If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Or are you arguing the point of peaceful protest?
Erm, I think you mean Stoke-y-bont .......
:eek2:
Man thats pretty harsh...Bit much really..
as you said that website does not refer to your beliefs
i dont think the concept of a friendly and non violent pro-lifer is against kermits wishes
kermit said that in relation to the concept that these days, we see far far far too many pro lifers that resort to violence and madness, along with pain and sufering, to get thier point accross
I'm saying that sometimes you have to fight to defend yourself.
Do you know the name of King's assassin? Without looking it up.
Those peaceful men had more of an impact on the planet, because they WOULD NOT fight to defend themselves.
Some things are worth dying for.
What did people die for in Tianneman Square? What was achieved?
I didn't pass judgement on it.
You appeared to be saying that by keeping it non-violent it was more effective. I was trying to establish what that effectiveness actually was.
Especially as you followed it up with this:
Notoriety.
So, is it in your view, worth dying for "coverage", even though it doesn't lead to any substantial change in the conditions you protest against?
If they had gone in throwing petrol bombs, would the outcome have been any different?
Other than in terms of coverage?
Thats what I'm asking. What was the impact?
I have no idea. But non-violence didn't get very far. Maybe we should have non-violently resisted Hitler too?
Twelve years later, 2 million people marched peacefully in the biggest single protest in British history against British involvement in the war on Iraq. It made fuck all difference to war criminal Tony. I'm willing to bet that if those two million people had rioted through Central London like the poll tax demonstrators did (and created far more damage just by the sheer numbers present) the consequences and political aftermath would have been such that Blair would have not pressed ahead with British involvement.
Protest is a part of this so-called democracy we live in.
There will be protests we agree with, and protests that we disagree with.
And methods of protest that we disagree with.
Pro-lifers adopting campaigns of harrassment against those involved in abortions is where we started.
Is it not the case that they should be allowed to express their strongly held beliefs. Isn't that what protest is about?
If they break the law, then hopefully the law will deal with them.
If people don't like what they do, they can protest about them.
ETA: And, rather handily wheresmyplacebo has started a version of the violence/non-violence debate here
The grassroots policy of non-payment was a major factor as well.
I'm not sure tbh. A better plan may have been to build resistance in the workplaces and threatened action where it hurts - at the point of wealth production.
burn them please and be done with it
People like this lot make democracies look bad. It is very difficult to defend freedom of expression when you get repulsive scum like this.