Please help me argue against this statement: "Violence is never justified as a form of public protest."The topic ‘Violence is never justified as...

Perhaps the best way to approach this would be to point to
places like Libya or Syria, or South Africa in the Apartheid era.  Looking at countries
like those, you could argue that there are clearly times when violence is justifiable
because the government is so oppressive and because it offers so little in the way of
opportunities for non-violent political expression.  (If you really want to go all-out,
just ask rhetorically whether it would have been right for Jews to engage in violent
protest in Nazi Germany.)

Now, it will be hard to argue
that the London riots were caused by these sorts of conditions.  Even underprivileged
youths in Britain have the right to express themselves politically and are relatively
unoppressed by the government.  However, you could argue that the British political
system allows youths to be heard, but never gives them what they demand.  You could
argue that police activities are oppressive in a country where the police treat other
people so well.  In this way, you could argue (if you have to) that the London riots
were justified.

Even if the London riots were not
justified, it seems clear that there are times when violence is
justified.