And do what exactly? Go to a protest? It doesn't work and never has; most people are content just by reading The Daily Hate.
They already won.
They already won.
You'd be surprised. Maybe read some history. Except if you mean: it doesn't work to guarantee an utopia or even that the things/rights/etc won by protesters are secured for eternity. Then again, nothing does.
Protesting is not just standing around with some banners. Demonstrations, strikes, occupations, etc. are all part of it, and have brought down many a government.
It's not about "conscience" -- except if we mean some tame gatherings where people stand quietly and hold some picket signs for a few hours and then go home.
On February the 15th 2003, millions of people marched against the Iraq war across around 800 cities - with possibly as many as 1 million in London alone. This made it into the Guinness Book of Records as the largest ever anti-war rally.
What happened? We went to war.
Demonstrations are not some guaranteed method that will always bend those in power: it's just one of the few methods that affect change and have in the past.
If demonstrations were all that it took every time, then the French wouldn't have to behead their king, and the Americans wouldn't have to fight a revolution.
It's also about how seriously those people mean it. Marching for a day is useless if you don't also change how you act politically, inform people, change your buying habits (e.g. boycott some company), vote differently, go on strike, etc.
Else, who cares if they protested? They just had their fun for a day and went back to watching their favorite TV series. They didn't even mean it that much themselves.
Life is unfair that way.
The civil rights movements of the last century are proof that it does in fact work when enough people engage.
You say that like the current situation is no better than what came before the civil rights movement.
*edit: I don't know what I thought ANG was...
Since then, despite the high crime rate, there hasn't been any ethnic cleansing or large scale retribution. Beyond generic Africa-standard corruption, the country has mostly taken the high road.
The ANC ... well ... in the words of the Apartheid museum [1] (ie. The South African government's own words):
"Demonstrations against the killings followed in many parts of the country and led to the banning of the main African opposition organisations, the African national Congress (ANC) and the Pan Africanist Congress (PAC). Both went underground, and formed armed wings, Umkhonto we Sizwe (ANC) and Poqo (PAC)."
Yes, Nelson Mandela ... founded a revolutionary army. Yes, I agree with the outcome too, and the process was almost bafflingly well executed. Bombings, placing landmines on public roads, kidnapping and torture were some of the tactics used. Again, bonus points for the outcome, and for successfully keeping control of this army after it was no longer needed, but peaceful ? Please. Also, I would further argue that South Africa did not exactly become a haven of peaceful coexistence under Nelson Mandela.
India, and Gandhi is another example of this. So is Che Guevara. Looking how peaceful what happened with them at the helm of organisations is, you really, really, really wonder why these people are considered nonviolent.
Yes, Gandhi thought (and taught) that violence was beneath him, but he certainly had the option to act and prevent the people he led from using violence. What happened ... he sent out his forces and the opposing side sent out it's forces, and at least 10 million died. Granted, not during the revolution he was famous for, but he was in command during the partition wars. Doing India's independence he was not peaceful either. He commanded forces that, time and time again, attacked others.
And Che Guevara. He was not a violent man, you see, he simply saw the bourgeoisie as constantly committing violence upon everyone and he was just using the minimum amount of force to prevent them from continuing that. That minimum amount of force, of course, included things like shooting any medical doctors on sight, several massacres, and having his followers do worse than even that.
Plenty more along these lines, Kemal Ataturk, the French revolutionaries, the Communists (granted, not so much in the USA, but even in the USA the "real socialists" are peaceful), muhammad, the muslim prophet, ...
But men of peace ! Men of the people ! In reality, living with some of these men was like living as a Jew under Hitler. Ironically, Adolf Hitler is also a Nobel Peace prize laureate.
A non-peaceful transition of power is what happened in Zimbabwe, or Mozambique, or DRC or so many other African countries when the colonial forces let go of the reigns.
It's fairly pointless to list examples, as they are everywhere. Sometimes the goal is achieved more easily, sometimes it takes decades. But it can work.
I happen to believe that trade off has gone a bit far and I'm worried that significant further erosion of civil liberties would start causing some serious issues, but lets face it if we believe that we have to argue the case before the public. Whining about living in a police state isn't going to be very productive, or lend that struggle much credibility.
The results of surveys on this issue are interesting.
A clear majority of people in the UK do typically back some of the stronger surveillance and security measures, when (as is almost always the case) they are presented as giving the police and security services greater powers to prevent serious crime and terrorism. I mean, who doesn't want to prevent serious crime and terrorism?
On the other hand, when presented with more complete information about the actual laws that have been passed, such as the much wider range of government departments who have been given such powers, or when questioned in a way that demonstrates they themselves are subject to the same intrusions, many more people express concern and a lot object strongly.
Surveys also show pretty consistently that the vast majority of people don't know even roughly what the actual situation is, and assume it is more the former than the latter. For example, many people didn't even know about the increased surveillance powers granted a few months ago. Popular support is based on trust in our government and public services, rather than knowing the facts.
lets face it if we believe that we have to argue the case before the public
Unfortunately, the political party with the most credible basis for arguing in favour of stronger civil liberties seems to have decided they want this election to be about exactly one issue, Brexit. Whether or not that strategy works out for them over the next couple of months, it makes it highly unlikely that other important issues like this will even make it into the public debate at all.
Of course, that's an improvement over the rest of Europe. Last time Europe got voted out of parliament they didn't even bother with redoing the election. They just went directly against the election results, like in Greece.
Why does anyone still pretend at this point ?
Bizarre comment. Do you really think the election has a credible chance of overturning the result of the referendum? Or that this is the reason it's being held?
Every time an elected government does something random poster on HN or elsewhere doesn't like, it's the end of democracy and a conspiracy of the elite.
I voted Remain and still believe leaving the EU will harm Britain and the electorate was mislead and conned. But you know what? The electorate are all grown-ups that had access to the same information that I do. We hold regular elections to allow the electorate to change their mind if they are conned. But if they obstinately and persistently refuse to see things my way, well that's fine. Well it isn't, but I'm not going to throw all my toys out of the pram and start crying about it. Politics is messy and imperfect mainly because it's a reflection of us, the voters. Uncomfortable, but true.
I am not sure I have ever heard such trust in the electorate. Isn't an uninformed electorate a huge problem in most western democracies?
That's one of the reasons why the concept of the 'cell' has emerged in multiple places in multiple movements, the only way to keep the organisation as a whole going under massive scrutiny from the authorities is to internally partition it so that compromise of one cell doesn't compromise the others, this only works for a longer period of time if the cell contacts up the tree are beyond the reach of the authorities for either political reasons (Sinn Fein in Ireland) or judicial reasons (they are outside the country in a place they can't be extradited from).
There is a fascinating history of the ANC in South Africa using a digital technology and long distance lines to London as a clearing house for information to avoid the security services in South Africa during apartheid.