do you think that people should just have used the vote for civil rights in the States when the ruling bodies don't want to listen? How does that work in your mind? In that BBC list of protests the point was in most cases that the ruling body just didn't want to listen and had to be forced into action.
I'm not advocating violence and disruption at all. Does that make sense? BUT I do see that, over time, certain protests had an effect that appears to be beneficial - and those protests used methods that I normally find unacceptable. But freedoms and the rights to have those freedoms have been fought for. Fought. They weren't all voted in. Do you think Marcus Rashford forced Boris into a move by shaming the gov? Should Marcus have just voted Boris out? He could have also stood for parliament to get his point across. How would that have worked? - time was vital. I can fully understand that the climate people see time running out at an alarming rate. Should they wait before making their point? Do you think that Marcus - with his profile - could just use that profile to be a front page item? He didn't need to do anything else - he used the tools he had - his profile. The press wanted the story - David and Goliath - the poor kid made good taking on the gov on a moral issue. For the insulation people (whether right or wrong), I would assume that they thought a 'normal' protest would just have been relegated to page 11. They want the gov under pressure. They don't want climate to drop off the front page. How do you do that? Wait four years and hope that the next gov just listens? It's a total dilemma. Would I be saying the same if their cause had not an iota of merit in my eyes? I don't know.
Do I think the insulation bunch's message is getting across? Not sure. As I said earlier, there is a fine line isn't there between getting a message across (and keeping it at the fore) and alienating people.
As for other ideologies waiting for cracks in democracy, protest is a pillar of democracy isn't it? Isn't the lack of protest exactly what happens in certain other dogmatic ideologies? What you see is the curtailing of the press, restrictions on protest - as the ideology can't be challenged. Democracy has to be challenged - it should be like science - it has to evolve and test what it thinks it knows. That is protest, lobbying, press pressure...they are vital parts of democracy. We have law. If the protest breaks the law, the law is there. If anyone breaks the law, gov's included, they should be subject to that law.
I think you’re making my point for me @steveTu … I think I’ve said something along the lines of ‘in the absence of anything better’ …. but in my opinion it’s better than any of the alternatives currently available.
I think democracy would be hugely improved by the introduction of an effective method of proportional representation, an overhaul of the funding of political parties, and the active involvement of more people who have ideas they feel strongly about … from the grass roots right up to the top. The electorate needs more involvement and more choices. Those are some of the changes I’ve been in favour of all my adult life.
Democracy is far from perfect, but the currently available alternatives are worse and we need to ensure we don’t throw the baby out with the bath water.
...and democracy was born out of protest (sometimes violent) and relies on protest to keep it going...
Much the same as you can judge a society by how it deals with the people on the fringe, can't you judge a democracy by how much you hear the voice of those who DON'T agree with what's going on?
Edited to add: Anyway Dove - been good exchanging views with you. It's now a work day, so I have to pretend to be doing something useful. And it's started off with something yellow in the sky, so I may just (I may rethink my position here after the next coffee), just, get out in the garden and tidy up a bit.
Posts
I do think it's baffling that so many truly believe the voting public and their elected representatives are going to prevent climate disaster. Its getting far far too late for that.
Gardening in Central Norfolk on improved gritty moraine over chalk ... free-draining.
I think you’re making my point for me @steveTu … I think I’ve said something along the lines of ‘in the absence of anything better’ …. but in my opinion it’s better than any of the alternatives currently available.
https://minorgrumbles.wordpress.com/2021/10/10/democracy-is-fragile/
Gardening in Central Norfolk on improved gritty moraine over chalk ... free-draining.