|
Granted, there may be a literal distinction between 'peaceful' and 'non-violent' but I don't really see the relevance of the question as it pertains to protest.
The terms and ideas that people like Thoreau, Gandhi and King used and prescribed were the terms non-violent resistance and civil disobedience. And both of them, literally, often involve the breaking of laws and the disruption of the daily processes of power-holding entities - in a way that does not require physical force.
So someone explain to me, if you support the rights of people to protest against powerful systems and entities, how this protest falls outside of the realm of what's expected during a protest without resorting to your opinion on the views of the organization involved or Lucifer's inconvenience. Both of which should be completely irrelevant to you being that your true objection is to the breaking of laws and the disruption of trade.
Can anyone do that for me?
__________________
Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus
PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce
|