**TL;DR - Rioting can create important and needed change, however some use it as an excuse for violence.** Riots are often fuelled by pent up anger over the need for societal change. This is evidently justifiable. The act of rioting and protesting normally causes quick political change and media attention. People should have the right to protest and even riot if they feel that something needs reforming, such as police reforms or new introductions in gun-control legislature. I personally believe that rioting for a cause can be justified in this sense. Rioting and protests often start as a result of an event that has embodied a movement that has required change for a long time. We have seen a lot of riots this year concerning women’s safety, police violence and climate change. [I don’t believe that all of the people protesting or rioting are there purely to loot or act violently] (https://www.vox.com/2015/4/30/8518681/protests-riots-work). However, I do feel that there are some, a minority for sure, but some people who use a protest or riot to instigate unnecessary violence and cause chaos. An example of this would be the riots in Bristol, U.K. in 2021. These riots started with a purpose, but [were then overshadowed by some who just wanted a fight] (https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/bristol-riots-13-photographs-suspects-5269271). Rioting and protesting is such a hot topic right now and I would love to hear more opinions on it. I am personally, of the opinion that riots can be justified as they can promote much needed change. However, I do believe there are sometimes better ways of approaching change as some exploit protests and turn them into riots that are, if anything, worse for the cause due to the negative media attention they receive.

**TL;DR: If you can justify the violence of war, you can justify the violence of rioting** Rioting is a form of civil disorder: in a riot, a disorganised crowd of people act violently against property and/or persons in public, often in reaction against their governance or political authority. Because of its violent propensities, rioting is frequently condemned from legal and ethical perspectives. However, many people who condemn the violence of rioting, justify [the violence of war](https://www.cairn.info/revue-internationale-de-philosophie-2013-3-page-323.htm). Society glorifies soldiers for their violence; we can reason and understand that everyday laws and moral standards against violence can be suspended for the purpose of protecting or achieving a ‘greater good’. Therefore, I pose that our stigma against rioting is not rooted in its violence, but in its association with dissent. There are two main differences between the violence of wars and the violence of riots: organisation and power. Firstly, military violence is organised, tactical and carefully calculated, whereas riot violence is erratic and unplanned. Secondly, wars are waged and orchestrated by the powerful, whereas rioting is for those without power. Riots are for those who have no voice without violence – [Martin Luther King Jr.](https://time.com/3838515/baltimore-riots-language-unheard-quote/) famously said that “a riot is the language of the unheard”. Riots have been successfully used as a form of protest by many political and human rights movements to achieve positive social change, such as the [Stonewall Riots of 1969](https://www.stonewall.org.uk/about-us/news/stonewall-uprising-50-years-lgbt-history) which were essential for the advancement of LGBTQ+ rights. Authorities cannot ignore riots in the same way that they might peaceful protests, and so they are often effective in getting a response and solution from those in power. Even Nelson Mandela, known for his peaceful approach in his fight to end apartheid in South Africa, recognised that [“Force is the only language the imperialists can hear, and no country became free without some sort of violence."](https://www.blackpast.org/global-african-history/1962-nelson-mandela-address-conference-pan-african-freedom-movement-east-and-central-africa/). From his own experience, he argues that violence is the only form of protest that induces a reaction from oppressive powers. If we can justify the violence of war because it serves to improve the world in the long-term, we can justify the violence of rioting for the same reasons.

**Rioting can be successful in achieving change, however people can often be harmed in the process.** - If you live in a terrible society, for instance a society where you have no rights, you will want change. Sometimes, change may only happen if you rebel against the system. Rebelling could include rioting. It could be the only way to make people pay attention and for change to occur. - Rioting is often harmful. People’s livelihoods get ruined and people can get hurt. A lot of damage is usually done to areas. This negatively effects a lot of people. - Rioting can be justified, but the cause of it needs to be just. The consequences and harm that will occur if you don’t riot need to be greater than the consequences if you do. - There may be more peaceful ways of achieving peace.

**The Suffragette movement is why I believe rioting can be justified.** • _Rioting_ is defined as [“a noisy, violent public disorder caused by a group or crowd of persons”]( https://www.dictionary.com/browse/rioting) which is why I think it can sometimes be justified. • During the earlier part of the 20th century, the [Suffragettes](https://www.thehistorypress.co.uk/women-s-history/suffragettes/) fought relentlessly for women’s equality, marking a really significant time in British political history. Their actions were characterised by uprising and protest - from hunger strikes to destroying artwork and arson to smashing shop windows, the work of the Suffragettes was extreme but unbelievably important for women achieving the right to vote. Therefore, I think rioting can be justified. • _Can be_ is an important distinction though because I don’t think it’s always the case. For example, rioting at the US Capitol in January 2021 was not justified. This was an attempt to overthrow the government and revolt against the Democratic process that saw Joe Biden appointed as President. The Suffragettes used violence to fight for their equality, but we will never know whether this would have happened without their actions, so I wouldn't want to suggest it can never be justified. • Justification is subjective and so I think opinions about rioting are always going to vary depending on who you ask. But for me, I think that rioting can be because of my admiration for the Suffragette movement. It represents a part of history I am proud of and consider particularly relevant to my position as a young female today.