The Ban Strikes policy in the light of the protest ban discourse

We’ve all seen the Ban Strikes policy long teased in the polls, but am I the only one who thinks criminalising the only recourse an angry demographic had could piss them off them way more, leading to radicalisation?

The news of the protest ban floating around the UK right now is causing rampant fury, likely creating just the kind of organised anger they’re trying to prevent with the bill. Even further punitive measures could crush that, in true Orwellian fashion, but the short-term upshot is a bitterly enraged community. I hope that’s reflected in the policy, and it’s not implemented as a fire and forget solution.

I understand true authoritarianism crushes any and all dissent, or at least aims to, but liberal states don’t work that way. There’s no switch to stop furious people demonstrating in a democracy. They either use the liberty to bite you back when you hurt them, or they break the law to undermine you however they can. The love of freedom can’t be snuffed when one knows it well. A liberal autocracy is a contridiction bound to poison itself.

1 Like

There’s a hidden radicalization stat that increases assassination chance, I’m not a dev though.

1 Like

Oh absolutely, and that’s what I’d think should be simulated. I just can’t help but think what could be more radicalising than the criminalisation of your capacity to voice discontent?