Is disturbing the peace, "peaceful protest"?

Two hot topics for the price of one

Moderator: Moderators

Elijah John
Savant
Posts: 12235
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 8:23 pm
Location: New England
Has thanked: 11 times
Been thanked: 16 times

Is disturbing the peace, "peaceful protest"?

Post #1

Post by Elijah John »

Here is a quote from Maxine Waters which seems to represent the sentiments of others, including Hillary Clinton, Cory Booker, Eric Holder, and others like Donna Brazile, who decribed the tactics of harassment as "demoncracy in action".

Maxine Waters: “If you think we’re rallying now, you ain’t seen nothin’ yet. Already, you have members of your Cabinet that are being booed out of restaurants who have protesters taking up at their house, who say, ‘No peace, no sleep. No peace, no sleep.’ God is on OUR side! On the side of the children. On the side of what’s right. On the side of what’s honorable. And so, let’s stay the course. Let’s make sure we show up wherever we have to show up and if you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd and you push back on them, and you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere.
Kirstjen Neilson, Ted Cruz, Mitch McConnell have all been harassed and verbally assaulted at restaraunts. Pam Bondi was harassed while out at the movies. Susan Collins recieved an envelope of ricin at her home and thousands of coat-hangers. She was also verbally assaulted in the halls of Congress. Jeff Flake was harrased in an elevator. Joe Mansion was harrased while trying to give an interview.


For debate,

1) is God on those who engage in such tactics? (As Waters claims?)

2) If freedom of movement is a civil right, is Maxine Waters advocating the infringement of the civil rights of those who do not agree with her?

3) Is Maxine Waters engaging in "hate speech"?

4) Isn't disturbing the peace still against the law?

5) Is Maxine Waters practicing the Golden Rule? How would SHE like it if protesters made it impossible for her to shop, get gas, and go out to eat? And for that matter, get any sleep? Are the "protesters" practicing the Golden Rule?

6) Are the tactics of harassment covered by the right to free speech?

7) Is "disorderly conduct" still a crime?

8) Isn't "inciting civil unrest" still a crime?

9) Is disturbing the peace, "peaceful protest"?

10) Do such tactics help the cause of those who engage in them, or hinder?

Please address any combination of the above.
My theological positions:

-God created us in His image, not the other way around.
-The Bible is redeemed by it's good parts.
-Pure monotheism, simple repentance.
-YHVH is LORD
-The real Jesus is not God, the real YHVH is not a monster.
-Eternal life is a gift from the Living God.
-Keep the Commandments, keep your salvation.
-I have accepted YHVH as my Heavenly Father, LORD and Savior.

I am inspired by Jesus to worship none but YHVH, and to serve only Him.

jgh7

Post #11

Post by jgh7 »

If I read this completely literally, she is advocating that people stand outside the house of whoever her enemies are (Republicans officials in general? or just certain Republicans she particularly hates?) and shout to prevent them from sleeping. She has advocated that wherever they go, people have to make them feel unwelcome and confront them.

This is borderline madness to me. Republicans and Democrats may disagree with the political views of each other, they may get into heated arguments, but this is just madness. She seems dangerously hostile and hostility is what her speeches will cultivate, possibly violence.

User avatar
Furrowed Brow
Site Supporter
Posts: 3720
Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2006 9:29 am
Location: Here
Been thanked: 1 time
Contact:

Re: Is disturbing the peace, "peaceful protest"?

Post #12

Post by Furrowed Brow »

Elijah John wrote:"Lawful tactics". Wouldn't it be a better world if protest consisted of appeals to reason and attempts at persuasion instead of intimidation? Campaigning and voting??
In an ideal world everyone would be impeccably civil and reasonable... like Switzerland... who only managed to give the vote to women in 1971.

In the real world there is personal interest, class interest, racial prejudice, dogma, propaganda, and all sorts of biases both conscious and unconscious, and then there is an unequal distribution of wealth and power. By itself reason is insufficient to overcome all those inequalities.

It is an old saying that power does not hand over power without a demand, and that demand needs to be backed up with either physical strength, social unity or economic leverage and often a combination of all three. Reason and the moral high ground is the fourth leg to this chair and they can't hold the chair up on their own.

At the heart of the problem is normal sets the standard for what counts as reasonable. Dissenters are at best deemed naive, probably seen as a bit loopy, and if they threatened to upturn things then they are targeted as dangerous and labelled dissident. An understandable response if social norms are internalised and held firm through a lack of consciousness. By definition dissent starts at the margins of debate and has to overcome steep resistance - because dissent is asking for something not normally seen as reasonable. This is how slavery, apartheid, class structures, religious caste systems, gender differences and so forth, are all defended. If something is normalised the normal tend to think they are the reasonable ones and the dissenter is the fool or a trot.

The question of intimidation v persuasion is moot and how we answer it gives a clue to where our sympathies lie.

There is a new movie Peterloo about the 1819 Peterloo massacre. The circumstance of Peterloo seem apt. Following decades of land enclosure restricting access to common land, the 1815 war and then a period of famines and high unemployment the social mood was exasperated by introduction of Corn Laws designed to protect land owners by raising the price of corn. The poor also lacked political franchise. Economic and political oppression was palpable. The massacre occurred in the context of the hegemonic political powers both not in the mood to back down and fearing rebellion. The army stormed a crowd of 80,000 gathered at Peterloo. The immediate repercussion was a crackdown and arrests. It is true the protest themselves seem to have little effect on the speed of reform. However there was a change in consciousness. The massacre ushered in a period of parliamentary change and a change of consensus. The protests fed into a change in the accepted logic of the debate. And as we look back now it is obvious reform was needed and our capacity to understand the injustice is informed by the massacre. The 15 that died and the hundreds injured at Peterloo teach a lesson about the nature of power. Not just about the powerful but also about those that serve power. It took a soldier to give the actual order on the ground to charge and it took more soldiers to obey the orders. Though in reality the majority of those soldiers had more in common with those they charged than those they obeyed. And now it a powerful movie that may offer lessons for our own times, thought there would not be a movie or a lesson if there had not been 80,000 people protesting at Peterloo.

When I hear criticism of protests and protestors I wonder how history over the long term will judge their cause and how reactionary the critics will look later. Like men (and woman) in the early 20th century aghast at the antics of the suffragettes. History and our shared sense of injustice sides with the suffragettes (well at least my sense of justice does :-) ) And it is difficult to see how the raising of consciousness small or large is achieved without the friction of protest and at times open revolt.

The golden rule is not difficult to understand. If we were all reasonable it would eight heavy on us all. Even at the height of slavery there were still plenty of people to argue slavery was wrong. Their logic was not at fault. The golden rule made their logic obvious. And yet the problem was bringing people to the reasonable answer who didn't want to go there. Likewise there is not a version of history that says in 1948 white south Africans saw the logic of treating black South Africans as equals.

"Lawful tactics" is also a moot idea.
Martin Luther King Jr. wrote:One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.
A greater man than me had it about right I'd say.

So bringing this all back to the issues in America today. I think the answer as to how to engage in political debate and political differences comes down to just how bad are things getting and how bad could they get.

Booing people out of restaurants, targeting kids is pretty dreadful. Maybe people have forgotten how to protest. Maybe they are a nasty rabble.

On the counter side to this I know Republicans like Rick Wilson, Charlie Sykes and David Frum have a lot to say about the abuse including death threats handed out to them by Trump supporters. There seems to be deep tensions in America at the moment which is being felt all ways.

Post Reply