So just out of interest, if we agree they have the rights — or at least or especially if they weren’t arrested (law differs England and Scotland) — but even if they had the moral right and the interpretation of their rights by the police was wrong, did they show bad taste?
Most definitely. I am a firm believer of the "read the room" maxim. The protestors either didn't read the room or didn't want to. Unfortunately by protesting and ignoring what the rest of the people are feeling they only antagonise the opposition (as if they weren't antagonist already) which leads to conflict. Then what gets reported - and enhanced - is the conflict more than the message.
That was the point I heard mostly. They may have had the tight, but it was inappropriate IMO to exercise it.
Agreed. Unfortunately all sides have some firebrands who think by exercising their rights in an inappropriate manner will have more coverage than by other methods.
Alternatively…
Rights are bound up with duties. Rights to free speech are already limited by laws against hate speech, the duty to refrain from hate speech or, in the present case, to refrain from engaging in acts or speech that risk disturbing the peace.
These don’t have to be tested for an arrest to be made. For instance a person disrupting an officially sanctioned public event.
Indeed. I don't think the limitations of free speech when it comes to hate speech are into question here. I think we all agree that is correct.
What I noticed in Wales was that the ‘republicans’, were cordoned off. They could whistle and make a noise, wave their banners, but their small group was not mixed in with the massive group of supporters. They had a greater appearance of a legitimate protest.
I saw that too and it got reported but it didn't have as much impact (as far as I could see anyway) as the "inappropriate" protest. So, if one wanted more coverage to their protest, one can see why they would choose to make themselves a nuisance to achieve it (see my two previous answers above.)
Aside of all that, I think it's very important for people to be heard. Quite a lot of problems can be sorted, misunderstandings cleared or conflicts defused just by listening to people. I happen to do that at work a lot (listening to people having a rant) once they have said their peace they feel better knowing that they are not being ignored and someone has listened to their concerns. Sometimes they don't really want an action or outcomes - they just want to say their piece.
I'm sure a lot of republicans feel like that (I could be wrong of course) they know the UK will, probably, never be a republic but they just want to voice their opinion about it.
Thank you for expressing a contrary view in a gentlemanly manner though: there is always room for polite difference of opinion.
Likewise.
I despair when I see opposing sides trying to "own" the other. Social media is full of that. It achieves nothing, solves nothing, the division gets bigger and no one wins. So everyone ends up in their own echo chambers slagging off the opposition without the slightest effort to start a reasoned dialogue.
Having said that, and although dogma almost always beats reason, sometimes there are people willing to engage in civilised dialogue which is good for everyone.
