Acts of civil disobedience invite a penalty, but the penalty must recognize intent and actual harm. That's only just. The aim of justice must always be to minimize harm to ALL people, or it isn't justice. A genuinely free and just society is going to be very cautious about penalizing protest. Obviously you can't have people trespassing r…
Acts of civil disobedience invite a penalty, but the penalty must recognize intent and actual harm. That's only just. The aim of justice must always be to minimize harm to ALL people, or it isn't justice. A genuinely free and just society is going to be very cautious about penalizing protest. Obviously you can't have people trespassing restricted facilities willy nilly, but in most cases minimal harm is done. An important difference between protest and bad guys is that protesters make an effort to be noticed.
The circumstances of protest in the Guardian article are such that the Government was shown to be negligent. If these protestors were terrorists with backpacks full of high explosives it could have been real trouble. I think that embarrassment is part of while they were so inflamed. The use of the entrusted powers of governance to shift blame or cover up incompetence is classic corruption.
And yes, the protestors messed up too. I don't see the point in symbolically damaging the building, but weapons of war are murder weapons that kill many more than "the bad guys" and while I am yet to be convinced we can get away without them entirely, a just society is honest with itself about what any war entails.
Acts of civil disobedience invite a penalty, but the penalty must recognize intent and actual harm. That's only just. The aim of justice must always be to minimize harm to ALL people, or it isn't justice. A genuinely free and just society is going to be very cautious about penalizing protest. Obviously you can't have people trespassing restricted facilities willy nilly, but in most cases minimal harm is done. An important difference between protest and bad guys is that protesters make an effort to be noticed.
The circumstances of protest in the Guardian article are such that the Government was shown to be negligent. If these protestors were terrorists with backpacks full of high explosives it could have been real trouble. I think that embarrassment is part of while they were so inflamed. The use of the entrusted powers of governance to shift blame or cover up incompetence is classic corruption.
And yes, the protestors messed up too. I don't see the point in symbolically damaging the building, but weapons of war are murder weapons that kill many more than "the bad guys" and while I am yet to be convinced we can get away without them entirely, a just society is honest with itself about what any war entails.