I have absolutely no problems with people protesting, I have a problem with ‘protesters’ forcing their opinion on the rest by use of passive (standing in front of a bulldozer) or active (undermining a railroad track carrying nuclear waste containers) violence.
And yes, if ACTA protests had cut other people’s telecom lines to the US or some such thing, I would have called them anti-democratic, too.
To me, a decent society is based on (among others) the state’s monopoly on the use of force, with the legally acceptable force limited to implement decisions made by the legislative (and judiciary). Random guy simply has no right to ‘protest’ against something by force.
(Also your shift key is a little broken, it appears, making it somewhat difficult to read your post.)
No problem with people protesting so long as they do so where you never have to bother with them, eh?
You seem to labor under the false belief that simply because something is voted upon, it is infallibly a correct decision.
Not every law, resolution and ordinance passed is actually good for all the persons it effects. Laws can be extremely adverse for sections of the public, but pass anyways due to disregard or active dislike by larger groups. Expecting people to knuckle under without further resistance simply because they've been outvoted is ridiculous.
Protesting via passive resistance is an excellent way to peacefully make known that something is extremely adverse to your section of the public, without damage to property or persons.
Your "decent society" is a society of insects, bowing to authority unconditionally rather than with individual consideration, without the will to resist evils where they encounter them.
Your equation of the "passive violence" of standing in front of a bulldozer with the active violence of spreading nuclear waste in an area seems purposely made to incite an outraged response. The lack of consideration for the difference in proportion between delaying construction and permanently poisoning an area with nuclear waste shows a damning extremism of thought. It is such equivocations that allows the justification of atrocity when other methods would better do.
Your choice to end your comment with a snide remark on zalew's lack of capitalization makes me wonder whether you believe a word of it, or are simply crafting your response to be purposefully invective for your amusement.
my bet of the little i worked on politics is that someone have campaign money, got the park land in return. I highly doubt there was much calls for discussion on the mater.
This happened in Germany some time ago. The plebiscity for demolishing the park was voted against twice, then they came up with a third voting in the middle of a holiday, with 8h of warning or something similar. When the bulldozers came to the park people were still believing they were there illegally because the permit was not voted for.
Could someone explain why my comment about the likely falsehood of the claim that a third plebiscite was introduced less than 8 hours ahead on a holiday in Germany gets downvoted? o.O
(Also note that practically all votes/plebiscites take place on Sundays in Germany so that as many people as possible can vote.)
Plebiscites in Germany are rather rare, and the only recent one I can think of is Stuttgart 21, where a train station was/is to be re-built. There was also only one plebiscite specifically about it, it was announced well in advance and it was won by those wanting to build the new station (which didn’t make the Green party that originally pressed for it particularly happy).
you are correct. again, i said "moved the date or something" i don't quite remember the details, but remember that the oposition was complaining about something sneak that the majority party did. it may be that they used the fact that the oposition was wasting all their money with a "say no to stuttgart 21" and on the day of the referendum they worded it as "cancel the ongoing effort?"... i'd have to watch the documentary again to remember details :)
but the idea is the same. even if you vote for your representatives for one reason or another, in the end, the party that ensure majority, gets to decide on the details.
And yes, if ACTA protests had cut other people’s telecom lines to the US or some such thing, I would have called them anti-democratic, too.
To me, a decent society is based on (among others) the state’s monopoly on the use of force, with the legally acceptable force limited to implement decisions made by the legislative (and judiciary). Random guy simply has no right to ‘protest’ against something by force.
(Also your shift key is a little broken, it appears, making it somewhat difficult to read your post.)