It's bad, I think we can all agree

ok, if we have magically reached a consensus, perhaps our disscussion should be more solution oriented?

pass out leafletts in the streets of the our major cities, suggesting people talk to their local MP from each party. Get the legislation changed.

Hang on Sic just reading the item now - give me a minute....

Flyer (telephone poles, lampposts, storefronts trees, etc.)
door to door (maybe inappropriate since most people wont care?)
talk to activists groups personally and start this very dialouge with them
hold rallies in attempts to get legislation changed
home demos for the ones who passed it
vandalism on homes of those who passed it, or refuse to repeal it
letter writing campaign
vandalize (graffiti, firebomb whatever) government offices in protest

Ok here's my thought:

Assuming the details in the article are correct, I would have concerns about branding peaceful protesters as "extremists", certianly. I would also suggest that all this snooping on people who apparently pose no threat may be a waste of public money.

At the first stage anyone who is unhappy about this should certianly write to their MP. The more complaints an MP gets about this, the more he is likely to act. Also if you think you may be on this list, contact NPOIU under the terms of the Data Protection Act and ask them to reveal what data they hold about you.

* apparently I cannot spell "certainly" - apologies.

@sicarus: "vandalize (graffiti, firebomb whatever) government offices in protest"

Firebomb government offices? Yeah right, the police are keeping a database of information about me, so I have the right to burn down government buildings and potentially kill the ordinary working people inside?

Don't be stupid.

I didnt suggest killing anyone. its a simple matter to wait until its closed and no one is inside. At this point in the game, I personally dont think writing a letter is going to persuade the gov. I think the fact that government is swayed by public opinuion is nothing but an illusion. Anyway that is one tactical choice out of about 9 or ten I suggested. if you dont want to do that, then dont, but condeming those who do is not standing in solidiarity and is counter-productive

Burning down public buildings over something like this is also extremely counter-productive.

possibly. I feel the same way about letter writing. We can fight each other about and totally nullify our effectiveness, or we can present a unified front to the government, despite our internal debate about tactics, to make the movement stronger and full of solidarity, making our end goal all the more likely.

fight each other about *tactics* and totally nulliy.....

I would just like to add that as a member of the British public I part-own all the government's buildings, so I don't really want you burning them down, thanks all the same.

A united front in which some people are burning down buildings, and others are trying to protest peacefully, is not a united front. As you recently pointed out to me, Sicarus, there is very little in common between your goals and mine.

if we share a similar goal, but employ different tactics to accomplish the same goal, then being divisive amongst ourselves helps neither of us but hurts our chances of success.
Anyway I dont actually think this is an issue even close to warrant arson, but I'm just trying to make a point about solidarity

Sicarus. So innocent bystanders who may get caught up in one of your firebombings don't matter to you? Once again, peaceful resistance is a far more effective form of resistance than terrorism. violence begets violence and terrorism (which is what firebombing a government building is) will get you nothing bu tresistance to your attempt to change the system. The only way to change a system is from within. The only time violence is justified is when it is first dealt out by the system. Now, if the cops are in the street indiscriminantly shooting people, then arm yourself to the teeth and shoot back. Otherwise, work the system!

If one group wanted to protest union busting with letter writing, and one group wanted to protest it by boss-napping, they would, I think obviously, be stronger together, supporting each other, rather than just gaining another adversary to fight.

that goes with anything. similarly goals should work together (barring something extreme, I'm sure neo-nazis and the black liberation army have at least one similar goal, but obviously could never work together) regardless of tactical choices. Even MLKjr. and ghandi understood that, and at different times worked hand in and with militant groups, or at least (in ghandis case) voiced support for them

draugnar you obviously didnt read a single word I wrote. I am not at all advocating violence against inncocent bystanders, thats the very abuse of violence I oppose.

give me one historical example of a solely non-violent movement acheiving it's goals.

"Once again, peaceful resistance is a far more effective form of resistance than terrorism."

prove it.

"give me one historical example of a solely non-violent movement acheiving it's goals."

The Progressive movement of the early 20th century achieved its goals entirely through the political system without resorting to violence so far as I am aware. There are plenty of examples, actually, but unfortunately nearly all of them are goals we disagree with (expanding state power).

Why are you in such a fit over this, Biff? It's in the UK, while you're someplace in America. Pick your battles.

I'm not in a fit over it all all. I brought it up to provoke disscussion, and so it has. if I sound fiery or overexcited, that's just my writing style, because I am pretty comfortable and calm right now, enjoying a for the most part, intellectually stimulating conversation. Would you care to join?

"Anyway I dont actually think this is an issue even close to warrant arson, but I'm just trying to make a point about solidarity "

It was *your* suggestion, not anyone else's. If you don't want to be tied to stupid ideas, the best solution is not to spew them.

As for "solidarity", your version seems to be "everyone agree with my tactics and we're, *solid*, y'see - all this passive resistance crap just falls into the hands of The Man."

So, solidarity in your definition is "follow my lead, I'm not listening to what you have to say?"

Not really. This is just a newspaper article. For all I know these groups could be nonviolent in the way you're nonviolent or the Black Panthers or modern Klan are nonviolent. A blanket statement that the government shouldn't secretly monitor the people is well and good, but I don't think I have enough information about the groups to say anything of substance either way, and neither do any of you.

no strategos not at all.
I mean if I support letter writing to end.. say deforestation, why wouldnt I support popping loggers truck tires too? I'm not saying at all that everyone should use 'violent' tactics, just that everyone should support a diversity of tactics. A campaign that uses only sit-ins and letter writing probably wont do shit. at the same time, a campaign that uses only property destruction probably wont do shit either. but together, as a united resistance, they stand a much better chance.

Let me put it another way.
fighting over tactics is stupid.
if your end goal is the same, why wouldt you support each other, work together? failing that, at least dont trash each toehr and pull each other down just because you are tactically different. Now I think a lot of non-violent tactics are utterly useless and self defeating. but I'll still go to your candlelight vigil, and failing that, I at least wont publically trash it. is it to much to expect the same in return?

For another example, how much quicker do you think the US gov would have caved to the civil rights movement, if MLK and malcom X/black panthers would have stood in complete solidarity with each other, instead of trashing each others tactics.
I'm just saying, tactics is an awfully stupid thing to be divisive about for a resisitance movement.

Sicarius, you always seem to miss the basic point that your 'solutions' are actually more dangerous than the problem you're trying to solve - as they are all based on the generic concept that you're always correct in your assessment and this gives you the right to use all means necessary. You're not always correct though. No one is.

Read some history - it's full with people who believed they know it all - you can start with Lenin, Hitler and Stalin.

You should maybe consider that these truck drivers have families to feed and would be in their right to kick your ass, in your example. If you're really using such tactics you should know you're an asshole. And, most likely, you're not stopping deforestation, but helping the tire-production industry, which can't be good for the environment.

So you think "by any means necessary" universally applies, regardless of the extremity of the crime? Suppose a cat is stuck in a tree and you want to lure it down with food. A logger comes by and says that he also wants that cat out of the tree and he wants to cut the tree down to get it. You won't ask the logger not to just because you have identical aims but his means are overkill for the job at hand?