Stanley cup and London riots recently have put the spotlight on social dynamics of protesting, and in particular, what happens when a peaceful protest turns ugly.
In many democratic countries, we have a right to peacefully protest. Lets say I excercise my democratic right to peaceful protest, and plaquard in hand, I join the street crowd to march in protest. So far I'm a good Peaceful Protestor.
Now lets say the guy beside me pulls a scarf over his face, flips a hood over his head, pulls out a brick, and throws it through a window. He's a Violent Protestor. I'm still a Peaceful Protestor. But here's an opportunity to be a good or bad peaceful protestor. If I'm a Bad Peaceful Protestor, I'll watch the guy, cheer him on, and let him duck behind me away from surveillance cameras. If I'm a Good Peaceful Protestor, I'll quickly put several dozen paces between me and the Violent Protestor, exposing him to police and surveillance cameras, and giving riot police a clear shot at corralling/teargassing/rubber-bulleting just the Violent Protestors.
Should there be a law against Bad Peaceful Protesting? What if I don't see the Violent Protestor throw the brick or mask his face? It might be too much to make that a criminal offence, and probably the average Peaceful Protestor isn't analyzing the situation in detail, so wouldn't have read up on the fine print of Peaceful Protesting. So more people would be charged, but with little change to the tenor of protests.
Tactically and practically though, if I want to avoid teargas, batons and rubber bullets, the several dozen paces rule of thumb seems like common sense. So police should be ready with teargas and let it fly when the window breaks. A right to peaceful protest and a right to be teargassed for sheltering a violent protestor should go together as twin rights.
No comments:
Post a Comment