AntiCuts Demo - 9 Nov

MaxwellBygraves

HebdenBiker wrote:

W1 wrote:

The "cuts" are simply a curb on previously excess government spending and waste. They are in no way comparable to the inhuman and degrading treatment against which the Suffragettes and the Civil Rights Movement. In fact to compare them is, in my view, somewhat offensive and disingenous.

You are easily offended.

Both the Suffragettes and the Civil Rights movement were challenging deep-seated dominant ideologies. At the time, the majority could not see why women needed the vote, or black people equal rights. Both groups were considered dangerous extremists initially, until peaceful civil disobedience gained them publicity and the support of a tipping-point of those with strong and influential voices (in both cases, white men). They were prepared to be arrested, spied-upon, ridiculed and assaulted, but their persistence and courage (and outside events) eventually brought about welcome and beneficial change. There are clear parallels with the modern protest movement.

In the case of the modern protesters, they too are challenging an extremely deep-seated ideology; that the rich deserve their wealth and the poor deserve their poverty. They too risk arrest (under misused anti-terrorism laws). They too are harrassed, surveilled and labelled extremists, layabouts and all the rest of it.

Nowadays, it is self-evident to most that the descendents of African slaves deserve equal rights, and that women deserve the vote. One day, it will be self-evident that everybody deserves a living and that it is immoral for one sector of the economy, propped up by privilege and friends in high places, to steal the product of the labour of everyone else.

Well said.

HebdenBiker

notsoblue wrote:

HebdenBiker wrote:

I do not agree with the EDL. But I do not agree that their marches should be banned "in case there's violence". It is very easy for a TV news editor to make them look like complete thugs, and there are probably a hard fringe among them of utter lunatics (just like any other protest group you care to mention), but from the evidence of my sister and my copper mate, most of them see the marches as a chance to get p!ssed, chant a load of nonsense then get back on the coach and go home. A bit like going to a football match, then.

I totally agree with you. But weren't EDL members arrested because there were allegations of threats being made by them to the protesters outside St Pauls? The other point was that their free speech was being repressed because they weren't allowed to be an obvious presence at the Cenotaph during remembrance... Is there any other political group that *would* be allowed to do this? Are the EDL being singled out here? My point is that they aren't being held to a higher standard or discriminated against, and that when they are curtailed in some way its because they fall foul of the law and are treated the same as any other group. Trying to show an equivalence between the EDL and anti-capitalist, anti-cuts protesters and suggesting that it is hypocrisy to see a difference is ludicrous.

Hmm - I'd need to know more about the nature of these threats. It is fact that EDL marches have been banned from many cities due to the threat of public disorder. It is expensive and inconvenient to police these demos, and so it is easy for them to get them banned, especially since their cause is so unpopular. The same with the Muslim nutters who wanted to protest at Remembrance Day parades. There aren't many who would defend their right to protest. But I would.

If you want to stand in the street in a group and shout something unpopular and unfashionable, you SHOULD be allowed to do it.

Are the EDL being singled out? Not quite singled out. However it seems that if you want to protest about an unpopular cause in this country, you'll have difficulty doing it.

notsoblue

MaxwellBygraves wrote:

HebdenBiker wrote:

W1 wrote:

The "cuts" are simply a curb on previously excess government spending and waste. They are in no way comparable to the inhuman and degrading treatment against which the Suffragettes and the Civil Rights Movement. In fact to compare them is, in my view, somewhat offensive and disingenous.

You are easily offended.

Both the Suffragettes and the Civil Rights movement were challenging deep-seated dominant ideologies. At the time, the majority could not see why women needed the vote, or black people equal rights. Both groups were considered dangerous extremists initially, until peaceful civil disobedience gained them publicity and the support of a tipping-point of those with strong and influential voices (in both cases, white men). They were prepared to be arrested, spied-upon, ridiculed and assaulted, but their persistence and courage (and outside events) eventually brought about welcome and beneficial change. There are clear parallels with the modern protest movement.

In the case of the modern protesters, they too are challenging an extremely deep-seated ideology; that the rich deserve their wealth and the poor deserve their poverty. They too risk arrest (under misused anti-terrorism laws). They too are harrassed, surveilled and labelled extremists, layabouts and all the rest of it.

Nowadays, it is self-evident to most that the descendents of African slaves deserve equal rights, and that women deserve the vote. One day, it will be self-evident that everybody deserves a living and that it is immoral for one sector of the economy, propped up by privilege and friends in high places, to steal the product of the labour of everyone else.

Well said.

+2, this is very well put, and I think it sums up this relatively recent trend in anti-capitalist protest. Brilliant...

W1

HebdenBiker wrote:

W1 wrote:

The "cuts" are simply a curb on previously excess government spending and waste. They are in no way comparable to the inhuman and degrading treatment against which the Suffragettes and the Civil Rights Movement. In fact to compare them is, in my view, somewhat offensive and disingenous.

You are easily offended.

Both the Suffragettes and the Civil Rights movement were challenging deep-seated dominant ideologies. At the time, the majority could not see why women needed the vote, or black people equal rights. Both groups were considered dangerous extremists initially, until peaceful civil disobedience gained them publicity and the support of a tipping-point of those with strong and influential voices (in both cases, white men). They were prepared to be arrested, spied-upon, ridiculed and assaulted, but their persistence and courage (and outside events) eventually brought about welcome and beneficial change. There are clear parallels with the modern protest movement.

In the case of the modern protesters, they too are challenging an extremely deep-seated ideology; that the rich deserve their wealth and the poor deserve their poverty. They too risk arrest (under misused anti-terrorism laws). They too are harrassed, surveilled and labelled extremists, layabouts and all the rest of it.

Nowadays, it is self-evident to most that the descendents of African slaves deserve equal rights, and that women deserve the vote. One day, it will be self-evident that everybody deserves a living and that it is immoral for one sector of the economy, propped up by privilege and friends in high places, to steal the product of the labour of everyone else.

I simply do not agree. The only "clear parallels" are that they were all protest movements.

I can see no justification - at all - for the lack of equality that the Suffragettes and the Civil Rights movement stood for. I can see significant justification for curbing government excess.

As to the anti-capitalism protests, the fact that they don't even know what they want, have no apparent "solution" to the problems they see (except the unuquitous "tax the rich" [yawn]) and appear to have the means to not work not only makes them lacking in credibility but also hypocrites too.

In comparing these very different movemets you are attempting to portray anyone who disagrees with the anti cuts/anti capitalism protestors as being the equivalent of a racist or a sexist. As I said, that is both disingenious and offensive.

W1

HebdenBiker wrote:

Are the EDL being singled out? Not quite singled out. However it seems that if you want to protest about an unpopular cause in this country, you'll have difficulty doing it.

They appear - on the face of it - to be treated inconsistently at best.

As I have repeated, it is of course gross hypocricy to deny freedom of speech/protest only to groups which one doesn't like and doesn't want to hear from.

W1

notsoblue wrote:

HebdenBiker wrote:

I do not agree with the EDL. But I do not agree that their marches should be banned "in case there's violence". It is very easy for a TV news editor to make them look like complete thugs, and there are probably a hard fringe among them of utter lunatics (just like any other protest group you care to mention), but from the evidence of my sister and my copper mate, most of them see the marches as a chance to get p!ssed, chant a load of nonsense then get back on the coach and go home. A bit like going to a football match, then.

I totally agree with you. But weren't EDL members arrested because there were allegations of threats being made by them to the protesters outside St Pauls? The other point was that their free speech was being repressed because they weren't allowed to be an obvious presence at the Cenotaph during remembrance... Is there any other political group that *would* be allowed to do this? Are the EDL being singled out here? My point is that they aren't being held to a higher standard or discriminated against, and that when they are curtailed in some way its because they fall foul of the law and are treated the same as any other group. Trying to show an equivalence between the EDL and anti-capitalist, anti-cuts protesters and suggesting that it is hypocrisy to see a difference is ludicrous.

You see, you don't have a clue about what happened and why - all based on rumour - yet you're happy to denounce the EDL for being violent, but not students and anti-cuts protestors who also have a history of violence. "Allegations of threats" - is that not the same for the masked student protestors? It is not ludicrous to compare the two - you just don't like the comparison because it makes your hypocricy starkly evident.

notsoblue

W1 wrote:

It is not ludicrous to compare the two - you just don't like the comparison because it makes your hypocricy starkly evident.

Okay