Freedom of speech in democracy - peaceful protests

In view of recent happenings in Kuala Lumpur, I believe all of us have a stand or another about the large number of people taking it to the streets with slogans and petitions in hand. While causing massive congestions and the possibility of creating "chaos" and "violence" were the reasons cited by the authorities against these "illegal" rallies, we do wonder whether peaceful demonstrations (as claimed by the protesters themselves) are shows of democracy or detrimental to the peace of a country.

1. Protests in a liberal democracy
Brian Martin writes here about Protests in a liberal democracy. Ok... This is a good article that gives a fair description of the values behind a protest, what it is, what it represents and how the society, be it the government, media or public. =) Enjoy!

Some of the excerpts:

"Challenging the status quo is a difficult business. Dominant groups have various ways to limit the effectiveness of challengers, including promoting a narrow conception of 'acceptable protest,' channelling dissent into appeals to the government and, if necessary, using repression. The very idea of 'protest' should be considered suspect because it diverts attention away from the routine activities of powerful groups."

"At this stage it may be useful to define a few terms. The 'normal channels' of political action in a liberal democracy are those associated with the electoral system: voting, participating in political parties, lobbying and writing letters to politicians. All these methods involve trying to get someone else--usually the government--to take action on an issue. 'Direct action,' by contrast, is political action which does not act through some other group as intermediary. Examples are sit-ins, strikes and boycotts. Many actions aim both to achieve immediate aims and to influence the government, such as rallies and hunger strikes.

'Nonviolence' refers to actions which do not by themselves cause physical harm to humans, whereas 'violence' refers to those which do. If police attack and harm nonresisting demonstrators, it is the police who are violent, not the demonstrators. Whether violence to property counts as 'violence' is an issue that has often been debated.

'Civil disobedience' can be defined as nonviolent direct action that breaks a law. Theorists of liberal democracy usually consider political actions to fall into the category of legitimate civil disobedience if they are deliberate, nonviolent, non-revolutionary, done in public and done mainly to educate or persuade the majority (Zashin, 1972:110)."

2. Gun Control vs Gun Rights
The debate over gun control and the right to protection (gun) has been debated since time immemorial. See the arguments on a few sides of the table (lawmakers, gun manufacturers, economists, and the congress) in US here.

Other news on gun laws and their repercussions: latest news in Finland.

:) WW