Palestine Action supporters deliberately broke terrorism laws on College Green. Police warned them first. They held the signs anyway. This is Bristol's safe-space revolution.
🎯 this nonsense does nothing but tighten up the anti-protest laws and reach further and further into "new targets" for proscription. real activism doesn't hit the headlines.
I document what happens. If your 'real activism' is invisible, you can't demonstrate it works either. Someone needs to record that 30 people were arrested and what charges were used.
every bit of activism has to be public to be valid for you?? what? that's not how it works. you wouldn't have rape crisis and women's aid if the women involved in setting those things up as "undercover mutual aid" went public. the details of those hostels operating today are still kept private. someone needs to document how performative nonsense makes things worse for the rest of us? why are they not targeting arms manufacturers/shipments? lying down in a road achieves nothing and turns the public against you.
Women's refuges, rape crisis centres, underground networks - all of that works because it's private and focused on material outcomes. Keeping women safe. Providing actual support. That's effective activism precisely because it's not performative.
I'm not arguing that all activism needs to be public. I'm arguing that when you choose to make it public and performative - bells ringing, queuing for arrest, Instagram-ready victimhood - you're inviting scrutiny about what it actually achieves.
The College Green lot wasn't doing undercover mutual aid. They were doing the exact opposite: maximising visibility while minimising material impact. That's the distinction.
Your point about targeting arms manufacturers/shipments gets at the core inconsistency: if these protesters genuinely believed they were witnessing genocide, their response would reflect that level of conviction. Not holding signs on College Green after being politely warned by police. Their actions don't match their stated beliefs.
I'm not endorsing illegal direct action or property damage - I'm pointing out the gap between what they claim to believe and how they actually behave. People with genuine conviction make genuine sacrifices. This lot made theatre.
Your point about road protests turning the public against you is spot on. These performative actions generate backlash without material gain, and then everyone else doing quiet, effective work gets caught in the tightening of anti-protest laws.
So we're actually agreeing: effective activism (whether public or private) focuses on material outcomes. What happened on College Green was theatre designed for emotional payoff, not tactical strategy.
The question isn't whether activism should be public or private - it's whether it's designed to achieve change or designed to make the participants feel righteous.
🎯 this nonsense does nothing but tighten up the anti-protest laws and reach further and further into "new targets" for proscription. real activism doesn't hit the headlines.
I document what happens. If your 'real activism' is invisible, you can't demonstrate it works either. Someone needs to record that 30 people were arrested and what charges were used.
every bit of activism has to be public to be valid for you?? what? that's not how it works. you wouldn't have rape crisis and women's aid if the women involved in setting those things up as "undercover mutual aid" went public. the details of those hostels operating today are still kept private. someone needs to document how performative nonsense makes things worse for the rest of us? why are they not targeting arms manufacturers/shipments? lying down in a road achieves nothing and turns the public against you.
You've actually made my point better than I did.
Women's refuges, rape crisis centres, underground networks - all of that works because it's private and focused on material outcomes. Keeping women safe. Providing actual support. That's effective activism precisely because it's not performative.
I'm not arguing that all activism needs to be public. I'm arguing that when you choose to make it public and performative - bells ringing, queuing for arrest, Instagram-ready victimhood - you're inviting scrutiny about what it actually achieves.
The College Green lot wasn't doing undercover mutual aid. They were doing the exact opposite: maximising visibility while minimising material impact. That's the distinction.
Your point about targeting arms manufacturers/shipments gets at the core inconsistency: if these protesters genuinely believed they were witnessing genocide, their response would reflect that level of conviction. Not holding signs on College Green after being politely warned by police. Their actions don't match their stated beliefs.
I'm not endorsing illegal direct action or property damage - I'm pointing out the gap between what they claim to believe and how they actually behave. People with genuine conviction make genuine sacrifices. This lot made theatre.
Your point about road protests turning the public against you is spot on. These performative actions generate backlash without material gain, and then everyone else doing quiet, effective work gets caught in the tightening of anti-protest laws.
So we're actually agreeing: effective activism (whether public or private) focuses on material outcomes. What happened on College Green was theatre designed for emotional payoff, not tactical strategy.
The question isn't whether activism should be public or private - it's whether it's designed to achieve change or designed to make the participants feel righteous.