London’s Metropolitan Police arrested another 492 people over the weekend after a protest Saturday in Trafalgar Square, as the Starmer government accelerated its crackdown on opposition to the Gaza genocide.
The entirely peaceful protest was held to oppose the proscription of Palestine Action. It was organised by Defend Our Juries and attended by over 1,000 people. Of the arrests, 488 were for holding up signs declaring, “I oppose genocide. I support Palestine Action”.
Not rioting is better. Peaceful protest, and thousands getting locked up, is what creates the conditions that might enable real social change.
If that doesn’t work, then you have a proper riot (i.e. of the kind that isn’t bread and butter to the powers that be). Edit - lot of downvotes here. You need to read a bit of revolutionary theory. No doubt there are Americans downvoting, who of course don’t have a leg to stand on based on what they did with their exhorbitant ly privileged society./ YOu are showing your ignorance.
And what do you do when everyone who would dare to do anything is locked up by peacefully protesting? You’re going to run out of bodies, before you realise you’re fucked.
I disagree. We’re past the point where peaceful protests will create change. It’s abundantly obviously that those in charge do not care. And they also got it in their heads that AI makes us less necessary.
If leaders and executives won’t listen to reason, then it’s time to instil fear into them. Remind them there are so many more of us than them, and that their positions are a service to us, not a privilege or an entitlement.
rioting is not the answer. if you are going to take action, be careful and deliberate.
You can target something specific with a riot.
You can, but the rest of the mob won’t.
Angry rioters do fucked up shit. Watch LA 92. All that violence and anger turned in on itself, attacked the most vulnerable, weasled into racial divisions.
With a more organised direction for that energy, the city could have been paralyzed, rotten cops and the judges could have been run out of LA and real systemic change could have begun.
Peaceful only works when the people in power have a conscience and are willing to come to a peaceful resolution. When they want to eliminate your ability to tell them no, then rioting becomes the path forward.
We are in the UK, not the US.
And you in the UK are being told that you can’t tell the establishment “no” through peaceful protest.
The leaders of the US and UK have more in common with each other than they do with their own people
I agree.
Although in the UK there was some old graffiti that said ‘a nation of sheep, owned by wolves’.
I would say it is more ‘a nation of sheep, governed by wolves, owned by pigs. We’ve all heard of wolves in sheep’s clothing, well we have a lot of pigs in sheep’s clothing. And the wolves and the pigs interbreed freely, so we have all manner of porcine lupine combinations.’
Not quite as snappy my variation though.
If you could choose between justice and peace, which would you choose?
There can be no peace without justice.
Peace — not to be confused with passivity.
In a culture of peace, true justice could emerge; it would manifest as support of those who experience violence and rehabilitation of those that feel they need to turn to violence to get their way.
Justice and peace are usually not framed as concepts that exist in a vacuum which one chooses between, but rather as interdependent concepts - one begets the other. Many thinkers argue the exact opposite of what I do: true justice and order creates peace.
I believe that when we choose violence and retribution over nonviolence and rehabilitation/restoration, our manifestation of justice reflects that.
Martin Luther King considered you his greatest barrier to racial and social justice.
MLK didn’t reject peace – he rejected complacency and false order. My belief in restorative justice and nonviolence is directly aligned with his legacy, not in opposition to it.
A culture of peace is proactive, inclusive, and cooperative. I am not the white moderate he spoke of.
Neither at the cost of the other?
It’s a silly question.