Civil vs Uncivil protests
The following is a personal perspective paper of The Jacksonian Party.
Tea Party protests:
(Pictures sent into Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit)
From G20 Summits:
One of the photos Victoria Police have released in their search for 28 'persons of interest' in relation to the November G20 riots.
Photo courtesy: The Age, 18 JAN 2007, persons of interest line-up.
Photo courtesy: John Kewley, RJK Photos via Lightstalkers, 2006 Melbourne G20.
Photo courtesy: William West, via AFP, ABC.net.au, Melbourne 2006 G20.
Again, Tea Parties:
Photo courtesy: AZ House Republicans, 17 APR 2009
Photo courtesy: Instapundit, 11 APR 2009.
Photo courtesy: Michelle Wong, Noozhawk, 04 APR 2009.
Photo courtesy: Charles Croninger, Noozhawk, 04 APR 2009.
Photo courtesy: RJ Ritchie, 21 MAR 2009.
Photo courtesy: Scootertrash Conservative, 14 APR 2009.
Photo courtesy: John Berry, Syracuse.com, 15 APR 2009.
Photo courtesy: Media Circus, 15 APR 2009.
Photo courtesy: edj_99999, 12 SEP 2009, Flickr.
Photo courtesy: Darleen Click, Protein Wisdom, 12 SEP 2009.
Photo courtesy: Michael A. Beck via iOwnTheWorld.com.
WTO protests:
Photo courtesies various: Via Semp.us Seattle 1999 WTO meeting.
Photo courtesy: IMC at Indymedia, 17 JAN 2004 on 1999 WTO meeting.
Photo courtesy: News Real Blog, WTO 1999 Seattle.
Why, yes, it is possible to see which part of the political spectrum looks to violence.
Of course no one ever asks their supporters to disavow them. Turn them in. Distance themselves from these violent people.
Not once.
I even have sympathy for some of what those protesting the G20 and WTO are about as I put National interest in trade and protecting our citizens first. Free trade is an excellent way to support friends and allies and become stronger with them in supporting liberty and freedom.
It has not proven so good at providing liberty and freedom outside of that venue. Quite the opposite in many poor Nations, and even in such places as China. The support of liberty and freedom is FIRST and without it you do not have free trade amongst equals until their governments recognize that human liberty is born within us as individuals. Why we do not offer free trade only to our friends and allies is beyond me. But that would probably set off its own set of riots for those who want to destroy civilization and building up liberty and freedom via such things as trade.
Turning to violence is not the answer save as the very last resort of self-defense for yourself, your family, your property and your neighbors. That is the Law of Nations at work and we protect our Nations first and foremost by protecting ourselves.
Civil discussion and coming to common agreement is necessary to support civilization. I see hundreds of thousands across the US doing just that and being called 'violent' and 'extremist' and 'racist'. Strange that I don't see where the violence, extremism or racism is in those protests. Those are meant to stop civil discussion and that is authoritarian in the extreme: to label things as they are NOT in order to stifle that which you disagree with on a civil level.
Those that turn to violence long before self-protection and civil discussion have demonstrated that they are willing to throw off the shackles of being civilized for the lovely niceties of the Law of Nature. That is savagery and it is barbaric in the extreme and repulsive. Thus my sympathy for those who turn to it is lost, even when I think there is some basis for protests in a civil manner, by turning to violence, epithets, and mis-labeling others, they lose their chance to make those points with me. Especially when I bring up civil points and make them in a civil manner. I turn from such people who bring that lack of civilization with them.
Do not grab me to yell at me.
That is violence.
And I do have the right of self-defense.
And I would not have started a fight by turning from those who lack civility.
You are given a chance to be civil and civilized.
You are given a chance to recognize that I do not see such civility.
You are given those choices by my responses to those actions: be civilized and be able to recognize when someone is trying to maintain civility towards you.
I stand with those who will wait until the very last in making civil protests to be heard as individuals even if I disagree with them, they should be heard.
And not called 'racist' or as doing 'violence' when the arguments are purely in the civil policy arena.
That is how we build relationships amongst ourselves and create Nations.
In case that point has been missed.
2 comments:
And yet, healthcare protestors show up with GUNS.
Tim - On both sides, it is to be pointed out.
I am threatened by neither.
Those showing up with baseball bats at voting stations, however, which should be a protected civil right and not done under intimidation, I have extreme problems with. I have seen no guns wielded in intimidating fashion at health care rallies... but I have seen Union thugs beat up a black man after a health care rally because he was giving things away for free. But then that is just being beaten and kicked, and you don't need a gun for that, save in self-protection. I am glad the supporters have backed off their intimidations as that could lead to far worse things. I do trust my fellow citizens in their ability to utilize their civil rights in a peaceful way and demonstrate that they can defend themselves when others threaten them. I do not fear the gun, I fear the man or woman who will use it wantonly against others. But they will find any means to harm others, including hands and feet.
I have seen such violence as there has been at the health care rallies, and the supporters have done more of that than those opposing it. And yet I do not want violence on either side, and showing you can defend yourself is not intimidation save to those wanting to do violence to you.
Post a Comment