What is the point of prison?

[dutchguylivingintheuk]

I see some protesters have been protesting about the motorway protesters getting locked up.

Apparently, this current mob are not part of Insulate Britain, Extinction Rebellion, or any other nutty group, but are 'community led'.

There is something silly with things like this, i mean the same kind of peacefull protest for something like call a other extreme ''white power'' or ''covid is fake'' would be wrapped up arrested etc. much faster.
The ''community led'' thingly is because and injunction often mentions a certain group, calling it ''community led avoids that, kind of a loophole.

They chose to block Lambeth Bridge in London.

It's not clear to me if the bridge deck is covered by the various injunctions, so those arrested may not go to prison.

as i understood from the media all roads junctions etc. are covered, i assume a bridge deck is part of the road, so covered

A quote from one of the protesters is instructive.

She says she has been arrested six times, with no effective consequence each time.

While that state of affairs repeats, she will never abide by the rule of law.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59361145

Some people just don't seem to be able to comprehend the idea of sacrificing their own liberty for a cause outside of themselves.

My Grand-Grandmother was tortured by the nazi's for failing to give up the location of the Jews they tought she was hiding(which by then luckily where already moved safely away by the resistance network.)
That was a sacrifice for her own liberty because she wouldn't have been the first one killed by the Nazi's and the damage of that torture had damaged her for the remainder of her life. (both physical and emotional)

I have a problem with your comparison because the consequences for these protestors are much lower and it's not needed, there is a right to protest, the only thing that gets them in trouble with the law is blocking roads and such, needles to say that's a big difference with all the persons from our past that really risked their lives to achieve something, whether it is the comprehensive resistance network in the countries during nazi occupation, the fight for women's rights in a period where violence was still the primary response or the fight against slavery

 

[mudsticks]

My Grand-Grandmother was tortured by the nazi's for failing to give up the location of the Jews they tought she was hiding(which by then luckily where already moved safely away by the resistance network.)
That was a sacrifice for her own liberty because she wouldn't have been the first one killed by the Nazi's and the damage of that torture had damaged her for the remainder of her life. (both physical and emotional)

I have a problem with your comparison because the consequences for these protestors are much lower and it's not needed, there is a right to protest, the only thing that gets them in trouble with the law is blocking roads and such, needles to say that's a big difference with all the persons from our past that really risked their lives to achieve something, whether it is the comprehensive resistance network in the countries during nazi occupation, the fight for women's rights in a period where violence was still the primary response or the fight against slavery

Your great grandmother sounds like a very brave and principaled woman.

I'm not sure I'd be so courageous.

But I don't understand the rest of your point

Are you trying to make out that protest in this country is not legitimate because people (in this country) are not met with such swift and immediate violence.?

Surely that fact is a good thing .??
Isn't that progress ?

Please do be reminded that in other countries people are still taking extreme risks in their environmental protection attempts.

Many people in this country who do go out to protest are fully mindful of this, and are prepared to put up with the (relatively mild) discomfort of a few months in prison perhaps, in part as an act of solidarity..

I hope you are not suggesting that they should be meeting the same fate as their overseas counterparts??

 

[AuroraSaab]

I have a problem with your comparison because the consequences for these protestors are much lower and it's not needed, there is a right to protest, the only thing that gets them in trouble with the law is blocking roads and such, needles to say that's a big difference with all the persons from our past that really risked their lives to achieve something, whether it is the comprehensive resistance network in the countries during nazi occupation, the fight for women's rights in a period where violence was still the primary response or the fight against slavery

I assumed Dutchguy meant that the comparisons are not the same because in the examples in the pictures (in post #160) of hiding Jews from the Nazis, freeing slaves, and protesting racism, the need was more immediate.

Also, at the time there was no democratic way to bring about a change in the law. There were no free elections in Germany after 1933, so no way to help Jews other than by breaking the law. There was no universal right to vote (without qualification) in the US until 1965, a change that came after segregation ended, so again no democratic avenue to bring about change. There was no universal vote in South Africa til 1994.

We do have a way to make these changes, via parliamentary democracy.

 

[mudsticks]

I assumed Dutchguy meant that the comparisons are not the same because in the examples in the pictures (in post #160) of hiding Jews from the Nazis, freeing slaves, and protesting racism, the need was more immediate.

Also, at the time there was no democratic way to bring about a change in the law. There were no free elections in Germany after 1933, so no way to help Jews other than by breaking the law. There was no universal right to vote (without qualification) in the US until 1965, a change that came after segregation ended, so again no democratic avenue to bring about change. There was no universal vote in South Africa til 1994.

We do have a way to make these changes, via parliamentary democracy.

There is an immediate need to tackle climate change.
It has been a marginal issue for way too long.

The time for proper preventative action is passed.
Were at best looking at remedial action , slowing down the worst effects.


It already affects people very badly in the global south.
We have already derelicted our duties to future generations.

We can try to influence parliament, and occasionally do, but too slowly, resistance to change there is strong.
The powers that be are very bound by the lobbying powers of vested interest.
And too slow to act, if they act at all.

Civil society groups putting pressure on governments, is our best last hope imo.

Active but non violent protest keeps the issue front and centre.

 

[Bromptonaut]

We do have a way to make these changes, via parliamentary democracy.

What if Parliament or whatever won't listen and democracy is skewed?

I'm thinking Northern Ireland and the factors that set 'The Troubles' in train.

 

[AuroraSaab]

It depends what you mean by 'Parliament won't listen'. If it's the will of the people, things will be changed via the ballot box eventually surely. You could certainly argue that within a democracy it is still difficult to effect change, especially within a first past the post electoral system. It's an avenue that's there though, whereas it wasn't for black Americans until 1965 or Germans after 1935.

I don't know enough about the parliamentary system in Northern Ireland to have a view as to whether it's skewed. Presumably you mean that the Protestant vote outnumbers the Catholic vote and people vote along sectarian lines. The origins of the Troubles pre date paramilitary violence in NI by quite a period though so I think there's more to it than just a lack of (fair) electoral representation. Whether the actions of the IRA and Loyalist paramilitaries were a proportionate response to that lack of representation is another matter.

 

[AuroraSaab]

There is an immediate need to tackle climate change.
It has been a marginal issue for way too long.

The time for proper preventative action is passed.
Were at best looking at remedial action , slowing down the worst effects.


It already affects people very badly in the global south.
We have already derelicted our duties to future generations.

We can try to influence parliament, and occasionally do, but too slowly, resistance to change there is strong.
The powers that be are very bound by the lobbying powers of vested interest.
And too slow to act, if they act at all.

Civil society groups putting pressure on governments, is our best last hope imo.

Active but non violent protest keeps the issue front and centre.

Climate change is a pressing issue, but it's not as immediate as the Kinder Transport was or overturning abortion law in Poland though. And it's not something that can be changed very quickly either. Demonstrations do raise awareness, which brings pressure for government change, but I'm not sure that blocking a motorway actually advances the cause much. Ultimately you need to get the public to support you and sometimes these tactics are counterproductive.

It still leaves the issue of at what point it becomes legitimate to break the law for your cause. Is it legitimate to block the roads to an abortion clinic because you are a Pro Life supporter? Or block the roads to Tesco because you are a vegan?

 

[mudsticks]

Climate change is a pressing issue, but it's not as immediate as the Kinder Transport was or overturning abortion law in Poland though. And it's not something that can be changed very quickly either. Demonstrations do raise awareness, which brings pressure for government change, but I'm not sure that blocking a motorway actually advances the cause much. Ultimately you need to get the public to support you and sometimes these tactics are counterproductive.

It still leaves the issue of at what point it becomes legitimate to break the law for your cause. Is it legitimate to block the roads to an abortion clinic because you are a Pro Life supporter? Or block the roads to Tesco because you are a vegan?

Well they'd be within their rights to do that..

Even if I didn't agree with their cause so very much.



Wasn't there quite a lot of lying down in roads when they were trying to stop live animal exports.

I think that had quite a lot of public support.

I'm imagining the blocking roads with bodies thing will slow down a bit over winter too.

The right to protest is still vitally important though, and you'll only have a few hardcore who are prepared to go as far as sitting on motorways.

 

[Bromptonaut]

It depends what you mean by 'Parliament won't listen'. If it's the will of the people, things will be changed via the ballot box eventually surely. You could certainly argue that within a democracy it is still difficult to effect change, especially within a first past the post electoral system. It's an avenue that's there though, whereas it wasn't for black Americans until 1965 or Germans after 1935.

Depends on which people and what they want. The obvious example is women's suffrage which elected leaders were resolutely against.

I don't know enough about the parliamentary system in Northern Ireland to have a view as to whether it's skewed. Presumably you mean that the Protestant vote outnumbers the Catholic vote and people vote along sectarian lines. The origins of the Troubles pre date paramilitary violence in NI by quite a period though so I think there's more to it than just a lack of (fair) electoral representation. Whether the actions of the IRA and Loyalist paramilitaries were a proportionate response to that lack of representation is another matter.

The issue in NI which underlay the Troubles was discrimination against the Catholic (ie Irish) people by the majority Protestant (British) population. This was emphasized by an electoral system gerrymandered to the ends of the Protestants including a property qualification for local government elections. Difficulties had rumbled along until, in 1968/9, Catholic communities began Civil Rights protests which were met with force from the Police etc.

The rest is, as they say, history.

I'd absolutely agree that none of the justifies the level of Paramilitary violence that followed but on the other hand what would have been achieved and over what timescale if the Catholic community had simply campaigned to improve their lot.

 

[BoldonLad]

Depends on which people and what they want. The obvious example is women's suffrage which elected leaders were resolutely against.



The issue in NI which underlay the Troubles was discrimination against the Catholic (ie Irish) people by the majority Protestant (British) population. This was emphasized by an electoral system gerrymandered to the ends of the Protestants including a property qualification for local government elections. Difficulties had rumbled along until, in 1968/9, Catholic communities began Civil Rights protests which were met with force from the Police etc.

The rest is, as they say, history.

I'd absolutely agree that none of the justifies the level of Paramilitary violence that followed but on the other hand what would have been achieved and over what timescale if the Catholic community had simply campaigned to improve their lot.

How long do you have to live in a country, before you become a "native"?

 

[AuroraSaab]

Depends on which people and what they want. The obvious example is women's suffrage which elected leaders were resolutely against.



The issue in NI which underlay the Troubles was discrimination against the Catholic (ie Irish) people by the majority Protestant (British) population. This was emphasized by an electoral system gerrymandered to the ends of the Protestants including a property qualification for local government elections. Difficulties had rumbled along until, in 1968/9, Catholic communities began Civil Rights protests which were met with force from the Police etc.

The rest is, as they say, history.

I'd absolutely agree that none of the justifies the level of Paramilitary violence that followed but on the other hand what would have been achieved and over what timescale if the Catholic community had simply campaigned to improve their lot.

The Suffragettes and their supporters had no recourse other than demonstrations and civil disobedience though. Some would argue that the escalation of their campaign to include bombing and arson was counter productive and lost them sympathy.

I agree it's difficult to say if change in Northern Ireland would have come without the use of violence. As the Troubles lasted 30 years though it's not as if the violence brought a quick result. The rejected Sunningdale agreement of 1978 is not vastly different from the Good Friday agreement, so you could argue that the last 20 years of the Troubles could have been avoided - unfortunately by then the use of arms was entrenched and made it difficult for either side to put them aside. Once you've escalated to violence it's pretty hard to lower the bar again.

 

[Deleted member 49]

Northern Ireland would have come without the use of violence. As the Troubles lasted 30 years though it's not as if the violence brought a quick result. The rejected Sunningdale agreement of 1978 is not vastly different from the Good Friday agreement, so you could argue that the last 20 years of the Troubles could have been avoided - unfortunately by then the use of arms was entrenched and made it difficult for either side to put them aside. Once you've escalated to violence it's pretty hard to lower the bar again.

Understandably your not going to get a lot of support for the IRA,but ask someone such as my partner who grew up in South Armargh during the height of the troubles.She would say the British brought the war to us with their occupation.Road blocks,intimidation, internment,loss of basic rights.bloody Sunday.Like you say it cost far too many lives on both sides.To risk it again shows how little this goverment think of Ireland.

 

[Bromptonaut]

Understandably your not going to get a lot of support for the IRA,but ask someone such as my partner who grew up in South Armargh during the height of the troubles.She would say the British brought the war to us with their occupation.Road blocks,intimidation, internment,loss of basic rights.bloody Sunday.Like you say it cost far too many lives on both sides.To risk it again shows how little this goverment think of Ireland.

I'm sure it's inadvertent but you've selectively quoted @AuroraSaab by omitting I agree it's difficult to say if change in from the reference to support for the IRA.

 

[Deleted member 49]

I'm sure it's inadvertent but you've selectively quoted @AuroraSaab by omitting I agree it's difficult to say if change in from the reference to support for the IRA.

You've done it for me thanks.I should have just quoted the whole post as the Suffragettes and woman's history are her thing,I'd say they were well justified in using violence but Im sure AuroraSaab got what I was saying though.

 

[dutchguylivingintheuk]

Your great grandmother sounds like a very brave and principaled woman.

I'm not sure I'd be so courageous.

She always insisted she wasn't just didn't want to see the poeple she loved nd grew up with killed, and that it was an bigger picture considering how well organised the resistance was, and how the Nazi's never really gotten it down.(they tought they did but they didn't)

But I don't understand the rest of your point

Are you trying to make out that protest in this country is not legitimate because people (in this country) are not met with such swift and immediate violence.?

No, i'm saying that the so called sacrifice is quite an heavy word, the only reason they are arrested, is because they are blocking roads, not because they want to protest against something.
Also be noted that they seem to get more room than for example covid protestors and no i don't mean the riot seekers that made headlines this week, there is a larger group of peacefull protestors throughout europe(including the uk) who are often met with lots of Police violence. And although i don't agree with them i do think that is wrong.

Surely that fact is a good thing .??
Isn't that progress ?

Surely it's a good things that at least in europe and many other countries you don't get arrested for just protesting, all tough i don't want to go to much in the reasons for XR like protests i do think they missing their goal, i think slightly longer term they will be ignored by the mass because they scream to much, just like Greenpeace did many years ago.

Please do be reminded that in other countries people are still taking extreme risks in their environmental protection attempts.

Many people in this country who do go out to protest are fully mindful of this, and are prepared to put up with the (relatively mild) discomfort of a few months in prison perhaps, in part as an act of solidarity..

I hope you are not suggesting that they should be meeting the same fate as their overseas counterparts??

Sure and that is terrible and as explained above no i don't wish them the same, i think government violence is sometimes legitimate but should be the very last resort. Which in case of climate protest generally seems to be the case.

I assumed Dutchguy meant that the comparisons are not the same because in the examples in the pictures (in post #160) of hiding Jews from the Nazis, freeing slaves, and protesting racism, the need was more immediate.

There have been protest during Nazi occupation, in Germany, and in the countries aounnd it it was just not very usefull as you where just as likely to be killed as being a member of the resistance.

Also, at the time there was no democratic way to bring about a change in the law. There were no free elections in Germany after 1933, so no way to help Jews other than by breaking the law. There was no universal right to vote (without qualification) in the US until 1965, a change that came after segregation ended, so again no democratic avenue to bring about change. There was no universal vote in South Africa til 1994.

We do have a way to make these changes, via parliamentary democracy.

The point is the protestors, and generally most protestors don't believe the democratic process is fast enough/going the direction they want/etc. that's also the case with extinction rebellion and affiliates, it not that climate is not on the agenda they have a doomsday scenario and nothing will stop them from screaming the government is not doing enough. even if all their demands would be met.