Marcy,
You really think carrying a sign might be an "implicit symbol of
aggression"??? What about writing a letter to the editor? Wearing a
provocative t-shirt? Speaking forcefully at a public meeting? Could
*any* of our free speech rights get by according to such a standard
without being tainted by some association with the threat of violence?
I would also like to point out that it is virtually *always* possible
to work within the system. People who were arguably decent human beings
did so even under the Nazi and Soviet regimes. It is simply a question
of how much oppression you are willing to tolerate while remaining
peaceful yourself. If the American founders could be transplanted into
the present, I expect that they would consider it past time for a
violent revolution. I am not advocating such a course of action, but I
think it's a helpful thought experiment to put things in perspective.
Yours in liberty,
<<< Starchild >>>
Very useful analysis,Chris. I agree with you that first level rallies
are OK. Tabling, distributing flyers, candlelight vigils, are all
fine with me. However, in my own personal opinion the minute you
carry a sign (implicit symbol of aggression?), you step into level
two; and I would only use levels two and up very, very sparingly --
as I said, when I perceive that working within the political system
is impossible.Marcy
--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "Christopher R. Maden"
<crism@m...> wrote:-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1I think that, regardless of one's position on their efficacy, it's
important to distinguish between levels of protest activity. I seethree
levels:
1) Rally: like we do on the Ides of April, a rally is a legal,
non-disruptive awareness-raising event. This is used quiteeffectively by
the left in SF; any time there's a MMJ case heard, or a marriage
equality
milestone, or a labor issue, folks rally on Civic Center or the
courthouse. This demonstrates to those uninvolved that there are
supporters of the issue, and is a good opportunity for the mediaand
passers-by to learn more.
2) Non-violent disruption: like the anti-war protests that took
over the
streets or like Critical Mass, these protests are arguably legal,
but even
if not, no one is directly hurt by them. These demonstrate massive
support
for an issue, and send a signal to the powers that be that business
as
usual should not continue. There is also a veiled threat - not
necessarily
of violence, perhaps just of non-re-election - that with this many
supporters of a cause, politicians had better watch their steps.3) Civil disobedience: like the folks at the PO in SoCal or like
the SCLC
in the '60s, people peacefully and intentionally breaking bad laws
with the
intent of arrest sends a clear message about their priorities and
their
willingness to undergo discomfort to draw attention to these bad
laws. Done right, it is an excellent tool to draw public attentionand
sympathy. However, there is the danger of being perceived as
a "whiner";
attempts to change the law through the system should have been
exhausted
before pursuing this, otherwise public opinion will likely go
against the
protestors.
Personally, I think rallies are always OK. If overdone, the public
burns
out on the issue and starts ignoring you, but I don't think there's
any
danger of misperception. More specifically, I think they are fine
for a
political party.
Non-violent disruption is a powerful tool and should be used
sparingly; the
people whose business is disrupted may forgive it once or twice for
a
burning issue, but will begin to be annoyed by the petty discomfort
more
than they are sympathetic to the cause. I am not sure that these
should be
done by a political party per se, since the party works within the
system,
and this is by definition a deviation from the system. An analogy -
a
terrible one, but the only one that comes to mind - is Sinn Fein
and the
IRA. There may be the same people in both activities, but one
should be
the in-the-system body and the other the cross-the-system group.
Civil disobedience should be used even more precisely and
sparingly. However, it's more appropriate for a political party inmany
ways than disruption is, at least in cases where there is doubt
about how
the system works vs. how it's supposed to work. Examples are the
PO
arrests and Badnarik's and Cobb's arrests in St. Louis; freedom of
speech
and freedom of assembly are inherently political freedoms, and if
they are
denied to political bodies, they are pointless. Civil disobedience
to draw
attention to those facts can be very powerful.
Then there's always 4) violence. Starbucks-smashers are just
hooligans
using politics (instead of racism or football) as their excuse.
This stage
should be reserved for when the system has utterly failed and it's
time to
actually overthrow the system by violent revolution. At this
point, it's
definitely not a political party any more.
IMO,
Chris
- --
Chris Maden, geek and gadfly: <URL: http://crism.maden.org/ >
"Can [man], then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have
we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him?" ~TJeff
PGP Fingerprint: BBA6 4085 DED0 E176 D6D4 5DFC AC52 F825 AFEC 58DA-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.5.8iQA/AwUBQt/LG6xS+CWv7FjaEQKIBwCgjw2zCaQimGQMqxUa6Y+ypU6PtjUAoMlh
M9SoBuqUIt8NvdR2S5S1CmiJ
=DGtn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----Yahoo! Groups Links
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lpsf-discuss/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/