"The effect of this ASBO is to criminalise peaceful protest."
Just because protest actions are peaceful does not mean that the chosen action is necessarily lawful. The whole point of a CD action is that it is NOT lawful (if it's lawful it's civil obedience, not civil disobedience). Were it not peaceful it wouldn't be civil disobedience either. For an action to be a CD action it must be both peaceful AND unlawful. I'm NOT meaning to imply that other sorts of actions aren't good too, just discussing the definition of CD actions.

"There are legitimate issues for concern around the Olympics such as the destruction of Leyton Marsh in East London for a temporary basketball training facility and the ethics and human rights records of corporate sponsors for the games."
It should be noted that these are very different sorts of things justifying different sorts of actions. The first is an example of the Olypics itself doing something wrong. I mean in the sense that those acting can claim they believe clearly wrong. In the case of the second the most could be argued is that the Olymics is ignoring the ethics of somebody giving them money. It can of course be ARGUED that this is wrong but far from clear. Understand what I am saying? The second is a case justifying perhaps an informative picket, not an action very disruptive because of the "remove" (quickly becomes a separate issue from whatever the merits of your case against the evil donors).

"These punitive and coercive measures will not stop us from peacefully protesting or from doing what is right"
Right on!

Protest does not equal peaceful disruption

A protest is standing around with banners and getting your opinions heard

A 'disruption' is stopping something from happening by deliberate act. This is not a protest. It is stopping something + a protest tagged onto it to justify said action.



So...............
They arn't trying to stop protesting. They are trying to stop disruption (violent or not).

"if it's lawful it's civil obedience, not civil disobedience"

Not necessarily. If it's lawful that probably means that the politicians, police and courts have not yet got round to making it unlawful.

Just because someone does something which is not unlawful that does not mean they are being obedient.

"Protest does not equal peaceful disruption"

I see. So when millions of people marched against Tony B Liar's illegal war in Iraq that was not protest. They peacefully disrupted millions of people who were trying to move around. I'll have some of whatever you are on.

"A protest is standing around with banners and getting your opinions heard"

That is only part of protest. The aim of protest is to get change, not to take part in some debating society.

"A 'disruption' is stopping something from happening by deliberate act. This is not a protest. It is stopping something + a protest tagged onto it to justify said action."

I'll have some more of whatever you are on. Stopping the dumping of dangerous waste at sea, by going alongside the dumping ship in small boats, certainly disrupts the activity. But it is simply a form of protest. Other people protested by writing letters and reports to the newspapers and politicians, or standing around with banners. The people in the small boats also wrote and stood around with banners too. The dumping at sea ban was not won by any one of these protests, but by all of them.

The police and their poodles like the mass media try and divide protesters into "good protesters" and "bad protesters". The "good" ones they say will be left in peace, only the "bad" ones will be troubled by the police. It is claptrap. I and many of the people from my group were nearly kettled by the police in Copenhagen in 2009. Some of them only escaped the kettle because someone went to the toilet and so they were delayed. Others were not so lucky. All of us were entirely peaceful and lawful "good" protesters. There are many examples of the police arresting not just the arrestable protestors, those breaking the law, but others in non-arrestable roles, such as legal observers, food supply and media relations. They have also arrested people for thought "crime", for example the 114 in Nottingham, some of whom were maliciously prosecuted. This doesn't do the police any good. Protesters will not go away just because the police behave badly towards them.

"That is only part of protest. The aim of protest is to get change, not to take part in some debating society. "


Uh huh.... I get the aim bit
But that doesn't mean it is justifiable. Eg....
The aim of robbing someone might be to get money to pay for little johnny's cancer treatment. Doesn't matter. Robbing is still illegal - regardless of the reason to do it.

If police consider the disruption to be an act that is breaking the law, then thats what it is.
Just because you wrap something up in a "protest" doesn't mean you get somekind of carte blanche to go around doing what you want. You still have to obey the law or face consequences of breaking the law. At no point can you break the law and go "but its a protest - therefore im innocent"

Otherwise, I could come around your house, break in, smash it up, and say: "It was a protest - let me off"

This is really basic stuff. I'll have some of what you are having