As Buffalo Springfield noted in its 1966 hit “For What It’s Worth”…
What a field-day for the heat
A thousand people in the street
Singing songs and carrying signs
Mostly say, hooray for our side.
That pretty much sums up most demonstrations and protests, making them a destructive waste of time, emotion, and city budgets. In the Ethics Alarms Rule Book to your right (there is a lot of good stuff on your right, and I would estimate that almost no one bothers to check it out) is the 12 Question Protest Ethics Checklist. Studies say most people don’t click on links, either, so here is what you would find if you did:
Protesters, no matter what they are protesting, have an ethical duty to ask themselves these ten questions before they stop traffic, jam networks, take over buildings or otherwise make life miserable for people who have little or nothing to do with what is being protested:
1. Is this protest just and necessary?
2.Is the primary motive for the protest unclear, personal, selfish, too broad, or narrow?
3. Is the means of protest appropriate to the objective?
4. Is there a significant chance that it will achieve an ethical objective or contribute to doing so?
5. What will this protest cost, and who will have to pay the bill?
6. Will the individuals or organizations that are the targets of the protest also be the ones who will most powerfully feel its effects?
7. Will innocent people be adversely affected by this action? (If so, how many?)
8. Is there a significant possibility that anyone will be hurt or harmed? (if so, how seriously? How many people?)
9. Are you and your group prepared to take full responsibility for the consequences of the protest?
10. Would an objective person feel that the protest is fair, reasonable, and proportional to its goal?
11. What is the likelihood that the protest will be remembered as important, coherent, useful, effective and influential?
12. Could the same resources, energy and time be more productively used toward achieving the same goals, or better ones?
Protesters or demonstrating groups seldom consider these questions, but if they did, they would have to answer the majority of them, and probably all in most cases, with a response that suggests that they should be doing something else. There have been a few exceptions in my lifetime—very few—but yesterday’s fiasco in Boston, my old stomping grounds, is sadly typical.
This dork…
…organized a “Straight Pride” parade in downtown Boston, the equivalent of trolling-by-demonstration. I get it: if Gay Pride parades are not considered anti-straight, then there is no reason why a Straight Pride parade should be considered as anti-LGBTQ. If, however, one already knows that such a demonstration will be received as such (double standards being the order of the day) then the Second Niggardly Principle applies…
“When an individual or group can accomplish its legitimate objectives without engaging in speech or conduct that will offend individuals whose basis for the supposed offense is emotional, mistaken or ignorant, but is not malicious and is based on well-established impulses of human nature, it is unethical to intentionally engage in such speech or conduct.”
This can be found in the Concepts and Special Terms link above. Almost nobody reads that stuff, either.
Pity.
The parade attracted a few hundred participants, and even more counter-protesters —this was Boston, after all— and a heavy (and expensive) police presence. The counter-protesters taunted marchers and chanted “Alt right, get off our streets, no justice, no peace.” Well, at least it wasn’t “Hey, hey, LBJ, how many LGBTQ people did you marginalize today?,” but at then that taunt wouldn’t deny a Constitutional right.
Boston’s mayor felt that he had to condemn the demonstration—I did mention that it was Boston, right?—even though it is inappropriate for elected officials to attack citizens for lawfully taking advantage of their guaranteed rights. He announced that he would be attending “block parties” and other events that celebrated the city. [Virtue-signalling alert!]
So thirty-four people were arrested at the parade, four officers were injured, tensions in the city were elevated, and lots of people were saying “hooray for our side” and acting like assholes…
Great.
Monica Cannon-Grant Ally, of Black Lives Matter Cambridge, helped organize one of the counter-protests to “stand up against hatred.” There was nothing in the silly parade that suggested hatred (but a lot of hate coming from the sidelines from the counter-protest); crying “hate,” like “racism”—or “Wolf!”— is a popular way for the Left to deny legitimacy to anyone who dares to differ with their Undeniable Truth.
“We chanted against hatred and we won,” said Ally, the founder and CEO of Violence in Boston. Won WHAT?
Hurray for our side.
Pointless.
Ethics Alarms 
Have something to say about this. Little time right now, so I will just point out that your block quote refers to “ten” questions to be asked. If that typo is in your sidebar, you probably want to fix that.
-Jut
This is exactly what I was getting at in the earlier post. Closely related to the golden rule are the nigardly principles. That is why I stated the golden rule axiom has opposing forces at play.
Both Gay and Straight Pride parades violate the 2nd nigardly principle in that celebrating that which is no one elses business by parading it in front of another for the purpose of making it other people’s business, many of whom find it objectionable, is totally unnecessary and designed to taunt those with opposing beliefs.
It is said that good fences make good neighbors. I think that not knowing every proclivity of others also makes for a more harmonious society.
Calling something a parade when it’s objective is primarily to piss off the other side is unethical. (Unlike the Saint Patrick’s Day Parade). There are elements of the Gay Ride Parades that seemed to be designed to do that (I.e. scantily clad men cavorting on floats, etc.) The same goes for a Straight Pride Parade which agenda seems to be straight is normal and up yours! If a parade doesn’t serve some legitimate purpose like a Veterans Day Parade or is just being done for fun and entertainment (Mardi Grad Parade), it deserves no attention.
I have read a number of those links including the protest checklist (which anyone engaging in one ought to do) and have found them helpful. The Unethical Rationalizations for instance, has personally helped me examine my alarms & helped reshape some of my approaches to arguments.
The Second Niggardly Principle I missed and need to keep in mind. Living in Portland, I often want to wear some kind of pithy tee shirt saying something like “Woke is a joke” or “Progressivism sucks” or the like. While poking the proverbial bear can seem fun or at least a way to disrupt societal trends that I find annoying/disturbing/neo-fascist – it doesn’t serve to foster goodwill. And as this protest makes clear, the message (that it’s OK to be straight I guess) often gets lost in the mess.
Careful, Lady Q: they have no compunctions about physical assault in Portland. Poking the bear in that situation could be… interesting.
1. “there is a lot of good stuff on your right, and I would estimate that almost no one bothers to check it out”
I have checked it all out and have found many of your resources to be of frequent reference value to me in the law enforcement / corrections ethics courses that I teach. And on second thought I guess I’m as close to “almost no one” as you can get!
2. I have always found the concept of these “pride” parades -of whatever stripe- as odd and rather narcissistic. I was raised to take pride in my actual achievements, not things over which I had no control. I can’t fathom what might possibly motivate me to participate in a “pride” parade over being straight, any more than a parade celebrating that I am tall, have gray hair, wear size 13 shoes, or survived spinal fusion surgery. None of those things were “accomplished” by any effort on my part. Neither can I imagine what would cause me to either watch or protest against a “pride” parade. In short, who cares?
I should preface this comment with several remarks (which still comprise a portion of the comment, so I guess it is not so much a preface as an introduction):
Keep in mind: protests annoy me. I think I attended one “protest” in high school and quickly got that out of my system. They were complaining about U.S. being in Honduras. There were a bunch of hippies trying to re-live the Sixties, along with a bunch of young people who were hippie wanna-bes. Whether it was herd mentality or mob mentality, it was of no interest to me.
Perhaps I am being too harsh, but I did not see the point.
I try to keep in mind the words of Pascal (which I paraphrase): the vast majority of human suffering is the result of man’s inability to sit quietly in his own room. I contribute to the good of society by sitting out. I sat out both Gulf Wars, Guantanamo Bay, global warming, pipelines, Black Lives, Gay Pride, Straight Pride, Pro-Life/Pro-Choice, Tea Parties, and NAMBLA.
When the impulse to “do something” arises, I tend to resist. Of course, politicians have no such luxury. Inaction yields identifiable results; action creates plausible deniability that inaction would have been worse. Doing something is always required. Vacuous entailment always prevails.
If I can contribute anything to human thought it would be that the only thing necessary for good to prevail is for bad men to do nothing. Unfortunately, most bad people do not identify as such. As a result, they don’t want to be the good people who let evil prevail by doing nothing; so, they do something.
That should give you an idea about how I dislike protesters.
Having said that. It is a right, so I am hesitant to condemn it (with caveats):
Iif you get a permit, I am pretty much fine with whatever you want to do. The government can put time, place and manner restrictions on protests, and that is good enough for me. I may be inconvenienced, but, if you get a permit, I should have advance notice and it is my job to work around your lawful (and peaceful, presumably) exercise of your rights. This system accommodates any number of different interests (protests, parades, civic celebrations, ethnic celebrations, marathons) and I am fine with any of that.
Counter-protests are inherently problematic. They probably are not done under permit; I can’t imagine a governmental body permitting two protests at the same time in the same place, especially on opposite sides of an issue. That is one reason to have time place manner restrictions; so that the police, etc. can prepare for a peaceful event.
Also, counter-protests amount to a protest that someone else is exercising their rights. This view is content neutral. If you are protesting a protest, you are a fascist. You have the right to protest a protest, and you have the right to be a fascist. They go hand in hand.
Having commenced with what might be my most Alizia-Tyler-length comment, I will proceed into the breach, as they say!
To your list:
Jack: “Protesters, no matter what they are protesting, have an ethical duty to ask themselves these [TWELVE] questions before they stop traffic, jam networks, take over buildings or otherwise make life miserable for people who have little or nothing to do with what is being protested:”
See caveat above: if it is a lawful protest, it is the government’s job to enforce whatever time, place manner restrictions are appropriate. I might be inconvenienced, but that is part of the price of living around other people. So, where the protest is lawful, most of these questions need not be asked. Boycotts are a little bit different because they are essentially a form of peer pressure and peer pressure can be either good or bad.
Jack: “1. Is this protest just and necessary?”
I disagree with this question. If something is a right, whether the exercise of the right is necessary is beside the point. As for whether it is just, that is a problem, as well. Antifa relies on the just-ness of its positions to justify all manner of bad behavior. Do I like Nazis? As a matter of principle, no (I am not sure I have ever met any). But, I am fine with them protesting in a peaceful and lawful manner. Whether it is just or necessary is irrelevant. But, even if I concede that opposition to Nazis is the JUST position, I would not endorse an unlawful protest against their unjust cause.
Jack: “2. Is the primary motive for the protest unclear, personal, selfish, too broad, or narrow?”
This is almost more about a question of utility. If it is unclear (Black Lives Matter) or too broad (Black Lives Matter and some issues around climate change), it is likely to be ineffective. That is kind of their problem. If they want to waste tiem, that is their problem; it will likely hurt their cause in the long run. Too narrow? Gosh, I am hard-pressed to think of such an example, though I expect a thorough review of Monty Python would turn up an example. Personal or selfish? Not sure about that. Unions, Gay Marriage, Civil Rights? All of those had proponents with a personal self-interest in the outcome. Maybe I am not fully grasping your point with this question.
Jack: “3. Is the means of protest appropriate to the objective?”
I agree that this is a good question to ask. Classic examples of these would be sit-ins at lunch counters or the Montgomery Bus Boycott. The latter boycott was pretty effective, as patrons refused to use a service where they were treated unequally. That is a perfectly and precisely targeted boycott. Contrast those with those who simply block major roadways for whatever cause they have. Or the people who demand that you boycott restaurants they would never go to (Chick fil-a comes to mind), while they pressure government to keep such restaurants out of the public; this is not the equivalent of a sit-in. However, your general, run of the mill protest to raise awareness about a cause fits that criteria.
Jack: “4. Is there a significant chance that it will achieve an ethical objective or contribute to doing so?”
Bad question. The play in the chains here is too great. Significant chance it will achieve an ethical objective? No. Contribute to doing so? Almost certainly, yes (as far as you know); contribution can be so de minimis, it is almost evanescent. But it is there.
Jack: “5. What will this protest cost, and who will have to pay the bill?”
I disagree. If it is a peaceful, lawful protest, cost is pretty much irrelevant; it’s a burden of society. If it is an unlawful, violent protest, cost is pretty much irrelevant (any significant cost is too much).
Jack: “6. Will the individuals or organizations that are the targets of the protest also be the ones who will most powerfully feel its effects?”
Almost an unfair standard. Government almost never feels the effects when people protest against it. But, government can be persuaded (not by reason, but by the number of voters protesting). For organizations, they rarely feel the effects either. However, for many, social media is a far better tool for social coercion of companies than public protests can be.
7. Will innocent people be adversely affected by this action? (If so, how many?)
It almost does not need asking. If it is lawful and planned, the innocent should plan ahead; you cannot completely avoid the adverse effects of living around other people. If it is not lawful, almost any interference is unjustified as an anti-social act.
8. Is there a significant possibility that anyone will be hurt or harmed? (if so, how seriously? How many people?)
This is why lawful protests get a pass from me; they are supposed to be organized and peaceful, with advance planning for security, first-responders, etc. Bad things can happen (the Boston Marathon bombing, your run-of-the-mill soccer riots, Black Friday). Life has risks, but planning to minimize risks is the best you can do.
This is why unplanned protests are usually bad; they are chaotic and inherently risky if they are of any significant size. They carry an inherent risk to civil order; a single serious injury is probably too many.
This is why counter-protests are almost always bad. Violent conflict is likely, thus, serious injury is likely to occur.
9. Are you and your group prepared to take full responsibility for the consequences of the protest?
Probably a fair question for all of the civil disobedience types. Again, lawful protests are a different matter. One of the things that made MLK’s Letter From Birmingham City Jail so effective can be deduced from the very title. Thoreau also served his time. Beyond that, beyond personal responsibility for personal actions, I am not sure. In a peaceful, lawful protest, they actions of the no goodniks and the ne’re do wells are not the responsibility of the leaders. However, in the case of unlawful protests and demonstrations, you run the risk of guilt by association.
10. Would an objective person feel that the protest is fair, reasonable, and proportional to its goal?
No. This empowers the busy-bodies; they are incapable of judging objectivity. Black Lives Matters will go and clog a freeway for 2 hours and they will justify it by saying my 2 hour delay is a pittance compared to the loss of a black life. The raising of my consciousness by such a small delay is fair and reasonable. They might be right, but they are not in charge of the height of my consciousness. I don’t concede the value of that question.
11. What is the likelihood that the protest will be remembered as important, coherent, useful, effective and influential?
Unfair question. The answer is almost always, “extremely low.” Taking Gay Rights, you have Stonewall. There were lots of other incremental steps before (presumably) and after (most certainly), but that is the event that probably answers “yes” to all of the aspects of your question. With respect to race, you have the bus boycott and the March on Washington . Million Man March? It fits a few of your factors, but probably is a “No” overall. Earth Day? Well, every year they remind us that it is the Anniversary of the First Earth Day, so, while we remember it, its influence seems to lessen with every passing year. This standard is too high because protests and social change are often a slow brainwashing (or persuading, as the case may be) of the general populace.
12. Could the same resources, energy and time be more productively used toward achieving the same goals, or better ones?
This is not a good question. The answer is almost always “yes.” And, it is the most obnoxious tool of progressives. You oppose abortion? Then, if you are “really” pro-life, there are any number of different things you can do that would be a better use of your time than protesting abortion (like supporting Planned Parenthood, because they are the largest provider of contraceptive services in the country). You can’t be pro-life unless you adopt three kids. You are not really pro-life unless you support mandatory maternity leave (and paternity leave), WIC, all-day pre-school and kindergarten, free and reduced lunches, free college, elimination of student loan debt, increases of taxes on the top 1%, increased wages for teachers, strong unions, and the Green New Deal. Name any conservative position and you will find a progressive with a more effective social program, which just proves that all you really want to do is control women.
Happy Labor Day, everybody! (Leave it to those Unions to create a Holiday for being paid to do nothing, all accomplished through their protests, their labor riots, their elimination of cheap black labor through minimum wage laws, elimination of overly competitive child-labor, and enforced mediocrity in the work force.)
-Jut
Great comment, and an easy COTD. Mostly wrong, of course. but still, You, of all people, shouldn’t fall into the “rights” vs “right” trap. The list of questions presumes lawful protests. Their lawful nature doesn’t sanctify pointless and destructive protests.
Thank you for your post. I do enjoy the items on the right margin, including the “12 questions to ask before protesting.”
It’s usually my impression that people who want to protest do so for emotional reasons. This is mostly my impression based on living in a liberal university town for some time.
Someone called it “Selma Envy.” Attributed to Hans Fiene.
I’m grateful to live in a country where there is freedom of assembly. But methinks protesting is often done by people who enjoy it for its own sake.
Does this mean that if I start a pride parade for old straight white guys I’ll be demonized and hated by everyone that doesn’t attend the parade? Can’t old straight white guys be a protected tribe of people by social justice warriors?
If pride causes one to be bigoted and hateful of others then it’s evil.
Why are pride parades not acceptable for everyone?
Why are pride parades actually acceptable for anyone?
Anyone that has ever been apart of or supported a pride parade of any kind and protests a pride parade of people they disagree with is a certifiable bigoted wackadoodle and a hypocrite of epic proportions.
I think recent events have changed the perspective of this parade. The Antifa members arrested for attacking police went before a judge. Despite their attacks being on video and despite the fact that they were attacking people at a peaceful parade, the DA recommended the charges be dropped. The judge refused to allow the DA to drop the charges.
Why? Well, Antifa has been attacking people across the country. In Portland, they took over parts of the city for weeks, terrorizing people. They have firebombed government agencies. The police routinely refuse to arrest them. If arrested, they are rarely charged. This is the same MO the KKK used during the Civil Rights era. The KKK only operated in Democratic-majority areas, where they controlled the police, the government, and the courts. KKK members could be reasonably assured that the police would be ordered not to arrest them. If arrested, the charges would be dropped. This cycle only ended when federal agencies were brought in to arrest and prosecute. The Civil Rights movement was hopeless until that happened. According to your rules, the Civil Rights marches were unethical until that happened because 4,7,8,9,11,12 and maybe 10 weren’t met. Until people stood up and took notice of the tactics of the KKK and the Democratic Party, there was no hope. What made people stand up and take notice? What made the federal government get involved? Blacks started to shoot back.
Maybe this judge in Boston will be the first step in restoring law and order to the Democrat-led parts of this country. Maybe this light-hearted march will set things in motion to stop these terrorists. If so, I would say it was very ethical and valuable.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/oct/14/ted-wheeler-portland-mayor-stands-decision-allow-a/?utm_source=GOOGLE&utm_medium=cpc&utm_id=chacka&utm_campaign=TWT+-+DSA&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIhYfL4oG65AIVRb7ACh2uBAu0EAMYASAAEgJRjvD_BwE
Note: What happened to Mr. Ngo after this article?