This person has the same feelings towards protestors that are too focussed on shocking and shaming people outside of the debate and/or on the opposing side. If people are too focused on making sure they are noticed and heard then the message they are trying to convey can actually take a back seat. It becomes a circus of angry chants and graphic imagery. One that confronts people to aggressively so that they are too put off to actually give the arguments being shoved in their faces a chance!
There are of course extremists involved in most political movements, especially those that broach on religion. There should be no room in the law for those who exploit civil and human rights to harass, harm, or bully others with conflicting values!
Definitely worth a read, just goes to show why we need to be #civilaboutliberties . The issue itself becomes overlooked, protestors start to use shock tactics, intimidation and bullying so they are heard. But it costs them the grounds of a rational argument.
This prolifer understands that if she wants to make a change she can protest with out bullying. It gets a bit preachy towards the end, but i really respect the fact that she recognises that anger is getting in the way of a constructive dialogue. When people are abusing each other the issue is put the side and no one gets anywhere. A protest is about representing a message, not forcing your beliefs on to others by way of intimidation and harassment.
In Australia, we do not have a constitution that guarantees us the first amendment rights that so many protestors in America jump behind when questioned about what they are doing standing outside abortion clinics protesting as aggressively as they do. We do have however, our own constitution that provides us with 5 basic freedoms. Freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, freedom of association, and freedom of movement. The first 3 from that list would suggest that in a protest situation the protestors are merely exercising these freedoms and as such have every right to be there expressing themselves, and for the most part they do. However as soon as other parties start feeling harassed, intimidated or bullied, there are other laws that are in place to protect them from being persecuted, and as such the law is obligated to intervene. Protestors should be free express themselves, but not at anyone else expense. One persons liberties do not out way anyone else’s. Offensive signage and stand over tactics are protest strategies that cross the line when it comes to public decency and civil liberties.
Those of us lucky enough to live in a democracy understand the true power of civilised debate. Our governments function by looking at issues, discussing them, and negotiating law and policy based on the best interests of their constituents. Whilst the actual parliamentary debates might not be as “civilised” as we would like them to be, they do take place in accordance to certain protocols that assure that everyone involved is respected and has a chance to express their views, thoughts and beliefs rationally. Essentially it is a dialogue designed to argue one point of view against another.
I have been looking at a lot of content over the internet, searching for anything related to our cause and i keep hearing people coming back to freedom of speech, “you cant stop me from protesting, i have freedom of speech”. Yes we understand you are entitled to certain civil liberties that do give you the right to protest abortion. But they are CIVIL liberties, and as the name would suggest they need to be exercised with a certain degree of civility.
So if you do decide to protest an issue please make sure to be civil about your liberties!
As I write this, my government’s been out of commission for 13 days. Locked in an epic standoff, the two polarized parties running Washington would rather run us into the rocks than find a middle ground.
One only need visit Twitter, Facebook, or even their local church to see that the poisonous polarization in Washington is being played out regularly in every American city. Somehow we’ve come to a place where every political, theological, or ideological discussion becomes a zero-sum game—I can’t win unless you lose.
It doesn’t have to be that way!
While it’s important to have convictions, they don’t have to be held in a way that undermines public dialog and civility.
Here are some tips to help you hold tight to your principles without being an insufferable jerk.
View original post 545 more words
I have been thinking about this for a while in relation to anti-abortion protest groups and in this case i have come to the conclusion that the answer to this question for the most part no. While you might be trying to represent the other side of the issue basically your drawing more attention to the conflict than the issue. There are a lot of issues that society will never agree on unanimously, and protests are a valid way to voice your objection to one. But a direct counter-protest may not always be the most effective, especially concerning the abortion debate. While you may be there in support, the patients aren’t taking the time to ask your intentions. Even if you bring supportive, signs the patients are usually not taking the time to read them. Your just part of the loud angry mass that are screaming at one anther, every body and nobody. Think about it in terms of bullying on the playground at school, there are two ways you can chose to handle a situation like that. You can either confront the bully with the same behaviours they have been inflicting upon you, usually that ends badly for one party; or you can mediate the conflict. Discuss the terms of peace, rationally so that it is fair for both sides. Needless to say attempting to end conflict by responding with the same behaviour is usually the less desirable path.
There are plenty of alternative initiatives to counter the anti-abortion protest groups. I have supplied two effective links below:
Voice of Choice – www.vochoice.org
What we really need is an intervention from the law. Other cities around the world have instituted buffer zone laws that set a safe zone around the clinics, and/or patients and staff ensuring safe and unobstructed entry for all. These laws do not infringe on the protestors civil rights. With a buffer zone in play anti-abortion protestors are still able to publicly voice their objections to abortion just not in a way where they are given the opportunity to bully, goad, or intimidate those who don’t agree with them.