So, what was the last demo you went to?

[Azrael]

Well "criminal damage" is quite an elastic term as many demo attendees have found out. Is graffitti violent? Is smashing a window violent? Is "stretchinga police warning tape violent? (true example Solsbury Hill 1994)

Graffitti and smashing windows are clearly vandalism. The warning tape incident is the sort of junk charge I'd hope a sensible magistrate or jury would dismiss. (Points for inventiveness, I suppose.)

The ponit is that "violence" like "free speach" is a bit tricky to comfortably divide into black and white. Both are easier to take a stand on in the abstract. Unfortuantely in the real world it aint so easy.

If you stand by the principle that any speech not directly inciting violence should be permitted, in most cases it's possible to take a stand one way or the other. Of course there will be grey areas, but most things worth fighting for aren't "easy", so I don't see your point here. (When you have to defend the rights of hateful individuals such as Mr Griffin and Mr Collett, it's very hard.)

 

[chilango]

Graffitti and smashing windows are clearly vandalism. The warning tape incident is the sort of junk charge I'd hope a sensible magistrate or jury would dismiss. (Points for inventiveness, I suppose.)

If you stand by the principle that any speech not directly inciting violence should be permitted, in most cases it's possible to take a stand one way or the other. Of course there will be grey areas, but most things worth fighting for aren't "easy", so I don't see your point here. (When you have to defend the rights of hateful individuals such as Mr Griffin and Mr Collett, it's very hard.)

My point is its a messy world and purity in a moral sense comes at a cost., Depends whether you think thats a cost worth paying i spose.

Me, I try to be pragmatic and make the best (re protests, free speech, violence etc) choice I can. It means i make mistakes, and I can be full of contradictions. But hey ho.

 

[Azrael]

My point is its a messy world and purity in a moral sense comes at a cost., Depends whether you think thats a cost worth paying i spose.

I don't see any evidence that allowing free speech is more dangerous than suppressing it. Quite the opposite. Allowing government to criminalise ideas is very dangerous. You end up with cases like the 15-year-old served with a court summons (later dropped by the CPS) for calling Scientology a "cult". And unintended consequences like the BNP appearing as nationalists and not hate-filled racialists.

Like all censorship, suppressing Nazis is founded on the idea that people are children who cannot be trusted to dismiss poison when they see it.

I'm with US Supreme Court Judge Louis Brandeis: "Publicity is justly commended as a remedy for social and industrial diseases. Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants."

 

[LindaR]

@Linda,

So you didn't go on the big anti-apartheid marches, CND, the Miners Strike, the GLC/L/C cuts events, the Poll Tax, etc? I am genuinely interested to know why you went on no more, family commitments, lost interest, shift to the right?

Family commitments, and more recently, illness. But now that the family is all grown up and I've fully recovered, I'm going to get involved again.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

I've only attended the three London demonstrations against the Iraq war, and one in Sheffield town centre, but as you've said, most demonstrations have little effect, hence my disillusionment.

This is a personal choice, not a criticism of other people who choose to attend protests on a regular basis.

If you expect immediate tangible results each time you do anything then yes, perhaps political action is not for you.

 

[quimcunx]

It was something to do with European something or others. Trade agreements of some sort I think. ESAs, maybe....? Dunno. It was a morning out of the office so I went.

 

[soulman]

15th February 2003.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_15,_2003_anti-war_protest#London

The PTB's blithe dismissal of anywhere between 750,000 and 2 million people hit my faith in the usefullness of protest hard. I'd go on another, but only if it was combined with serious opposition within parliament.

You would only go on a demo if the politicians wanted to change something?

 

[Azrael]

If you expect immediate tangible results each time you do anything then yes, perhaps political action is not for you.

A particular type of action isn't for me, no, that's why I mentioned it. Like I said, it's a personal choice, not a general criticism. Others will demonstrate on principle, and all power to them, but my guiding star is usually pragmatism.

You would only go on a demo if the politicians wanted to change something?

No, only if I thought it had a real chance of achieving its objectives.

This isn't some binding law. An issue may come up where I feel strongly enough to go out regardless; I couldn't say right now.

 

[belboid]

you miss the point. which is that a single demonstration in and of itself wont make the difference, but as part of a wider campaign it can be, to say the least, useful

 

[soulman]

I can still see the point of international solidarity actions, and local actions by people directly. But bollocks to the big marches that appeal to the cunts in power.

 

[Azrael]

you miss the point. which is that a single demonstration in and of itself wont make the difference, but as part of a wider campaign it can be, to say the least, useful

I was part of a wider campaign: if you remember, I attended the first three demonstrations against Iraq.

And my point isn't that a single demonstration is futile unless its demands are immediately met. That would be unrealistic in the extreme. It's that a campaign is of little practical benefit unless it has allies on high.

This is not to criticise or belittle people who demonstrate on principle. I freely admit they're more dedicated than myself.

I can still see the point of international solidarity actions, and local actions by people directly. But bollocks to the big marches that appeal to the cunts in power.

I'm not seeking their approval: simply a reasonable chance that X demonstration's objectives will be achieved in some measure.

 

[chilango]

I don't see any evidence that allowing free speech is more dangerous than suppressing it. Quite the opposite. Allowing government to criminalise ideas is very dangerous. You end up with cases like the 15-year-old served with a court summons (later dropped by the CPS) for calling Scientology a "cult". And unintended consequences like the BNP appearing as nationalists and not hate-filled racialists.

Like all censorship, suppressing Nazis is founded on the idea that people are children who cannot be trusted to dismiss poison when they see it.

I'm with US Supreme Court Judge Louis Brandeis: "Publicity is justly commended as a remedy for social and industrial diseases. Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants."

Nowhere have i advocated state censorship.

Rather, that people can organise and attend anti-fascist demos.

 

[derf]

Anti Israelis being bastards demo this morning.

Fuck me derf at a demo. Thatcher will be telling the world how communism wasn't so bad next.

 

[belboid]

I was part of a wider campaign: if you remember, I attended the first three demonstrations against Iraq.

And my point isn't that a single demonstration is futile unless its demands are immediately met. That would be unrealistic in the extreme. It's that a campaign is of little practical benefit unless it has allies on high.

This is not to criticise or belittle people who demonstrate on principle. I freely admit they're more dedicated than myself.

I'm not seeking their approval: simply a reasonable chance that X demonstration's objectives will be achieved in some measure.

aah, so you've simply given up for reasons entirely unconnected to demonstrations. Which does make your OP a bit contradictory, but hey ho

 

[Zachor]

Last demo I attended was a local one about saving a local monument in Tottenham. The next demo I'm going on is the Anti Hamas Peace for Israel and Gaza demo on Sunday.

 

[fractionMan]

The last big one I went to was disarm desi, 11/9/2001

probably.

 

[tufty79]

It's been free for the last couple of years too, presuming you're talking about London Pride. Don't know whether Boris will fund the next one. The march has always had political elements, though, so I'd count it as a demo really.

Going on those demos has made me and my daughter appear in several documentaries, because there weren't many gay parents there with their kids, but last year there were tons of parents, and we got a HUGE cheer from the onlookers just by walking past with children and buggies.

My first demo was in Berlin, protesting against abolition of grants. We took over a TV station.

aye, it was both london ones i was on about

didn't know it was free again - might pop along this year (if boris gets it right)
(ace bit about the buggycheers!)

and nice one with berlin

 

[Fisher_Gate]

...
i would be interested to see what peoples first demo was?

mine was the '88 anti apartheid demo.

First demo was local Anti NF demo in coventry 1975.

Next was student demo against closure of teacher training colleges early 1976.

First big national demo was TUC demo against public services cuts by Labour government, October 1976 - how times change ...

 

[Fisher_Gate]

I think that it was mostly a serious turnout from the Mosques in Preston and Blackburn- aside from that it was mainly familiar faces on the left councillors/trade unionists etc.
There are some pics here:

http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=3310

"serious" is somewhat of an understatement - mass mobilisation is probably more accurate.

 

[Azrael]

aah, so you've simply given up for reasons entirely unconnected to demonstrations. Which does make your OP a bit contradictory, but hey ho

How so?

Nowhere have i advocated state censorship.

Rather, that people can organise and attend anti-fascist demos.

It makes little practical difference whether the vehicle of censorship is the law or a mob.

If the anti-fascist demonstration is making no attempt to suppress the fascists' freedom of speech, then that's a different thing.

 

[chilango]

How so?

It makes little practical difference whether the vehicle of censorship is the law or a mob.

If the anti-fascist demonstration is making no attempt to suppress the fascists' freedom of speech, then that's a different thing.

I doubt we're going to agree on this one.

 

[rekil]

Like all censorship, suppressing Nazis is founded on the idea that people are children who cannot be trusted to dismiss poison when they see it.

Suppressing nazis is founded on the idea that allowing them to organise results in communities being terrorised and people being hunted, assaulted and murdered in the streets. The largest neo-nazi demo in years is due to take place in Dresden next month. As well as having their route subjected to legal restrictions, there will be a large counter demonstration, elements of which are likely to try to cause as much inconvenience as possible. Would you physically defend these poor nazis and their rights? Bollocks you would. So why not fuck off with your despicable worthless carping like a good fellow.

 

[Zachor]

Would you physically defend these poor nazis and their rights? Bollocks you would. .

I have no time for fascists which is why I'm marching against them on Sunday.

 

[Fedayn]

I have no time for fascists which is why I'm marching against them on Sunday.

And yet so clearly on the same side as rachamaim18 a self declared fascist and Nick Griffin.... Oh the fucking idiocy and irony.

 

[Zachor]

And yet so clearly on the same side as rachamaim18 a self declared fascist and Nick Griffin.... Oh the fucking idiocy and irony.

FYI

I'm not on the same side as Rach and Nick Griffin. Search back through my posts if you like I guarantee you will find the following 1) An appreciation that Rach brought a different point of view to the Israel / Palestine conflict and a concern that we were losing a valuable opinion by banning him but very little that you could find where I openly agreed with him.

and 2) Zero posts praising Nick Griffin.

Now go fuck off theres a good chap.

 

[Fedayn]

FYI

I'm not on the same side as Rach and Nick Griffin. Search back through my posts if you like I guarantee you will find the following 1) An appreciation that Rach brought a different point of view to the Israel / Palestine conflict and a concern that we were losing a valuable opinion by banning him but very little that you could find where I openly agreed with him.

and 2) Zero posts praising Nick Griffin.

Now go fuck off theres a good chap.

Yes you are.... after all you accuse those of us who are condemning the Israeli bombings of being somehow pro-Hamas and somehow with the anti-semites who latch on to anything like this. So going by your own arguments you are with rachamim18 and Griffin both of whom, like you, support the Israeli actions in gaza. Like you, pretty simple really.

 

[Das Uberdog]

You gotta fight for your right to party. Anyone here with an ounce of belief in democracy should be able to see quite clearly an issue drawn out in the sand over which they would spill blood - theirs and others - over which to defend - regardless of private property.

 

[belboid]

I have no time for fascists which is why I'm marching against them on Sunday.

when you'll be marching ALONGSIDE them, how sweet you'll look.

What will your chants be?

"Kill more kids", "Death to Palestine!"

 

[belboid]

How so?

You said you'd stop going on marches because they dont achieve anything, but then admitted that marches never stop anything by themselves anyway, so your reference to marches was irrelevant. Then you said you'd stick to causes where they were supported by someone in influence (or somewuch [hrase) even tho that was true of the anti-war campaign too. rewndering your comments, well, rather meaningless at least. unless the only things you will campaign for are things that are already government policy.

 

[Zachor]

when you'll be marching ALONGSIDE them, how sweet you'll look.

What will your chants be?

"Kill more kids", "Death to Palestine!"

If you believe that you must be more stupid than I first thought.