given the furore over returning troops being targeted by Islamic protestors, I’m interested to know how far protest should be allowed?
On one level I think its vital to raise awareness, but on another level I feel there is a limit to acceptable direct action…
for instance at the climate camp I think the workshops about alternative energy are a excellent idea – not so excellent are attempts to shut down working power stations – as an engineer I know the National Grid is stressed but power cuts hurt vulnerable people and if a power station is stopped it will mean they have to use more energy to restart them.
however protestors could contact the press every time EDF loses power in some area to point out the spiralling demand and lack of investment in both alternatives and infrastructure.
Also I increasinly disagree with some forms of so-called “non-violent” direct action involving property damage or humiliation as I feel they could backfire – and I do wonder if people do it just to “stir the pot” rather than achieve anything positive….
I can see the comedy value in hussing green custard at Mandleson, but he’s an easy target (even the media have been allowed to bully him a bit) and it does allow Mr Toad to portray himself as a victim…
And if its OK for eco protestors to smash up a office where a company trashes the environement or experiments on animals – doesn’t that just mean its also OK for feds or even anti-drug vigilantés to trash a rave crews rig or even a head shop or info shop as drugs are perceived to be harmful and raves destroy other peoples property?
What limits do you think should be placed on protest?
