The London Riots

Yesterday there were “rowdy demonstrations” in London, protesting the Conservative election victory.

I, for one, find this deeply sinister.

Public protests are not a good thing, and should be done only with serious justification. They inevitably harm innocent parties: shopkeepers, taxpayers, passersby trying to get somewhere. They easily spiral into violence and destruction of property. They are inherently an offense against public order.

They can at times be justified. The justification is to present an important or urgent issue not otherwise acknowledged.

Given a functioning democracy, a free press, and freedom of speech, such situations should be rare.

It is possible even with a free press for all parties to hold the same position on some issue, and all major media outlets, preventing a full debate. In Canada, a current example that immediately comes to mind is abortion. Another was the Charlottetown Accord, which promised to radically change the constitution without public debate.

Immediately protesting the results of a free election obviously does not meet these criteria. It is the perfect counter-example. It seeks to shut down debate.

And it was an election in which the views protested for seemed fully represented: those opposed to Brexit had a clear choice with the Liberal Democrats. Those who wanted to move to nationalization and to the left had Labour, with an unusually radical platform. Yet, obviously from the signage, it was those who backed Labour and opposed Brexit who were protesting.

To be fair, this cannot be liad at the feet of the Labour Party or the LibDems, or their typical supporters. The signage identified instead Antifa and the Socialist Workers' Party.

They were protesting, then, against democracy. They were agitating for dictatorship. This is where the alt-left has gotten to.

Which raises an eternal problem: how much accommodation must a liberal democracy give to movements that seek to subvert liberal democracy and human rights?