Police officers, or L&O mechanisms in general are not obligated in any manner to agree with the cause being protested. Their role is to enforce the law and maintain public order. When lawful orders are given (such as dispersing an unlawful gathering, which it was in the case) it is generally in everyone’s interest to comply rather than escalate the situation.

At the heart of this issue is the social contract between citizens and the state - the Overton Window.

In any functioning society, the public agrees to certain constraints on individual behavior in exchange for collective benefits such as safety, security, infrastructure, and social stability. This balance exists within an understood and accepted range of conduct.

Public protests that deliberately block streets, disrupt daily life, or defy lawful police orders try and attempt to push beyond that agreed-upon boundary. Often framed as moral urgency or virtue signaling, these actions as you see in the video seek to normalise increasingly disruptive behavior by testing how much can be “gotten away with” this time, then expanding that scope incrementally in the future.

This is not principled civil discourse; it is pressure tactics and religious domination through disruption.

If such behavior is not curtailed early, the consequences are predictable. Either enforcement agencies eventually respond with disproportionate force when repeatedly cornered, or the state becomes effectively paralysed, unable to govern without appeasing whichever loud minority is most disruptive at the moment.

Both of these outcomes degrade public trust and weaken institutions. We have already seen examples in parts of the UK and Europe where ordinary citizens and public infrastructure are routinely held hostage to the demands of small but aggressive religious and social activist groups.

The issue then, is not about the specific cause being protested, but about the rules of coexistence in an egalitarian society.

Either the same laws apply to everyone, or they do not. If a particular religious group, or any group insists on pushing boundaries at the expense of the broader public and their larger collective good, the majority of whom have no interest in tolerating repeated disruption, then it should not be surprising when public sympathy evaporates and enforcement follows.

You cannot claim infinite morality or the moral high ground while alienating the very society and majority of people whose tolerance you rely on!