November 2023 Democracy Café

There was a good turnout at Salisbury Library for the November 2023 Democracy Café. The two-minute silence to mark Armistice Day was preceded by a discussion based on the question:

Do we have the right to protest?

The first comment was that technically we do not have the right to protest. We have the right to assemble and to express ourselves, two rights which are enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights, which, according to Liberty, gives us the right to protest.

Discussion ensued on what is meant by protest? It was suggested that it takes the form of fairly passive forms of action, such as writing letters to the local newspaper or to our MP and more active forms, such as attacking infrastructure. These more disruptive forms of protest are more contentious and it was mentioned that there is a danger that the use of such tactics can turn the narrative away from the issues that are being protested towards the tactics themselves. This could be counter productive for the protestors, especially as the media can play a major role in influencing the narrative as has been seen with Just Stop Oil. The purpose of protest, it was suggested, is to cut through but there is a danger that in doing so the message is lost, which is why Extinction Rebellion have moved away from illegal methods of protest. The counter argument proposed was that illegal protests have in the past influenced important legislative changes. Two examples given were illegal actions taken by the suffragettes and the gay rights movement.

The discussion turned to the importance of the right to protest in a democracy. It was suggested that it is just as important in a healthy democracy to defend the right of those supporting right wing causes, such as the EDL, to protest as it is to defend those supporting causes which we might be more supportive of.

There was some dismay about the lack of impact of protests in effecting policy change and reference was made to the march of one million people to protest against the invasion of Iraq in London in February 2003. This protest march was one of 800 held in cities around the world and was recorded in the 2004 Guinness Book of Records as the biggest ever held. It did not immediately impact the main protagonist’s approach. However, it was suggested that it influenced government’s future approaches to similar situations as it demonstrated that mass support for invasions could not be taken for granted. Similarly, protests about gay rights took many years to bear fruit in terms of influencing public opinion and eventually law making.

After the break another topical issue was discussed in answering the question:

Does a country have the right to do anything in the name of its’ own defence?

It was pointed out that in the UK before we had a Ministry of Defence we had a Ministry of War, which is perhaps a more honest reflection of the role of the ministry.

There was some discussion about what is meant by “defence”. One suggestion was that defence is a more passive act whereas offence is more active. Then, it was suggested that attack can be seen as the best form of defence and a military response to a credible threat can be a defence. It was pointed out that if such an attack is over aggressive it can lead to further enmity and spark further conflict in the future. Several references were made to the current conflict in Israel/Palestine in this respect. 

If a military response as a form of defence is pursued then what are the boundaries within which combatants should engage? The just war theory is a tradition of military ethics, part of which concerns the moral conduct of participants within war. This suggests that there are two main principles which are proportionality and discrimination. Proportionality regards how much force is necessary and morally appropriate to the ends being sought and the injustice suffered. The principle of discrimination determines who are the legitimate targets in a war, and specifically makes a separation between combatants, who it is permissible to kill, and non-combatants, who it is not. Failure to follow these rules can result in the loss of legitimacy for the war.  

Discussion turned to the framework of international law which limits the actions of a nation state when engaged in its’ own defence. It was suggested that in the absence of an international body capable of enforcing the framework, it was not an effective limit. It was pointed out that the United Nations has been unable to act to prosecute those accused of crimes against humanity in nations such as Syria. The philosopher Thomas Hobbes argued that the state of nature is the “war of every man against every man,” in which people constantly seek to destroy one another. Hence, he argued, in his book the Leviathan, the need for a governing body which would achieve peace through a social contract. Is the UN capable of playing that role, or is it too weak?

The discussion moved on to consider whether war was always wrong with the view expressed that war can be useful in leading to the resolution of conflict between states, as with the second world war and the defeat of Hitler’s Germany. It was suggested that the current and ongoing conflict in the Middle East may have been avoided if the war between the Arabs and Jews in Palestine in the 1940s had been allowed to play itself out. Some questioned the premise that war can be an effective way of resolving disputes.

Two good discussions which were highly appropriate for Armistice Day.

Mark Potts