body-container-line-1

"#OccupyJulorbiHouse" Protest is Derogatory And Stinks Like Those Who Coined The Term

Feature Article OccupyJulorbiHouse Protest is Derogatory And Stinks Like Those Who Coined The Term
MON, 25 SEP 2023 LISTEN

In their advocacy, their offensive conduct, conducive to breaches of the peace must be dealt with by the police. Could they be classified as misfits and deserving not to be among the society? They should be ashamed of themselves. Their upbringing are dent on their parents for wasting time and resources on them.

Any person who in a public place or at a public meeting uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behavior with intent to provoke a breach of the peace or by which a breach of the peace is likely to be occasioned, commits a misdemeanor.

Indecent language, personal attacks and hostile conduct must and should not be tolerated in any form. It is sacrilegious for the elderly to side with anyone who denigrate others, within the society.

Where are we heading to as "civilized society? Where are those who see and identify themselves as civil society organizations? Are they part or fallen for the uncultured outrage been exhibited? It is unethical to call the "President and the Presidency Julor Bi House". It is a reflection on the whole country and not just the President and the Presidency. Why must the country be taken hostage by criminals infused people for their parochial interest?

Offensive language means any utterance which is blasphemous, obscene, indecent, insulting, hurtful, disgusting, morally repugnant, or which breaches commonly accepted standards of decent and proper speech gives impetus for unwarranted control over sensibility.

Offensive language may include, but is not limited to, disparaging statements on the basis of disability, race, ethnicity, gender, or religion.

Profanity, also known as cursing, cussing, swearing, bad language, abusive language, foul language, obscenity, expletives, vulgarism, or vulgarity, is a socially offensive use of language.

The right to protest is a fundamental principle of any democracy including ours, but this is not absolute. A balance must be struck between the rights of individuals and the rights of the hard-working majority to go about their day-to-day business.

It is entirely wrong to have a group of people imposing their way reasoning for everyone to accept. We cannot have protests conducted by a small minority disrupting the lives of the ordinary public. It is not acceptable and it must be brought to an end. The police is empowered to asked us for more clarity to crack down on these guerrilla tactics, and we have listened. The longer the security forces limbo with the situation without the need to counter the more entrenched the situation becomes.

Listening to Sampson Lardy I was least surprised when he tried to checkmate Gary Nimako. Sampson Lardy's demeanor and disposition clearly depicted his biased against the law. His comparison of the EC with the leading figures of demonstrators exposed him big time. What does the EC got to do with insulting bunch of hooligans and criminals purporting to speak for others but on the contrary.

Was the protest placed on injunction? Yes! So it was illegal. Therefore anything else can't be accepted. It is dependent only whether it has been approved and is legal. Whatever happens it has to be policed for public safety reasons and if it is anti-government, policing it doesn’t make the police pro-government. It makes them pro-law and order, and that is exactly their purpose.

The police do not “side with the government”, they side with what the law says. If you signed up to hold a protest or rally in a park and decide to move it out into the street your permission is no longer valid. Not for any reason related to support or opposition to the cause of the protest or rally, but because you are interfering with the daily activities of others as well as creating a hazard.

I can only answer from a Ghanaian standpoint: they the police might internally believe in the purpose of the protest, but that in no way impacts their duty to uphold law and order. I am very curious in the statement that they side with the government; what do you base that on? The police are always seen standing by and making sure things stay in control. One can't tell if they support or are against the rally or protest.

Have you sat down to think about the police? What do police officers think of protesters who block traffic? They think just like everyone else does. Some of us support them, some of us disagree with them. Most of us are happy to be working and not caught in the traffic jam. Whether we agree or disagree with whatever cause they are protesting about, the police primary function is to keep the peace without consideration of their personal politics. It is just the job.

The perception Police structure always side with the government is not true. Law and order, that’s their job. It is what they signed up to do. Simply put, the police have a well-defined function in any society, to enforce the law and uphold the government that made the laws. The police are the law enforcement arm of government.

We usually forget the police are made up of people that have put aside personal feelings to enforce the law for the greater good of the citizens. Yes, that supports the government.

You don’t like the law? Change it. You don’t like the government? Change it. Before you change it, the police support your government. After you change it, the police will support your new government and that’s how it should be.

I have an indifferent attitude about protest because the disadvantages are more and the benefits are always very weak or slight. At the most basic level a protest pick out and emphasize an issue that is already known and is on the whole without active response and aggressive in nature, which may not be the plan of the individual supporter or the leader, but is always the ultimate outcome.

Not matter how good the intention, protests further divide two factions that the protest exists to amalgamate by inducing counter argument and counter protest, often resulting in tension, violence and polarization. The reason this happens is because no matter how peaceful a protest is or intends to be, by the very nature of the word, a protest is a negative.

Even though, the celebration of the positive elements of the subject being protested would serve as a more proactive and progressive endeavor but as it goes, human nature has a propensity to succumb to the negativity bias. No matter how positive they pretend it is. Push harder, and the negativity will always come to light.

The fundamental purpose of a protest (negativity aside) is to educate the masses or a specific mass of people (eg racists, sexists, homophobes, parliament etc) on a subject that is not fully understood by said mass with a view to enlightenment, acceptance and change. However the failure of this lies in the fact that those who require the education do not obtain it by observing the protest. More so, they either actively ignore it, or confront it with equal or greater resistance.

The fundamental building block of a protest is adversarial towards the people it aims to alter, therefore it serves no true purpose other than to disrupt the status quo and essentially badger authorities into action.

This is almost similar in every detail to terrorist tactics and is therefore responded to in kind - zero negotiation.

The best case result of a protest is those that it seeks to change remain unaware of it. As awareness only results in resistance to equal or greater effect. So at best, nothing happens. At worst, lives are lost.

In terms of the advantage, it can validate the existing beliefs of collaborators which is of limited benefit, and they can convert well wishing fence sitters, but this is a minor victory compared to the disadvantages.

In concluding, there are several reasons that protestors in an advocacy campaign must guard against - avoid using violence during their protest. Three of them are legal consequences, legitimacy and safety.

Legal consequences: Engaging in violent behavior during a protest can lead to legal consequences, such as arrests and charges. This can divert attention away from the cause and onto the protestors themselves. Peaceful protests are more likely to stay focused on the cause and avoid legal repercussions, while still being effective in advocating for change.

Legitimacy: When a protest turns violent, it can undermine the legitimacy of the cause and turn public opinion against the protestors. This can make it harder to gain support for the cause and achieve the desired change. Peaceful protests that follow the law and respect the rights of others are more likely to be seen as legitimate and gain public sympathy.

Safety: Violence during a protest can escalate quickly and cause harm to both protestors and bystanders. It is important to remember that the ultimate goal of a protest is to raise awareness and advocate for change, not to cause harm. Peaceful protests are more likely to be successful and gain public support than violent ones.

Whether we agree or disagree with whatever cause they are protesting about, the police's primary function is to keep the peace regardless of their personal politics. It’s just the job.

The Occupy Julorbi House Protest is Derogatory And Stinks Like Those Who Coined The Term to state the obvious.

It speaks to the mindsets of how low their resolve. You block commuters, then think they will have any empathy? To the protesters you do understand that the people are the government? And not everyone is interested or believe in whatever you want. We need to get it right.

Lawlessness endanger public safety and sanctity. The police should act now before things get out of hand. While protestors are a subset of the people, they rarely represent more than a tiny portion of that population.

body-container-line