Is public protesting a dangerous thing? (UPDATED)
Many protests end up with failures. But when they are successful they are EXTREMELY satisfying. Whether its uprising protest or public protest to stop selling a brand of pet food, can some become a vital danger.
Why I say this?
Innocent non-protesters during the Lybian uprising were killed! People who wanted to escape because they wanted no part of the protest were imprisoned. Even a regular protest can escalate into a violent skirmish. 
So are these protest safe? Why can't people end these disputes with a paper and pen and do a petition. Protests lead into loss of income to both family's and the government. How can people recover from those economic riots when the streets are filled with employed workers?
Could protest become organize terrors?
UPDATED PLEASE READ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ok, so far so good! I am hearing good remarks and things are tied up! :D
One thing in which I am seeing is that the focus of the question is being shifted to another question:
Petition vs. Protest: which is more effective?
I am cool with that. I like that actually, and really all it is a good argument component. But i'll make sure to keep things in context and hope evryone else will too :)
Its dangerous!
Side Score: 7
|
 |
Its using our rights!!!
Side Score: 6
|
|
|
|
|
I don't like protest. They are kind of barbaric if you think about it. Uprisings like in Lybia are protests which try to force out there corrupted leader. Protests like those can seriously turn the location into a hellhole. No way in but no way out is how it seem to go in the lybian crisis. But, going into in more simple protests like extreme disagreements they just become a trouble to police. And they are ignored by the public if the people protesting don't make a scene. Side: Its dangerous!
Good thing I re-read the title before I started posted, I almost wrote out a huge rant against "pubic protest", and that would have been embarrassing for everybody. But yes, it is potentially dangerous. Even if you are being peaceful, your opponents or law enforcement might not be. Emergency paths can be blocked. Etc. It doesn't mean it is wrong to protest. I believe that is a valuable right. But we should be careful when considering it. Now, don't get me started on pubic protest. Side: Its dangerous!
There you have it! The risk of protest isn't determine from the person whom starts it but control of protest is up to the people you are up against. If your protesting frequently and unletting the executives will be fed up and most of all be enraged that you are: 1.) distracting business 2.) Giving employees a hard time to travel and navigate around the business area. These reasons give executives the false power to call the cops and begin a riot. Protests seem to always escalate to violence. When it occurs is unpredictable and those protesting aren't the only ones in trouble as employees, civilians, and consumers are thrown in the havoc. As well, Iron Manic READ the question! He didn't mention petitioning and or protesting effectiveness. Again, that is irrelevant to the question. Side: Its dangerous!
|
There is no denying that public protesting can be dangerous, but that is not to say that protests should be prevented or discouraged altogether (ironically, to do so would likely spark a protest). Protests are an extremely effective means of voicing popular objection to the status quo - far more effective than a petition. A protest in the form of a strike or occupation of a public building hurts the authority's interests and so forces them to take the protesters seriously and act immediately - unfortunately, a petition can easily be ignored or delayed. Any legislation prohibiting public protest is a clear slide to totalitarianism - protests are, as the heading states, "using our rights". Side: Its using our rights!!!
Yes, what you said is correct and I think everyone knows the key role of a protest but I am not talking about the effective powers of a protest. I am speaking about the safety and procedure of a protest. A protest is just as strong as a petition when a certain amount of people put themselves into it. When you say a petition can be ignored picture this: "Charlie is protesting in the streets alone to keep apples in the food market while a petition signed by 1000 people is sent to the FDA." Protests don't match the amount of a petition unless its well-organized. A well-organized protest rallies only 50 people while multiple people can venture the streets to get peoples signatures which add up to about 1000. Know that if you get a group 10 people to get 100 signatures (which is easy) you have made basically have a army. As well, our rights don't thread to the degree of people who have authority over us. If you do a protest correctly you are just walking down and up the streets with a mass of people to make something occur. So what if you yell at citizens? So what if you yell at a building? Executives have there ears clogged with money so they don't care if one has disagreed with there ways. Give em a paper saying the public hates you he may scratch his head. Give em 100 papers saying everyone hates you, then he might as well take action. Protests are legal but when protests become loud people get annoyed and those people included those executives and head managers. How do they coupe with that? Look at wall street protests! people get pepper spray and mangled by law enforcement. Its not safe and after the first cop beats up a protester havoc occurs and you get violence. Side: Its dangerous!
Executives have there ears clogged with money so they don't care if one has disagreed with there ways Here you have demonstrated why a petition isn't a particularly effective means of campaigning for change, irrespective of how many signatures you collect. The only way to get through to key decision makers is to threaten their interests - that is, to protest publicly either in the form of a strike or an occupation. Occupying business premises to encourage people to boycott their products, for example, has far greater impact than a petition ushered up the halls of some bureaucratic corridor which very few people will hear about - even those who have signed it are likely to forget about it as they no longer need to participate actively in the dispute. Protests are legal but when protests become loud people get annoyed and those people included those executives and head managers You are right in stating that protests can easily lead into riots, and if conducted badly they can be counterproductive. However, I would argue it is worth the risk. A petition certainly won't hurt your cause, and is therefore worth doing, but it is not an alternative to a public protest - it simply doesn't have the same impact. Public protesting can be dangerous, but should still be done if you seriously want to bring about change. Side: Its using our rights!!!
It doesn't have to be. Public protests often are dangerous, but the very act of protesting publically is subjective - and therefore protesting publically does not have to be dangerous. The definition for protesting is, according to Google: "Publically demonstrate objection to a policy or course of action adopted by those in authority"* This does not have to be violent or dangerous in any way. Throughout history, people such as Gandhi have proven that protesting for causes does not have to be something that can be a danger to people. On the contrary, it can do people a lot of good if it is performed in the 'correct' way. Protesting for causes does not have to be dangerous. Side: Its using our rights!!!
Let me put to you in this way. Not everyone is Gandhi. The point that he may makes protests peaceful you must go through the stages of enlightment. I don't know anyone who will give over a lifetime of dedication to become enlighten and begin a protest. Sure, not all protests are dangerous... now tell me why wall street hasn't changed? Tell me why didn't Gadhfi step down peacefully? Tell me 15 or more cases explaining the methods a person used to protest a "policy" or "course of action?" There is cyber protesting and public protesting. Both are social... But cyber protesting cannot becoming physically violent. I said "public" protesting which observes the fact people are going out to the streets to shout out what they believe in. Also, what is consider "peaceful protesting?" Nothing is peaceful in protesting. If you say kindly to people to end taxes they will laugh and/ or ignore you. Gandhi may be capable of peaceful protesting but not everyone is a Gandhi. Side: Its dangerous!
1
point
|
