So you're one of these people, to use the highway analogy again with BLM, that's cool just blocking off major city arteries for a cause? Stop ambulances getting to hospitals, leaving kids unable to be picked up from school, the works, 'cause "grievances!"?
Do you think there weren't British merchants who lost their jobs due to Ghandi refusing to buy salt or cloths from them? Do you think there weren't inconvenienced people in Selma? Or what about the Boston Tea Party? I could easily imagine a situation where British colonials say, "yes, yes, they want faire representation... but seizing property and destroying people's ability to feed their families.. That's going too far!" Sometimes, the juice is worth the squeeze.
I mean, I get it. But it's just why the wider public's never going to side with you on these things. It becomes "more!", "by any means necessary!", "do whatever we need to!", and pretty soon you have people running with that mantra to Weather Underground extremes.
You don't seem to get it. The Weather Underground was a violent protest movement... that's the line that must never be crossed for any reason. But yes, public support is vital to civil disobedience. The goal is to provoke your enemies but to do so in a way that compels others to your cause. Like I mentioned earlier... dying out there in the snow would have done that. Extreme self sacrifice allows people to see how important the issue is, and it makes you want to do your part. "If these people can die in the cold, then I can certainly go to a few marches." They didn't do that.. when things got tough, they left.. and so did their credibility unfortunately.
There have to be agreed-upon limits with these things. You get to freely assemble, you get to wave signs and chant all you want. You don't get to shut down civil works no matter how worthy you think your cause is. I get it, it's just a park, people can go without a park. But it's not always going to be a park, is it? It's the old "you act on a riot as soon as it starts and send a message, rather than letting it spiral" thing. These things have a way of snowballing when you don't draw lines, and Occupy pretty clearly breached the accepted bounds of what pretty much everyone in the states not involved in the movement draws.
Draw all the lines you want. It won't stop people from creatively and peacefully disrupting the system in order to highlight injustice. Like I said before, the point of peaceful resistance is to provoke a reaction in order to draw attention to the cause. If you draw a line that protesters can't go to a certain place or do a certain thing, then it's very possible that civil resisters will break those specific laws in order to demonstrate their point.... all the while, not throwing a punch.
And when those laws are broken, then the police
can arrest those people and prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law. Death.. jail... these are just part of the consequences of being a soldier. In fact, Ghandi would argue (when he was put in jail twice) that the judge had to enforce the harshest punishment possible, in order to show how unjust the laws really were. If you really believe in what you're doing then enforce the law to the fullest extent possible. That's true civil disobedience.. not marching in a street for an hour and then going home, feeling good about yourself.
And in comes the "you're just against the right to protest!" inevitable response. Not one bit. Protest, but do it right. Or, hell, at least...do it wrong if you really feel the need to, but then don't b*tch about the fuzz taking action on it.
Agreed. The whole point is to provoke. Arrests should be assumed.. and in some cases... necessary.
