Mike Wiser sends along this story about a rather raucous protest at Stanford, which forced President Bush to change his plans. I have to admire the protesters’ pluck, even if I disagree with substantial parts of their message (er, if a “message” can even be detected; more on that later). But the self-righteousness of at least some of the protesters drives me crazy, as usual:
[T]he Sheriff’s Department attempted to clear the street to provide the president’s motorcade a safe entrance into the complex. [Those fascist bastards! How dare they do something so oppressive! Gestapo! Gestapo!! -ed.] When the students refused to obey these verbal commands, more than 50 police officers in full riot gear were called to the scene. Dressed in protective helmets, the officers used their batons to push individuals back from the Tower.
In response to the use of physical force, students directed their chants at the perceived infringement of their rights. [Their “rights” to… do what, exactly? Block the street so cars can’t get through? I must have missed that unit in ConLaw. -ed.]
“Whose campus — Our campus. Whose streets — our streets,â€? they yelled. “Tell me what democracy looks like — this is what democracy looks like.â€? [Oh… that’s original. -ed.]
The struggle between the Sheriff’s Department and protesters reached its climax when a fire truck attempted to drive down the street and was blocked by the crowd. Security personnel were attempting to move those blocking the truck when three Stanford students sat down and refused to move.
Officers dragged them out of the road and bound their hands with plastic ties. Though others demanded that their peers be released [because it was wrong to arrest them for breaking the law??? -ed.], after 15 minutes, the three students were placed into a Sheriff’s Department vehicle and taken away. [Gee… ya think? -ed.] The fire truck then reversed and did not proceed down the street. [Well, its purpose was to clear the street, and it had accomplished that purpose. Why would it proceed? -ed.]
Sophomore Nicole Wires described the fire truck as a ploy used by the police.
“They brought a fire truck here because they wanted to move us out of the streets, and they knew that they could arrest us if we didn’t move,� she said. “We didn’t hear any sirens anywhere after the truck reversed. It didn’t take another route. It’s absurd.�
Ah yes, it’s absurd that the police wanted protesters to get out of the street so the president’s motorcade could drive through. Absurd!!
Look, I’ve complained about this before. Civil disobedience is all well and good, and I’m willing to concede that blocking a street so the president can’t get through might be a legitimate act of civil disobedience (even though the law against blocking streets obviously isn’t an inherently unjust law) if you feel strongly enough that an appearance by President Bush on your campus is somehow morally wrong — but even conceding that (perhaps somewhat dubious) point, there’s still a problem. Modern protesters often seem not to understand that when you break the law, you will be arrested, and it’s just downright stupid — and not at all in line with the tradition of true civil disobedience, a la Martin Luther King Jr. — to whine about police “violating” your “rights” by arresting you for breaking the law. It’s the police’s job to enforce the law! If you think a law is unjust (or its application to a particular situation is unjust), and your conscience requires you to disobey the law, fine… but you can’t expect the police to simply ignore your disobedience! That’s not protest, that’s anarchy!
This should go without saying, but: contrary to any delusions of grandeur that these protesters might have, this is not like Tiananmen Square, where the Chinese military used tanks to force protesters out of a public square in order to squelch their freedoms. This is a simple case of police trying to maintain public order and allow traffic to get through! The protesters were free to keep protesting so long as they were physically out of the way. So… if the police fabricated the reasons for arresting you, or if they were unnecessarily rough with you, then by all means complain about that — but don’t manufacture fake outrage by deliberately violating obviously just laws (like the one that says “don’t block a public thoroughfare”) and then complaining when you get arrested! If keeping President Bush off your campus is important enough that you’re willing to sit down in front of a firetruck, fine… but you have to be willing to freely accept the natural consequences of your actions, and those include being arrested for breaking the law!
Anyway… I mentioned earlier that it is somewhat difficult to discern the protesters’ overriding message. This goes along with another pet peeve of mine: the tendency of liberal protests these days to devolve into incoherent condemnations of “stuff and things,” with no apparent connection between the various issues addressed. This was actually Mike’s point in sending me the article. Excerpt:
[O]utside the Hoover Institution, the crowd chanted, “Hey-Hey-Ho-Ho-Bush is here, he’s got to go.â€? Another popular slogan targeted the conflict in Iraq, as students yelled, “1-2-3-4-We don’t want your f*ckin’ war-5-6-7-8-Stop the killing, Stop the hate.â€? …
A number of protesters cited specific complaints with the current administration, calling attention to these issues with colorful signs and popular slogans. Some wore stickers with the message “We all deserve the freedom to marry,� while others held signs stating “No one died when Clinton lied,� “Show me freedom! Protect my rights to my body� and “Save Darfur.�
Heh.
Let’s see… so they were protesting Bush generally (I agree, though I’m way less fervent than these folks), protesting his presence on campus (I would most likely disagree), protesting the Iraq war (I disagree), demanding gay rights (I agree), protesting the Iraq war again (I still disagree), implying that Clinton’s lies weren’t a big deal (I disagree), demanding abortion rights (I agree… though if we really got into an in-depth conversation about the issue, I’d probably disagree with a lot of what they’d say), and calling for humanitarian aid for Darfur (I agree… though if Bush ever actually did anything substantial re: Darfur, it would probably involve the military, and in all likelihood I’d keep agreeing but they’d start disagreeing). You see why it’s so hard to make sense out of these protests? If you throw in enough unrelated issues, almost no one is going to be able to agree with you about them all! You end up preaching only to the far-left choir, and just annoying everyone else.
|
Categories: News
|
April 25th, 2006 at 12:46:36 pm
Well struck.
April 25th, 2006 at 12:56:00 pm
Actually, most “modern protests” fully recognize the possibility of getting arrested. I have attended protests where organizers said, “There will come a point when the possibility that you will be arrested will arise. That is the time to leave if you don’t want this on your record.”
In fact, some groups give participants little training sessions in order to make the process less painful; they prepare people for what is going to happen by talking them through process.
So it’s just factually inaccurate to say “Modern protesters often seem not to understand that when you break the law, you will be arrested.”
I do agree that protests by liberals are often a mish mash of issues. And for that reason, I’ve often shied away from some protests. But it’s a PROTEST; it’s a large massing of people with various issues. In other words, it’s somewhat irrational to expect a protest to always have a single unifying theme and that everyone has to stick to that theme in accepted and approved ways. You can’t get 2 or 3 people to agree on things let alone hundreds, thousnds, or more….
It’s easy enough to say that the central focal point of this protest is Bush and his policies on a wide range of issues. You don’t have to agree with EVERY SINGLE SIGN that someone carries. You don’t have to have some editing committee look at every sign or interview every person before you can have a protest. It just isn’t practical.
Finally, two points:
1. Police can violate someone’s rights, even if the person broke the law and was eventually arrested. Ergo it isn’t INHERENTLY “stupid” or “whining” to do so. People can break the law and then subsequently have their rights violated. Prisoners don’t give up their ALL of their rights. If you are arrested, you do not automatically give up all of your civil rights. (This guy is in law school?)
2. This is another one of those posts where Brendan wants to show the LGF and Malkin crowds he isn’t a “whacko lefty.” How do I know? Because if you examine the signs at right wing patriotic protests, I’m sure you’ll find a just as absurd collection of ideas and weird signs scattered through out the crowd. But you’ll never hear about that on this blog. You will get just as many “self-righteous” protesters at a right wing ultra patriotic rally. Here you’ll hear about those “whacky liberal protesters” only.
April 25th, 2006 at 12:59:24 pm
Clarification on point 1: “Ergo it isn’t INHERENTLY “stupidâ€? or “whiningâ€? to do so,” meaning to complain about one’s rights being violated during and after an arrest in which one broke the law.
April 25th, 2006 at 1:35:28 pm
Nun -
1) Brendan’s point is that just the act of being arrested does not mean your civil rights are being violated. At least, that’s one point I took away from his piece. That protesters tend to scream, “HelpHelp, I’m being oppressed!” as soon as cuffs come out.
2) Ya know, it must really be tiring running around in Brendan’s mind and ferreting out his TRUE motives like re-establishing his bonafides to the red-meat right. Isn’t it a reasonable criticism to comment on the lack of a unified or singular message from left-wing demonstrations?
And the reason you see a post on this and not right wing protests is that how often do you SEE right-wing protests? Its not even close to the same level of frequency as the left-wing, even when Clinton was in office. The liberals and democrats own the patent on the placard-waving protest.
Now that’s not a bad thing. Frankly, I wish the right-wing got more people out in front of camera than they do right now. But the lack of a unified message is exponentially excaberated with left-wing protests than right-wing protests, simply due to volume.
April 25th, 2006 at 1:36:51 pm
The fact that professional demonstrators give “training sessions” on how to be arrested is pure comedy. Part of their training apparently is to “direct[] their chants at the perceived infringement of their rights” by yelling at police officers doing their job of arresting lawbreakers. The faux outrage is both transparent and sad.
And Mouse, let me make this other painfully obvious point: Just because it’s possible that police can violate someone’s rights even if the person broke the law and was eventually arrested does NOT justify that person whining about his or her rights being violated when it’s obvious that THAT DID NOT HAPPEN HERE. You’re of course correct that if you are arrested, you do not automatically give up all of your civil rights. But you are completely and totally WRONG to assume — which you certainly seem to be doing — that if you are arrested for breaking an eminently just law during a protest, your civil rights have therefore been violated. That clearly is not the case here, and one need not attend law school to figure that out.
Moreover, you’ve probably never had the opportunity to “examine the signs at right wing patriotic protests” for an “absurd collection of ideas and weird signs scattered through out the crowd,” because those people are usually busy doing other things with their lives. But if I’m wrong and you have seen such signs in such “right-wing” protests, please enlighten us, because I would like to know what you’re talking about.
April 25th, 2006 at 1:37:50 pm
I see Lojo already beat me to the low-hanging fruit :-)
April 25th, 2006 at 2:04:58 pm
Oooooh ohoh oh!
*swings off into the jungle with his pilfered banana*
AHH AHH AHH!
April 25th, 2006 at 2:19:27 pm
Police can violate someone’s rights, even if the person broke the law and was eventually arrested. Ergo it isn’t INHERENTLY “stupid� or “whining� to do so. People can break the law and then subsequently have their rights violated. Prisoners don’t give up their ALL of their rights. If you are arrested, you do not automatically give up all of your civil rights. (This guy is in law school?)
Mouse, if you’re going to insult my intelligence, or my legal reasoning skills, or whatever it is you’re trying to impugn by wondering out loud whether I’m in law school, you ought to at least make sure you have a valid point. Here, you don’t. I explicitly acknowledged that it is OK for them to complain if subsidiary rights — beyond the mere fact of being arrested — are being violated:
My point is quite clear: while it is of course possible for ANY arrest to produce subsidiary violations of people’s rights (e.g., police brutality is wrong, even if the person being arrested genuinely commited a crime), the mere fact of arresting someone for breaking the law isn’t inherently a violation of anyone’s rights. Yet this is exactly what protesters typically claim — and indeed, are claiming here — demanding that police “let them go” and acting like it’s an outrage and “absurd” for the students to be arrested at all.
That you evidently can’t read is not my problem. But I’d appreciate it if you could at least take the time to improve your comprehension skills before you insult my intelligence.
As for your point about training sessions regarding the possibility of being arrested… of course you’re right… but what I’m saying is that the protesters, despite (or perhaps because of) being prepared through those training sessions, have a strong tendency to feign outrage when the inevitable arrests happen, even when there is nothing actually objectionable about the arrests. Indeed, I would contend that that is precisely the point, or at least a large aspect of the point, of doing these illegal things (and having the training sessions) — they are TRYING to get arrested, so they can complain about their “rights” being “violated,” even when such complaints are pure bullshit! That’s what I object to so strongly. If you break a just law (like “you can’t block traffic”) in order to make some extraneous point (like “Bush sucks”), you have NO RIGHT to complain about being arrested for breaking the law, because the law itself is not unjust! Rosa Parks had a right to complain (though not against the police officers who enforced the law*, but rather against the government that passed it) because that law was unjust. But the law that these kids are “protesting” against (the law that says you can’t block traffic) is not unjust, and yet they are using their arrests as a grandstanding tactic. Now, if they feel SO STRONGLY about Bush’s suckiness (or the notion that he shouldn’t be on their campus) that they feel it is morally necessary to break irrelevant laws to make their point, well fine, more power to them I guess, but they have to accept the consequences that go along with that, which includes being arrested — and they have no right to complain unless their arrest is unjust, which in this case it’s not!! Yet they complain anyway, because they’re attention whores. This is typical behavior among lefty protesters, and it drives me absolutely nuts.
As for this oft-heard, always-useless, endlessly-annoying complaint that I’m not focusing on conservative misdeeds enough… I’d love to see you put your money where your mouth is. You (and several others on this blog) have a tendency to raise the nonspecific point that conservatives allegedly do things that are much worse than the liberal actions I decry, yet you rarely point out specific examples — and when you do, the “examples” you cite are generally trumped-up bullshit. The classic example of this is when you responded to my outrage over Professor Jacobsen’s “free-speech” vandalism by pointing out that some conservatives in California were engaging in lawful protest outside abortion clinic employees’ houses. You seemed genuinely not to recognize that the conservative protesters’ actions, while distasteful to most people (including me), are perfectly legal on their face, and not in any way comparable to illegal vandalism that silences free speech, in the name of free speech. I don’t deny that conservatives have their own bad habits, but I believe I am on solid ground in contending that the bad habit that I am complaining about here is very much more common on the Left than on the Right. If you disagree, and you want me (or anyone else) to take your disagreement seriously, you need to cite specific, non-bullshit examples that prove your point.
*…unless the police officers were rough with her or otherwise violated her rights in some manner beyond merely arresting her — duh.
April 25th, 2006 at 2:21:07 pm
I wrote my comment before reading Lojo’s and Joe Mama’s, so I’d just like to add: Amen.
April 25th, 2006 at 2:32:17 pm
Brendan ! Do you actually, really, genuinely expect on-topic rational responses from Mendacious Mouse ?
Simplest way to scare off the LLLs amongst us ? Ask ‘em to provide video/photo/recorded evidence of the assorted consevative crimes … and the best they seem to be able to create is Rather weak, indeed …
Lojo and Joe Mama - there is a group that tends to do some ‘right-wing’ ‘protesting’ here and some of their adventures are funny and some are sorta scary … they have some great posters and bumperstickers ! And their policy is to encourage full video-recording of their activities …
For some reason, LLL protestors don’t seem to have the same eagerness to be fully and visibly and publicly documented expressing their opinions …
April 25th, 2006 at 3:05:29 pm
Alasdair -
Oh I know Protest Warrior well. Their signs are the best.
But I think with what Nun is talking about is an actually right wing protest for a specific cause that is not in response to a left wing protest. By its very nature, PW tends to be reactive while I am looking at proactive protesting.
But your right. PW is a awesome little group.
April 25th, 2006 at 4:20:53 pm
This has to be the most boring post I’ve ever read on this blog. To each is own.
April 25th, 2006 at 5:14:47 pm
Well, Roger, your comment sure spiced things up, ah yup !
Give the D-list some time … ProtestWarrior is likely to act for the D-list folk like an espresso machine does for milk - gets ‘em all hot and bothered and frothing …
(anticipatory grin)
April 25th, 2006 at 6:38:39 pm
Something else just occurred to me about A Nun Mouse’s comment.
Correct me if I’m wrong, Patrick or others who have attended large anti-abortion rallies like the “March for Life,” but I am under the impression that the message at such rallies — even when they are massive — is MUCH more unified than what you see at a typical left-wing rally. I, for one, didn’t see any irrelevant signs at the one small-scale anti-abortion protest I attended in L.A. (as an observer, not a participant). I’m sure there are occasional exceptions, especially at large rallies where there are always going to be a few weirdos in the crowd, but for the most part, if conservatives decide to have a rally against abortion, I don’t believe you’ll see very many people with signs decrying illegal immigration, the federal budget deficit, gay marriage, and other conservative pet causes. Likewise, you won’t see very many anti-abortion signs at an anti-gay-marriage rally. Conservatives are much better, it seems to me, at staying “on message” than liberals are. Again, someone correct me if they have evidence or first-hand accounts to the contrary (allowing for the fact that there will always be occasional exceptions to any rule).
If I’m right, this contradicts two aspects of Mouse’s argument: 1) that I’m unfairly picking on liberals when conservatives are just as bad; and 2) that it’s impossible to get people to stay on message because “it’s a PROTEST.” While it’s certainly impossible to get everyone on the same page, it is absolutely possible to do a better job than left-wing organizations typically do of unifying the message. The fact is, these groups often don’t make any effort AT ALL to encourage the protesters to stay focused on the issue at hand. On the contrary, they often encourage the conflation and confusion of irrelevant or even contradictory causes, as I noted in my point about the May Day protests. The official IWW page about the protest specifically bills the rally as:
It’s not exactly honest to claim “it’s somewhat irrational to expect a protest to always have a single unifying theme” when the organizers of the protest AREN’T EVEN TRYING — indeed, when they are specifically trying to promote multiple themes at once!! And given that it’s demonstrably bad P.R. to encourage people to believe that you’re basically just a bunch of malcontents with no particularized message, I think it’s perfectly reasonable and rational to criticize the Left for this blatant failure of leadership. Moreover, it’s criticism that the Left needs to hear. Far from trying to establish my bona fides with Malkin, LGF, etc., I’m actually trying to dispense advice that would help the Left be a more effective opposition! This is why I got so annoyed with liberal protesters in the first place: because I used to agree with them about most things (still do about an awful lot, as my post indicates), and I found (and find) it insansely frustrating that they can’t get their act together because their collective heads are so far up their asses that they have no sense of strategy whatsoever. As much as I have contempt for what the most extreme elements of the Left currently represents, I still firmly believe that this country DESPERATELY NEEDS a viable, vocal, rational liberal opposition — and to the extent that I criticize the Left for being irrational or otherwise failing to fill that niche, I’m not being prejudiced against liberals, I’m actually showing my desire for them to do a better job of promoting their causes. Why Mouse can’t grasp this, even though I’ve explained it several times before, is beyond me. I guess it’s easier to paint me as part of some vast right-wing conspiracy than to actually grapple with the validity of the ideas that I’m putting out there.
April 25th, 2006 at 7:27:27 pm
Brendan - as yet, you are still part of the teensy right-wing conspiracy - trwc ™ …
I also agree that this country needs a rational Loyal Opposition … the closest we have right now are the various elements within the big tent of the GOP itself …
As for why Mouse can’t grasp that, it’s probably because of the lack of opposable ideas in vacuo …
April 25th, 2006 at 8:27:52 pm
Jesus, Brendan. Maybe you would prefer we lived in a country where people displayed their displeasure with their government by blowing themselves and others up.
April 25th, 2006 at 8:28:36 pm
No, Max, in fact I would not prefer that.
April 25th, 2006 at 8:57:10 pm
For a guy who likes to go on and on about Freedom of Speech, you sure have a problem with people who demonstrate it. I’m not talking about the breaking the law part. I’m talking about the protestors’ whining. We have Freedom of Speech to protect speech we don’t agree with.
April 25th, 2006 at 9:19:48 pm
Oh come on, Max . . . that old canard? Who said anything about wanting to take away these nimrod protestors’ right to shout their stupidity?
April 25th, 2006 at 10:11:19 pm
Max, seriously, how fucking dense are you? Yes, because I criticize them for their idiotic whining, therefore I am abridging their freedom of speech. Right. And when you criticize Bush for saying things you disagree with, I suppose you’re abridging his freedom of speech too? That has to be the most idiotic comment in the entire history of this blog… well, okay, maybe only in the last 24 hours, but still.
As Joe Mama said, I am not in any way, shape, or form suggesting that we should “take away these nimrod protestors’ right to shout their stupidity.” When I used the term “no right to complain,” I obviously was not talking about the legal right. You cannot possibly seriously think that I meant that. Explaining myself further would be superfluous, because anyone with half a brain understands this non-legal usage of the phrase “no right to ____,” and it was completely obvious from context that I was going for that usage.
In conclusion, I feel dumber for having been forced to respond to your ridiculous comment. Now go away, or I shall taunt you a second time.
April 25th, 2006 at 10:16:05 pm
P.S.
We have Freedom of Speech to protect speech we don’t agree with.
Indeed we do… and if you think I don’t understand that concept, you clearly don’t know anything about me. To hear an example of me vigorously defending the free-speech rights of precisely the sort of nimrod left-wing protesters I am excoriating in this post — specifically, Dennis Kucinich supporters — click here. A member of the USC campus police was trying to shut down their protest for a totally bullshit reason, and I was very much in his face about it. I didn’t agree with a damn thing the Kucinich idiots were saying, but they had the right to say it, and I wasn’t going to tolerate their being silenced.
You want to impugn my character by suggesting that I don’t stand up for the free-speech rights of people I disagree with? Fuck you, dude. Clearly, you don’t know me, and you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about. I am a true believer in free speech, and I am consistent in advocating free speech for everyone — conservatives, liberals, communists, Nazis… whomever, whatever. I may hate what they say, but I’ll vigorously defend their right to say it. But that has NOTHING to do with what I’m saying in this post. Here I am criticizing these people’s speech, not trying to censor or silence it. That you don’t understand the very basic difference between CENSORSHIP and COUNTERSPEECH is not my problem.
Seriously, G*d damn, I ought to ban you from this blog for sheer idiocy. But that would be censorship (albeit by a private, non-state actor), so I won’t. I will, however, engage in vigorous counterspeech, as I’ve just done. I hope you don’t feel overly censored by my censure. I suppose you probably do, since you obviously don’t understand the difference.
April 25th, 2006 at 10:34:41 pm
P.P.S. To pre-emptively respond to the critique that I’m being overly harsh and engaging in personal attacks… when someone states or implies that I: a) prefer violence to free speech, b) am a censor, and c) am a hypocrite on the issue of free speech, I consider those statements to be personal attacks. They are not mere criticisms of my viewpoint, they are directly impugning my character. As such, I feel justified responding harshly. Yes, this is the third-grade “he started it” defense. But dammit, you can’t just say stuff like that without incurring my wrath.
April 25th, 2006 at 10:42:26 pm
If I’m the fire truck, I keep on rolling and run right over the students who won’t move after repeated warnings. They’ll learn pretty darn quick after that. There’s plenty of ways to protest without obstructing official government business.
April 26th, 2006 at 12:59:41 am
Andrew, really, you would so not run over the students.
April 26th, 2006 at 1:53:37 pm
I have a crazy idea. From now on, instead of just telling Brendan he’s a self-hating liberal - whether we believe he is or not - we argue his points. Really, the whole, “But these other guys suck, too” is a little too reminiscent of the justifications for torture.
Me? I like to stay out of these ones because I like to talk more about ideas than strategy. When I’m not just making silly commentary, anyway. And that’s my prerogative what I want to talk about, just as it’s Brendan’s what he wants to talk about.
PS Dean is awesome.
April 26th, 2006 at 3:03:19 pm
Andrew @ 2:42 - how about a compromise ? Firetruck turns firehose on the roadway to clean away the litter in front of it ? “Oh, sorry, didn’t realise anyone would be DUMB enough to be sitting in the roadway in front of us !” … while video cameras roll, capturing the sheer brave noble dignity of the protestors …
April 27th, 2006 at 3:43:15 am
Hi Brendan,
Two things.
1. I was at the Stanford protest and the press is mis-reporting what actually happened, most likely based on the White House press secretary’s statement that Bush’s route was blocked. The protesters were definitely *not* blocking Bush’s route to his meeting at Hoover Tower. The whole point of being there was to see the man himself and communicate dissatisfaction with his policies. The road that was blocked was a side-street, open only to emergency vehicles. Bush’s route was clear as it had been cordoned off hours before by secret service and law enforcement. The students were arrested for blocking a fire truck that was misappropriately used to break up the protest. Law enforcement lied openly to the crowd about its purpose, claiming there was a medical emergency. See my full report for the complete story, with links to videos and photos of the incident.
2. It is not at all surprising that there was a huge variety of political messages being declared at the protest. This president is widely despised by hundreds of millions of people on thousands of different policy issues. The diversity shows just how ill-regarded this president is.
Case in point:
April 27th, 2006 at 3:44:35 am
Case in point.
April 27th, 2006 at 6:13:33 am
FYI, Jeb Eddy is a fraud.
But thanks for the rest of your comment, I will link to your account.
April 27th, 2006 at 1:09:52 pm
Daniel Steinbock - just a thought, but …
Unless you have access to intel the rest of us don’t, how can you be 100% certain that an emergency vehicle isn’t going to an actual emergency ?
At your protest, you don’t have to like it, and you may well be being manipulated, but, if an emergency vehicle with its lights on wants to get through, then you should get the $#@#@$@ out of the way - and then, if so inclined, FOLLOW ‘EM, and see if they go to an actual emergency - if they go on to the local donut shop, document that by all means …