Is it licit to participate in peaceful protest when violence can be foreseen

[DL82]

In the UK, as across Europe, there have been increasingly violent protests against measures to cut basic welfare state structures which have served our country in the past. Most recently, students have taken to the streets protesting against the removal of state support for universities and its replacement with high fees, while the vast majority protest peacefully, a violent minority began attacking buildings, police and public figures, a rare and extreme reaction for British democracy.

If students, who are not directly affected by these reforms, and who generally have good prospects of employment, are willing to risk this level of violence, many have suggested that the only reason the long-term unemployed and families on low incomes have not staged even more violent protest against cuts to the welfare budget is their lack of funds and organisation.

Would it be licit to participate in organising an intended peaceful protest, intending it to be peaceful, but with full awareness that it is almost certain that a large number of participants will not act peacefully?

As far as I understand Catholic moral philosophy, there is no culpability for foreseen but unintended consequences. Is this correct?

 

[Hastrman]

As far as I understand Catholic moral philosophy, there is no culpability for foreseen but unintended consequences. Is this correct?

Only if you have a reasonable expectation that those consequences will not happen, or can take reasonable steps to prevent them from happening—otherwise it’s basically recklessness. The goal also has to be commensurate with the risks; in this case, how likely is it—really—that policy, or the economic conditions that inform it, will be changed by the protest?

 

[GratefulFred]

“Intention” to be peaceful is not enough IMO. I would think you should assess whether the foreseeable is possible versus probable.

In the organizing of a demonstration, I would state the steps that need to be taken to reduce the potential for violence. I would want to know that the leaders were strongly commited to non-violence and had plans to contain it if it broke out.

If the planning is haphazzard, if the leaders are not interested in trying to avoid violence, if they give that concern only lip service, then I would not participate. I would not allow myself to be used as an enabler. The end does not justify the means.

Sorta like drinking. It is one thing to “just go out to drink and party” and quite another to eat first, limit drinking to three drinks, and have a set time to quit and go home. Sounds dull to students I know, but it avoids the dangers that could follow from wanting to party without knowing when to stop.

As for protest, prayer is powerful. Public Prayer is even more powerful.

 

[smichhertz]

Would it be licit to participate in organising an intended peaceful protest, intending it to be peaceful, but with full awareness that it is almost certain that a large number of participants will not act peacefully?

My gut reaction is no, because of the bolded text. If it is almost FOR SURE that a large number of participants are going to do violence, then you would be condoning their actions by participating in it.

But to be honest, I think it would be difficult to determine that for sure without showing up. So I’m not quite sure how someone could safely arrive at the conclusion that it is going to be violent unless it was clearly advertised in advance as such.

As far as I understand Catholic moral philosophy, there is no culpability for foreseen but unintended consequences. Is this correct?

I think there’s one additional part: the foreseen unintended evil consequences can’t outweigh the foreseen good consequences. So you need to make sure that it won’t cause more evil than good. I’m pretty sure it’s called the double effect theory or something like that. Maybe someone with more knowledge than I could shed some more light on it.