Why are some people so afraid of PROTEST?

Why are some people so afraid of PROTEST?

Why is that so often after protest this is heard?

They shoudn't have protested like that.
Why?
...well there must be a better way...
Like what?
I dunno...

dairyflat2010-06-21 11:47:07

We all know this is about Russell Norman. His protest was an abuse of power and he should have protested like everyone else, behind a barrier.

Imagine holding an Iraqi / Irani / North Korean flag next to the vice-president of America.

Micheal, your last point has so many holes it could be a golf course.

1st of all... There is nothing wrong with holding a North Korean / Iraqi / Irani next to the vice-president of America.

2nd of all... If there was something wrong that wouldn't give them the right to go and take the flag from the person. That's  not democracy. And we live in a democracy.
Mr_Incredible2010-06-21 12:05:18

Well yeah it was a bad example.

But I stand by what I said in the other thread, if he wants to protest as an MP, do it down the correct paths, if he wants to protest as a citizen, do it with everyone else.

the saddest part of the anti-Norman brigade is the acquiescence to privilege it infers. A complete subservience to the economic master is quite probably what our grand fathers fought against in Nth Africa and Europe 70 years ago. Yet here we have supposed patriots and champions of freedom and liberty crying about Norman's actions.

Most positive things for society have come through collective struggle. I don't mean to invoke class war but even a cursory glance at the history books show it's actions like Norman's that gets things going. If people choose to not protest because economically it don't make sense for them than further ruminations from them regarding 'human rights' , 'peace, etc will be valued in line with this.
The hypocrisy of the right regarding Norman's actions is breathtaking.

Sadly little will change and little will care that it does. Protest has become as much a posture or fashion statement as any other form of public commentary. When the value of a protest is called on the numbers of cardi's being worn or dreadlocks adorned you know society is not only uncaring it's emotionally unable to deal with protest in a cognitive manner.

Hold on... no ones arguing the meaning of the protest at all. And the meaning isn't a justification for the action.
Michael2010-06-21 12:35:35

Protest is fine as long as it's lawful, not like Greenpeace tactics.

palpably untrue. I can understand you claiming this for yourself Michael but to suppose that the vitrol against Norman (in this instance) is not a preordained position against his politics or persona is utterly naive.

and we will have have 'limits' on what is appropriate protest. But FWIW most useful protest involves the collectivized powerless having the 'Law' come down on them.

example please.

Maybe because you've walked away feeling like you still haven't been heard, or you've taken things to far i.e damage to property or acts of violence causing intervention from the authorities, or brought shame to what it is you're protesting for by doing something incredibly dumb that alienates your cause altogether.
I'm protest by the way everyone has the right to.

I may be wrong, but I think DF wanted an example of Greenpeace protesters breaking the law.

Personally, I won't march or get really into a protest unless it's something I really, really care about.  If I protested a lot, the thought of me being considered as a hire-a-protest type of guy would be the ultimate shame.  I hate that type of people and it's almost literally one of the last types of people I want to be.

There's a difference between persons whom believe passionatly about a subject and protest in it's support or against it and the 'dial-a-protester' whom just show up because they want to have some attention. No doubt, yet again I will get flamed for saying it, but sadly the genuine person whom protests because of their passionate and genuine belief gets lost in the crowd when the 'regulars' show up. Lonegunmen2010-06-22 17:26:21

Are you sure you're not confusing Greenpeace with (wannabe pirates) Sea Sheppherd?

I've protested before and believe its a great thing to do if you really believe in something, but I think a lot of people are apathetic to the causes, or just plain too lazy to protest. Could it also be that the abiding memory of protest in New Zealand is the Springbok tour and the violence involved?
Critical_Lemon2010-06-22 15:31:33

When Rosa Parks sat in the front of the bus in Montgomery, it was illegal because she was black. I don't think protest necessarily needs to be lawful, but non-violent protest is much, much more preferable than violent. unless there is absolutely no other option.  

just after I left school (in the Mesolithic era) I was full of passion and fury and protested many things and got interviewed by the SIS for hanging off a viaduct & prob still have a record with them stealthkiwi2010-06-22 15:57:53

My only hate is of 'protestor junkies' of which there are many.

If this were facebook i would be clicking "like" right about now. If you passionately dislike something,and actually know what you are on about,i think its great to go out and do something about it. Tegal2010-06-23 01:13:21

any thoughts on this weeks mining 'decision'?
did protest or public expression of sentiment play any part in the decision making process?

The protestors certainly believe so, as do I. The decision was certainly an about-face, as Mr Key and Brownlee both made strong comments in the past that Schedule Four mining would occur in the future. The degree of public sentiment against opening up Schedule Four played a massive part in the decision. The Government did a piss poor job framing the debate around the issue, and the discussion paper is somewhat vague in places and even contradictory. It opened the chance for opponents to completely control the debate in the media, especially as some National politicians appeared to have little grasp on the issue. The massive Queen St rally, the smaller demonstrations across the country and the overwhelming number of submissions opposed pretty much made the decision for the Government. To mine these areas would be political suicide, particularly as the opponents were certainly not just fringe greenies.

So protest works, but only if it becomes mainstream. It can be easy for people to often write off protestors as only a fringe group.

Fixed. A mighty oak begins as a tiny acorn. I feel like adding a penis joke, but one is not forthcumming.

Perfect!

My thoughts;

1. The mining was only ever floated to invoke discussion. Therefore I don't believe the protesting did anything.

The Irony is it will be the same people (protesters) who will be telling us how Nats don't listen (bla bla bla) but claiming the protest was a victory (bla bla bla)

2. Mining isn't actually off the Agenda :)

c) it was blown out of proportion and most of those protesting didnt even know what they were protesting about. there was a lot of scaremongering. but for those reasons a victory will be claimed.

It was amazing how illinformed people on both sides were of the debate were (perhaps there weren't illinformed but rather keen to twist the debate, or scaremonger), from Coromandel MP Sandra Goudie (she didn't know what was in the discussion document), to Coromandel Watchdog's Denis Tegg (re. open cast mines). It was astounding. I found there were very few people who were measured in their opinion.

But it certainly was a backdown from the Government and I reckon the protests and submissions did make the difference. Yes it was a "discussion" document, but Mr Key and Mr Brownlee had both said some areas of Schedule Four would be opened up for mining.

It is interesting that after all of this rather than land losing protection from mining, more conservation land has been entered into Schedule Four as a result of the review.