EXERCISE 1: PLANNING AND MOBILISATION
Working in small groups, read one of the scenarios, discuss the questions and take notes. Spend 20-25 minutes on the scenario, then reconvene for a 10-minute plenary in which groups compare their strategies: where did your approaches converge, and where did the different contexts force different choices?
Scenario 1.
Indigenous land rights protest in Honduras
In La Esperanza, an Indigenous Youth Committee is planning a protest to demand protection of their ancestral lands from illegal logging and mining activities. Organising openly carries significant risks, as activists face surveillance and intimidation from local authorities and private security actors linked to corporate interests.
Indigenous organising in Honduras takes place within a context marked by persistent impunity, structural discrimination against Indigenous communities, and overlapping relationships between economic actors, private security, and state institutions. While collective mobilisation is essential to defending land, territory, and cultural rights, visible activism may expose organisers and community members to harassment, criminalisation, or violence.
The committee must therefore consider how to mobilise community members effectively while protecting safety, anonymity, and long-term movement sustainability, balancing the need for visibility with strategies that reduce risk and strengthen collective protection.
Questions
- This committee is operating in a context where the danger comes not from the state alone but from a network of private and state actors with overlapping interests. How does that affect who the committee can safely approach for legal, medical or solidarity support — and how does it change its communication strategy?
- The community has strong in-person networks but limited digital infrastructure. What forms of mobilisation best fit this context, and what are the risks of each?
- If private security actors attempt to intimidate or disrupt the protest, the committee cannot assume that calling the police will help. What contingency measures should be in place, and who outside the immediate community should be informed in advance?
Scenario 2.
LGBTQI+ rights advocacy in Egypt
A small LGBTQI+ advocacy collective in Cairo is considering how to raise public awareness about discrimination and advocate for legal protections. Organising any form of visible public action carries acute risk: same-sex conduct is criminalised under broadly framed morality laws, and authorities have systematically used social media platforms and online undercover operations to identify, entrap and arrest LGBTQI+ people. The risk is not only of being identified as a protester; it is of being identified as queer. Political repression, social stigma and limited funding significantly constrain options.
The collective must therefore think carefully not just about how to organise, but whether a conventional protest is a viable or appropriate form of action at all in this context, and if not, what alternatives might achieve similar goals with less exposure for participants.
Questions
- Given that participants face criminalisation not just for protesting but for their identity, is a visible public assembly the right form of action here? What alternatives, online campaigns, solidarity actions in other countries, documentation and reporting, might advance the same goals while better protecting participants?
- The Egyptian authorities have used digital platforms to identify and entrap LGBTQI+ people. What specific digital risks does this create for any form of online organising, and how should the collective approach communication, even among trusted members?
- If the collective decides to take some form of action, what does meaningful informed consent look like for participants who may not fully understand the legal risks they are taking on? Who bears responsibility for ensuring that consent is genuine?