The interesting question that follows is:
What would the critics have said, if they had done just that?
Probably something among the lines of: ”see, this proofs they are unreasonable lunatics! Nobody in their right mind would protest against the Hells Angels. How does that even further thwir goals? They should go against $TARGET”
The key to understanding a lot of criticism is that it happens often in defense of the critics sense of superiority and is therefore not necessarily an rational argument against a certain movement, but a justifiction from the critics why they aren’t part of it. And the answer equates usually roughly: ”because they don’t go far enough, are not brave enough, not clever enough, not efficient enough, not radical enough, not consequent enough, taking on the wrong target, ...”
The interesting aspect: this kind of criticism rarely brings to light any valid argument against the underlying motivations of the movement. So as an example you rarely see critics go: “The idea that we shouldn’t wear fur is wrong - we totally should for the following reasons ...” ¹
This makes clear that the critics realize they can’t make a moral argument here — yet they want to maintain a feeling of superiority over those who question the status quo and so they aim for the character of those they criticize.
Critic: ”If only I were part of that movement, I would protest even more than they do, by going for the dangerous Hells Angels.”
B: ”Yeah but you aren’t. As it stands now you do less than those who you criticise for not doing enough — what does that make you?”
Critic: ”I am still better than them because ...”
If I ever feel I need to criticise a movement for not doing enough, I stop and think about what I am in the process of doing and whether I am really in the position to phrase that criticism.
---
¹: Usual arguments like “We always did it like that and it was no problem” just proof the critic didn’t really think about the topic.