Generally the list of proscribed groups has tended to focus on groups thought to have carried out or planning to carry out violent attacks in the UK. This has meant a mixture of NI paramilitary groups, violent Salafists, and neo-Nazis. The attempt to stretch it to a non-violent direct action protest group is new and looks likely to ultimately fail, either by being directly declared unlawful or indirectly by jury nullification.
@Mousethief, I know they come from your neck of the woods but billions of flies eat shit. Does that make them right?
Millions of Americans voted for Trump.
Plenty of British people support Reform.
Starbucks brew tasteless bilge.
Serious ethical concerns have been expressed about Starbucks over its supply-chain practices, labour relations and alleged examples of slavery and trafficking in some of its sources.
Here in Europe there are allegations of tax avoidance.
We have big issues over here with big US tech and other corporations not paying tax.
Which is one of the reasons we react badly when Trump accuses us of being a bunch of freeloaders leeching off US largesse.
@Nick Tamen - I've never heard of KKK activity here but if that article is reliable then yes, they should be on the list of proscribed organisations.
@Arethosemyfeet, if 'direct-action' and 'non-violence' involves criminal damage and hitting police and security guards with sledge-hammers, then I for one would have nothing to do with it. That said, I don't agree with arresting harmless little old ladies for holding up cardboard placards with the name of a particular organisation on them.
As you say, the proscribing of the particular organisation I think we both have in mind is likely to fail for the reasons you have cited.
FWIW in that particular instance I would agree with meting out stiff sentences to those who carry out criminal damage and assault security guards and police officers who were only doing their job - I don't think we can claim 'self-defence' for the perpetrators in the instances in question.
I do have, however, grave reservations about the response and the clamp-down on peaceful protestors supporting that particular group.
As far as debate goes, I believe that one of the purposes of engaging with another person's point of view is to understand why they hold it.
If you believe that someone else's view is harmful, I see two options (at least). One is to counter the view, which involves understanding the view and being prepared to engage with those who hold it. Another is to oppose the view - which (in my understanding) typically involves disengagement, leading to polarisation, which is one of the roads leading to conflict.
I have done both IRL.
Option One turned out too painful. I was trying to engage with and understand them, but they had no wish at all to understand me.
I suggest entering into such a dialogue with expectations of reciprocity dialled down to "negligible".
I now opt for option Two.
Unless I'm defending those who are far away from my situation and difficulties - therefore the words of the person, although painful and horrible, don't affect me personally.
It's not original to observe that engaging is preferable to conflict. It doesn't have to be everyone, but I would hope that some are prepared to do so.
Sorry to hear that, Boogie. I suppose I've become used to having to consciously adjust my expectations and work at dialogue. In practice, it feels anything but abstract.
So, I just picked up this quote from a friend's blog, linked here, and it felt salient to this conversation.
“The walls do not contain the garden. They frame the garden. The walls also frame the people who enjoy the garden, providing them with an opportunity to live deeply into the monastic spirit.”
So, I just picked up this quote from a friend's blog, linked here, and it felt salient to this conversation.
“The walls do not contain the garden. They frame the garden. The walls also frame the people who enjoy the garden, providing them with an opportunity to live deeply into the monastic spirit.”
The walls do not contain the garden, but the garden is contained within the walls.
So, I just picked up this quote from a friend's blog, linked here, and it felt salient to this conversation.
Read the blog. Your friend talked about when the honeymoon would end. I remembered when my honeymoon ended with Mrs. Gramps. It was when she put celery in my tuna fish sandwich. 48 years later, I still can't stand celery in my tuna fish sandwich. She still puts it in from time to time. I have just learned to keep my thoughts to myself and just eat the sandwich as is.
Comments
And yet they sell billions of cups of coffee. They must be doing something right.
Millions of Americans voted for Trump.
Plenty of British people support Reform.
Starbucks brew tasteless bilge.
Serious ethical concerns have been expressed about Starbucks over its supply-chain practices, labour relations and alleged examples of slavery and trafficking in some of its sources.
Here in Europe there are allegations of tax avoidance.
We have big issues over here with big US tech and other corporations not paying tax.
Which is one of the reasons we react badly when Trump accuses us of being a bunch of freeloaders leeching off US largesse.
@Nick Tamen - I've never heard of KKK activity here but if that article is reliable then yes, they should be on the list of proscribed organisations.
@Arethosemyfeet, if 'direct-action' and 'non-violence' involves criminal damage and hitting police and security guards with sledge-hammers, then I for one would have nothing to do with it. That said, I don't agree with arresting harmless little old ladies for holding up cardboard placards with the name of a particular organisation on them.
As you say, the proscribing of the particular organisation I think we both have in mind is likely to fail for the reasons you have cited.
FWIW in that particular instance I would agree with meting out stiff sentences to those who carry out criminal damage and assault security guards and police officers who were only doing their job - I don't think we can claim 'self-defence' for the perpetrators in the instances in question.
I do have, however, grave reservations about the response and the clamp-down on peaceful protestors supporting that particular group.
Doublethink, Styx Hosting
It's not original to observe that engaging is preferable to conflict. It doesn't have to be everyone, but I would hope that some are prepared to do so.
The the time I went for option one was personal, painful and difficult, I think I'm still recovering.
The walls do not contain the garden, but the garden is contained within the walls.