It is sad that sometimes protests turn to out
right violence as a means of achieving their
objectives. In general, they do so only when
other channels are blocked or ineffective or
when those in positions of power use violence
to repress the protests. Unhappily, it seems
that violence can often be a successful tactic
and therefore, from the point of view of those
who espouse it, a rational one.

Of course we all would prefer peaceful protests
and demonstrations because protests are important
precisely because they deliberately intervene
in history. Their members are not content to be
the passive playthings of social forces, instead, they
try to affect the social order through direct action.
Some protests of course, have little or no impact,
but others have brought about lasting and profound
social change and cultural changes.

The world today would be utterly different had it not
been the efforts of the diverse, protests organised by
people like Gandhi, Leo Tolstoy, Martin Luther King,
Vaclav Havel, Andrei Sakharov, Lech Walesa, Eddie Mabo,
to name just a few.

Foxy,
Yeah, yeah, yeah the only Australian on that list has been dead for a long time, the rest is history, who are the potential alternative Australian leaders of today?
All we see in Canberra are enemies of our people, if we threw them out who would we put in?
Australia doesn't breed great thinkers and as such we're often captivated by foreign dilettantes and adventurers so the chances of replacing the politicians we have now with anyone better are about zero.
What I want to know is why everyone is so intent on engagement with the elites and their minions, why aren't we discussing dropping out, repudiation of public service and volunteering, boycotting elections, nullifying juries, rent strikes, rate strikes, tax strikes and all the other actions an individual can take? The step between Democracy (ie mob rule, what we have now) and Republic is Anarchy, Anarchy is self rule, self control and self determination only when people can get their lives in order and establish their own rules and boundaries can they look at re establishing the rule of law.
We need the Anarch, the self ruled person at the centre of our society, not the collective, that comes afterwards.

Dear Nhoj,

<<thanks Yuyu for confirming, with your dictionary definitions, that a right does not always require "permission".>>

But in the context of THIS thread, a right does require permission.

You want to protest - go ahead and protest, but what you are doing here is asking for PERMISSION to do it, trying to convince the rest of the world that we ought to GIVE you that permission. You want US to tell you that what you are doing is right: sorry mate, if you somehow have a hunch that your actions are not right, then chances are that your conscience is telling you the truth - and truth will not change even if we tell you otherwise!

Some say we get our rights from God, others that we get them from nature, but what you want is to get your rights from society/state/government.

Sorry, but you are on your own because I don't want anything to do with your government or to receive any of their tainted gifts. I am here to live my life, which is my own, so is yours.

<<As I said, if you want to dictate that people must get "permission" before protesting against something you support, then move to North Korea,>>

It is YOU who are asking for such permissions, not I!

Hello little buddy Yuyu.

Now, after spending page after page telling you that human rights do NOT require permission, then you replying with "a right DOES require permission" .......

..... you then immediately write "It is you who is asking for such permission, not I".

Umm Yuyu, don't you realise that your last quote makes ZERO sense, taking into account your previous quote mentioned, and my stated stance of NO permissions?

Please explain your logic as to why it is I "who is asking for such permission". This ought to be good. I can hardly wait for your "explanation" .... ha ha ha.

If we want to talk about rights, I'll give the right to do anything necessary to the cops, to stop these clowns interfering with my right to go about my legal business as I please.

What we need is a big tip in the middle of the Simpson desert to dump this rubbish.

Dear Nhoj,

It's so simple:

If you want to have a right to protest, then you need permission, of whoever it is that you want to get that right from.
If you want to protest, then you need nobody's permission.

Only you can tell which of the two is more important for you - whether it is protest; or the right to protest.

Referring to your original statement:

<<The question isn't whether or not public protests work. The "real" question is whether or not people have the right to protest in the first place.>>

It seems that the latter is the case. It seems that rather than to go out and protest, what you are after is a comforting hand, stroking your hair and telling you "Yes, sweety-pie, it's alright if you protest, whatever you do in the name of protest is excusable, Mommy will still love you regardless how naughty you are".