EACLucifer wrote: ↑Thu Jun 04, 2020 10:41 pm
I think most of us agree on that, too. The issue is not "was there a cold blooded murder of a black man by a police officer in the States, where almost a thousand people are killed a year by police, with black people disproportionately affected by this and by the prison-industrial complex", nor is it "are there problems of institutional racism in the UK including disproportionate interference by police in the lives of and indifference to the welfare of BAME people, as shown by events like the Grenfell fire". It is entirely possible to excoriate the organisers and attendees of the British protests while accepting and supporting those assessments of events, and the need for change as soon as possible and as fast as possible.
It's as follows;
If this is a response to events in the US - specifically the murder of George Floyd and the use of violence against peaceful vigils and protests - why is a very high risk protest needed in London, one of the worst hit cities in the world?
If this is about ongoing issues in the UK, why now? If this is, as some of those trying to justify their attendance have suggested, about Grenfell, why was it ok to wait nearly three years to go on the streets, but not to wait a little longer until their protest would not kill people?
along with
Why did the generally low risk student age organisers and protestors choose to encourage the riskiest possible behaviours when they could have called for safer protesting, eg silent vigils
First off, I'm sorry that my initial response to you gave the impression that I don't think you support the protestors in general, and that I didn't acknowledge your particular circumstances that understandably affect how you respond to news about the pandemic. I know that you are anti-racist and that the pandemic is affecting you personally more than most.
The questions that you ask are fair ones, and I think would have been a much more interesting, and indeed pleasant, starting point for these discussions.
Some suggested partial responses:
If this is a response to events in the US - specifically the murder of George Floyd and the use of violence against peaceful vigils and protests - why is a very high risk protest needed in London, one of the worst hit cities in the world?
London's black community is one of the largest in Europe. I don't think it's surprising that a large black community would want to show solidarity with other black communities facing more serious oppression - for example the British black community campaigned against apartheid South Africa while the UK government supported the regime. I think when anyone is in a position of victimhood or suffering, knowing that others understand and support you has immense value.
None of that addresses the risk of coronavirus transmission, I know. I suspect that some of that comes down to priorities, weighing an acute threat against a chronic one isn't a simple calculation. Furthermore, London is so badly hit because the lockdown simply doesn't work there anyway.
People living in London are already allowed to go on the tube, the supermarket, etc, with little in the way of distancing and no mask-use enforced, recommended or commonplace. I know that attendees were encouraged to wear masks - my sister made two (so she could change), walked there and back (an hour each way) and said that in her bit of the protest people were generally at at least arm's length, except for when a car started driving into people's legs and a few folk rushed to stop it.
I can imagine thinking, probably naively, that it would be possible to attend without getting any closer to any more people than you would otherwise on a trip to the supermarket. It's not an enormous additional marginal risk given the more general failure of the government's strategy. I'm not in the UK any more, but from talking to my friends in various cities they are all obeying the lockdown otherwise. So the plan would have been turn up, walk at a distance in a mask, chant a bit, go home and continue isolating, especially from anyone vulnerable.
I can see the argument that any additional risk is too much, but I can also understand people thinking that adding their weight to a historic push for justice for themselves and their community was worth that risk.
If this is about ongoing issues in the UK, why now? If this is, as some of those trying to justify their attendance have suggested, about Grenfell, why was it ok to wait nearly three years to go on the streets, but not to wait a little longer until their protest would not kill people?
As you know, protesting and working for change is not just about being right. A lot of it comes down to marketing. The amount of support for racial justice in the media right now is unprecedented. It's been the first thing to knock the pandemic off the front pages, and before that the UK spent 3 years arguing about Brexit which carried its own set of issues about race and xenphobia that weren't explicitly focussed on black people.
I think Grenfell and the Windrush Scandal etcetera are used as examples of examples of the racism ingrained in UK society and governance, rather than intended to be sole justifications for attendance.
This was an incredibly rare opportunity. The temptation to capitalise on it is understandable, despite the circumstances.
Why did the generally low risk student age organisers and protestors choose to encourage the riskiest possible behaviours when they could have called for safer protesting, eg silent vigils
There certainly were some calls for safer practices. The pages for BLM London and BLM UK both include prominent instructions to wear a mask and practice social distancing (note that BLM UK is a separate group that wasn't in favour of the Trafalgar Square demo). Those calls weren't universally followed. The organisers should have seen that coming - crowds have a mind of their own.
I agree that they could have designed the protests to have safer practices to some extent, despite the limitations of time and the spaces available. They seem to have tried to adapt traditional protest methods rather than come up with something new.
I think the fact that most protestors were generally apparently low-risk is a good thing - it means that vulnerable people didn't feel pressured to risk their own health directly. I've no reason to suspect that they all went off to hug their grannies afterwards.
The event has probably had a small impact on community transmission amongst attendees and their immediate contacts - no disagreement from me there. Obviously we'll never know the size of it, due to the lack of testing. I hope that whatever additional measures vulnerable people in London have been taking to protect themselves are enough to keep them safe, because those measures would still be necessary if somebody they're in contact with went out to the shops.
AFAICT the real difference of opinion here is "how many supermarket-trips worth of additional risk is it to join a protest for black lives?" and I'm not convinced that the answer is a trivial as some are making out.