[HN Gopher] UK Police to get new powers to shut down protests be...
___________________________________________________________________
UK Police to get new powers to shut down protests before disruption
begins
Author : PaulHoule
Score : 64 points
Date : 2023-01-16 17:30 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.theguardian.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.theguardian.com)
| MonkeyMalarky wrote:
| Anyone else remember G20 in Toronto? Apparently police were
| showing up at protest organizers' homes preemptively. Western
| countries have been sliding down the slippery slope more every
| year.
| mijamo wrote:
| What is your point of reference? Because in the 60s you had
| people literally killed by western governments for protesting
| so the slope doesn't seem downhill from there at least. Same
| thing for censoring, there is much less now than back then.
| throwaway22032 wrote:
| I think there is a subtlety here.
|
| I believe that forms of protest that inconvenience the public
| should both happen, and be illegal.
|
| What that means is that a significant mass of people is then
| required.
|
| If you have ten or twenty people walking slowly down a road and
| as a result tens of thousands of people are inconvenienced then
| obviously the police should step in. If they don't, then members
| of the public will do instead, as we've seen.
|
| If an issue is actually important enough then you'll be able to
| recruit enough people that they won't be removable without
| resorting to extreme force anyway. In that case the protest is
| far more likely to be for a legitimate cause.
| thinking4real wrote:
| Your premise is fatally flawed.
|
| People don't organize organically in large groups. The media
| tends to lead them.
|
| All this rule you have would do is make sure grassroots
| protesting isn't permitted but when the elite run a media train
| on citizens minds then that will be ok.
| voakbasda wrote:
| This seems like a way of saying that minority groups do not
| deserve the same protection as large groups. The issues of
| small groups are not "important enough". Or did I
| misunderstand?
| throwaway22032 wrote:
| I don't think that you misunderstood me, but I do think that
| we should be careful with using the term "minority group".
|
| Examples of minority groups in the UK to me would be things
| like transgender people (~0.1-1% of the population), people
| of Indian heritage (1-5%), etc. Small percentages of the
| whole, but still significant quantities (e.g. tens, hundreds
| of thousands).
|
| I don't think that we can look at a group of 10-20 people
| with the same opinion blocking traffic in the same way. The
| rights of the people being disrupted have to be weighed up
| here.
| TigerTeamX wrote:
| And they can arrest people for standing and in their mind
| praying. I am not religious, but that seems to be a slippery
| slope.
|
| Here's a 1 minute clip
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXURFRSUS9U
| RileyJames wrote:
| Are you deliberately taking this out of context? Based on your
| commentary of the video link provided, it seems like it.
|
| They are standing out front of an abortion clinic. It's a form
| of intimidation, it's intentional and specific.
|
| Laws also exist in Australia that restrict protest in and
| around an abortion clinic. It does NOT mean you can not protest
| against abortion. It simply means your protest should not
| involve the intimidation and harassment of other specific
| citizens as they exercise their right to engage with abortion
| services.
|
| Your out of context statement has close to nothing to do with
| this new law change, which from first read seems unreasonable
| to me.
| gruez wrote:
| >They are standing out front of an abortion clinic. It's a
| form of intimidation, it's intentional and specific.
|
| I don't find this to be a satisfying explanation. Basically
| it boils down to "well there's a law on the books for this,
| and there's a plausible reason for implementing it, therefore
| it's okay". The same excuse works for protesters in china
| being arrested for "disturbing social harmony". The objection
| that the parent poster is raising isn't that the people are
| being arbitrarily detained, it's that the reason behind the
| arrest was unjust.
|
| >Laws also exist in Australia that restrict protest in and
| around an abortion clinic. It does NOT mean you can not
| protest against abortion. It simply means your protest should
| not involve the intimidation and harassment of other specific
| citizens as they exercise their right to engage with abortion
| services.
|
| Would you agree with this statement if this was flipped to
| protect a group that you don't like, eg the cops?
|
| "Laws also exist in [insert red state here] that restrict
| protest in and around a police station. It does NOT mean you
| can not protest against the police. It simply means your
| protest should not involve the intimidation and harassment of
| other specific citizens as they try to do their jobs."
| cf100clunk wrote:
| Right, suppress the protestors before they even consider taking
| action, human rights be damned.
| mytailorisrich wrote:
| The wording will be very important to prevent abuse but the
| stated aim is reasonable: " _It is intended to deal with
| protest groups' changing tactics, such as slowing traffic to a
| crawling pace by carrying out walking protests through big
| cities._ "
|
| I think it is fair and reasonable that the police be able to
| remove people who block the flow of traffic on roads. If they
| are peaceful and well-behaved maybe let them have their 10
| minutes but then it should be possible to remove them.
| kadoban wrote:
| The stated goal is arguably reasonable. Giving the police
| basically unlimited power to shut down protests is not a
| reasonable way to achieve that goal.
| mytailorisrich wrote:
| Who says they are giving the police "unlimited power"
| (edit: obviously regarding shutting down protests) ?
|
| Even the article (which is from The Guardian after all)
| reports that " _The change would broaden and clarify the
| legal definition of "serious disruption" and allow police
| to consider protests by the same group on different days or
| in different places as part of the same wider action._ "
|
| So, again, the exact wording of that amendment will be key
| and I don't think it has been published yet.
| kadoban wrote:
| > Who says they are giving the police "unlimited power"?
|
| Unlimited power to shut down protests. In other words,
| they will shut down all protests (not the other possible
| meanings).
|
| > "The change would broaden and clarify the legal
| definition of "serious disruption" and allow police to
| consider protests by the same group on different days or
| in different places as part of the same wider action."
|
| This will be used by police to view every protest as some
| "wider action", with the worst possible implications, and
| they'll act accordingly.
| techdragon wrote:
| What do you expect from a country that made it legal for cops
| to do crimes in pursuit of "official business ". The UK is
| arguably more fucked than many "western" countries, just in its
| own unique way.
| nickdothutton wrote:
| Taking a step back and a long view, most UK protests these days
| seem to be about "raising awareness" when the level of awareness
| is already high, or raising it further is unlikely to have any
| impact. Most are also very boring, historically speaking.
| Supergluing yourself to the road, pouring some milk on a shop
| floor, perhaps throwing some paint at a statue. Hardly storming
| of the Bastille is it?
| thinkingemote wrote:
| Indeed. Is protest just a kind of media / attention economy
| game?
| matthewdgreen wrote:
| This is, and always been, one of the most basic motivations
| behind all public protest.
| TapWaterBandit wrote:
| I have little sympathy for climate change protesters because they
| fundamentally don't understand the very real challenges
| associated with addressing climate change and why it differs from
| similar protest movements in the past (against various forms of
| discrimination, against Vietnam war, etc).
|
| Protests against Vietnam war or Jim Crow in the US South worked
| because there was a clear and actionable plan to address the
| issue. Withdraw from Vietnam/end segregation. These were
| government implemented policies and reversing them was as much
| about STOPPING doing something as opposed to doing it.
|
| The whole "Stop oil/fossil fuels" is completely different. Fossil
| fuels are the lifeblood of our whole economic system. Fertilisers
| created using fossil fuels deployed en mass are the only reason
| we don't have mass starvation in many parts of the world. It is a
| indispensable part of operating our extensive transportation
| networks as well as generating our power.
|
| Even under the most optimistic projections by 2050 the global use
| of fossil fuels will be at 50% its current levels. And this is
| assuming full scale adoption of nuclear power/renewables (which I
| support 100%).
|
| From the image in the article if we were to "stop oil" tomorrow
| we would be looking at catastrophic collapses in living
| standards. It can't be done, it won't be done, and there is no
| support for it. The only option we have available is slow
| plodding changes to the energy grid. We don't know if it will be
| enough or not but these protests will do absolutely nothing
| except harm.
|
| These protesters are a waste of space but that would be
| forgivable if it weren't for the fact that their actions are
| leading to law changes like this which can be used to cripple
| protests that can actually work like the ones that helped end
| Vietnam and segregation.
|
| I'm sure there will be responses to this with claims I'm a
| "climate change denier" when nothing could be further from the
| truth. Climate change and environmental degradation of varying
| types are serious and important issues facing us. But that
| doesn't mean any petulant and poorly thought-out action
| supposedly taken to address the problem is worthwhile or
| productive. These protests fall into that category and should be
| unequivocally condemned.
| PaulHoule wrote:
| At this point the climate change protestors are just one of
| many groups of discontents in the UK. For instance I am reading
| about railway workers on strike, health workers on strike,
| other groups of workers going on strike, etc.
| stuaxo wrote:
| Most of those workers on strike are ones where the government
| has a say in how much they are paid - and they have had under
| inflation pay rises for the last decade i.e. their pay has
| been cut, to the point some have to use food banks.
|
| Where payrises have been offered they have not made up the
| difference, and hence the strikes.
|
| Next month it will be teachers if nothing changes.
| kylehotchkiss wrote:
| I find their "destroy art with soup" tactic to be incredibly
| tacky and if anything it's turning people off their message.
|
| I prefer the current discourse in USA which is leaning towards
| Electrify Everything! Energy independence! Made in USA! and
| conscious efforts to improve the electric tech to match the
| performance of the analog versions. USA has its own critics of
| reducing emissions so what did we try to win them over?
| Electric f150. The first generation seems good so 10 years from
| now, imagine how much more compelling it'd be.
| throw827474737 wrote:
| Not sure how it is in the UK, but in Germany, where there is
| also a lot of outcry and hate towarfs them, the protestors
| (once you dig through) actually have very few and most simple
| demands: partly even promises that have been given for years by
| politicians, it is borderline ridiculous. They would be quite
| easy to fulfill even. Still, nothing happens.
|
| Given that the issue of climate change is so profound and long
| existant (I mean, against it any crisis like Vietnam or tofay's
| pandemic just pale) I can only sympathize with them - and imo
| it's hugely unfair to blame the state becoming more deep state
| on them, don't do that.
|
| It is on our all's huge lethargic laziness I really feel more
| and more guilty for, both deep state and climate change
| nonaction.
|
| > We don't know if it will be enough or not...
|
| Strong disagree, the way you envision what we can only do we
| know definitely it will not be enough. Period. Sorry to agree
| to your last paragraph, but that is almost climate change
| denial ;)
| roughly wrote:
| > I'm sure there will be responses to this with claims I'm a
| "climate change denier" when nothing could be further from the
| truth.
|
| Then you understand that "stopping oil" is a thing we actually
| do have to do.
| pasabagi wrote:
| I think stopping fracking in the UK is manifestly achievable,
| and reasonable.
|
| The other hot topic issue (installing insulation in people's
| homes) is another no-brainer, even more so now that gas prices
| have gone stratospheric.
|
| You're not a climate change denier: you're just reacting in the
| way most people always react to disruptive protests. It's the
| same way people reacted to Martin Luther King. Everybody finds
| disruptive people annoying on an instinctual level. It's only
| later, with perspective, that we usually realize that
| disruption was necessary, or nothing would have changed.
| [deleted]
| fakedang wrote:
| Except OP is pretty much in agreement with climate change, as
| am I. But I don't believe one bit that disrupting traffic
| flow and tossing paint onto artworks is a good effort to
| fight climate change - on the contrary, such stupidity by
| people who have barely matured out of art school actually
| invites backlash from the rest of the populace.
|
| Fight climate change by actually working towards it. How many
| of those hand gluing numpties have actually cleaned a beach
| or a woodland for once in their lives? I'll tell you, zero.
|
| These guys should instead be protesting outside Blackrock and
| Vanguard, which try to sell me a Climate Change ETF with
| shares from Exxon, Chevron and Aramco.
| pasabagi wrote:
| Backlash is good. MLK's whole strategy was about bringing
| the whole question of civil rights into a crisis, so the
| racists would have to actually stand up for their views, so
| the nation could have the kind of heated discussion the
| subject deserved.
|
| That's how protest works: you make a whole bunch of people
| hate you, so they bang on about how awful you are all the
| time. If your cause is right, you can count on enough of
| the heated discussions you spawn to fall in your direction,
| and even though everybody will pay lip service to how awful
| you are, they'll recognize the basic sense of what you're
| campaigning for.
| wcerfgba wrote:
| Except many of these groups _do_ have specific and actionable
| demands. For example, here are Insulate Britain 's demands:
|
| 1) That the UK government immediately promises to fully fund
| and take responsibility for the insulation of all social
| housing in Britain by 2025.
|
| 2) That the UK government immediately promises to produce
| within four months a legally binding national plan to fully
| fund and take responsibility for the full low-energy and low-
| carbon whole-house retrofit , with no externalised costs, of
| all homes in Britain by 2030 as part of a just transition to
| full decarbonisation of all parts of society and the economy.
| potamic wrote:
| Wow, so if the cops simply believe in their minds (or claim to
| believe) that you are going to start a protest, they can arrest
| you? How is that not scaring the trousers off UK citizens?
|
| It is sad to see countries all over the world introduce
| authoritarian steps one by one. When was the last time a country
| introduced a progressive law empowering its citizens against the
| government?
| 908B64B197 wrote:
| The precursor laws to Thoughtcrimes?
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thoughtcrime
| ilaksh wrote:
| The UK has been headed down that road for a long time. The
| media in a smaller country seems easier to control for one
| thing.
| comboy wrote:
| Hahah, yeah the media in big countries ...
| stuaxo wrote:
| Those who it does scare are branded as woke, by the right wing
| press (which includes most of the papers that are not the
| Guardian).
| asfarley wrote:
| Any citations? I haven't seen fear of pre-crime enforcement
| characterizes as "woke" anywhere.
|
| I'm asking because I myself frequently characterize things as
| woke, and people might accuse me of having right-wing
| tendencies, but nonetheless I would be very concerned if
| police in my country started acting this way.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-01-16 23:01 UTC)