Skip to main content

No such thing as peaceful intimidation

Reap what you sow I am no fan of protests, peaceful or otherwise, so I found this story about some Greenpeacers being "actively resisted" both amusing and interesting (tip: Bill's Comment's). A short summary is that they entered a London trading floor for petroleum, planning to disrupt trading in an effort to voice concern over air quality. The traders would have none of it and beat the heck out them. I'm inclined to back the traders on this one, with a few caveats thrown in. I am willing to overlook protests that really are peaceful. Blocking access to property that is not yours is not peaceful. This is obvious in cases of private property, but it applies to public property as well, since public property does not belong to protestors alone. I don't actually care if I like your cause or not. Being right about the ends does not give one carte blanche on the means. I have only taken part in one such protest and I'm sure it'll surprise no one that it was a pro life event. We held signs on a busy public street, making no attempt to block anyone's use of the street or the sidewalk. The signs were not rude or threatening, not unless you consider "abortion hurts women" to be menacing (there were no pictures involved, only simple text). It took some convincing to get me even to do that, not that I had any doubts about the cause. Now, I think the people from Greenpeace were clearly in the wrong here. They had no business interrupting business on the trading floor in London. If they had a point to make, it is up to them to find a way to make it, without interrupting the lives of others. The trouble with the folks from Greenpeace is that they assume they are right, and that being right justifies anything they do. They remind me of tourists who think the locals will understand them better if they talk louder. No, the solution here is to communicate better, so that people will want to hear you out and may even be convinced of your cause. The traders were right to be offended, and I don't have much quarrel with them forcing the intruders out. On whether or not excessive violence was used, I'm not in a position to say. It is easy to say that the traders went too far, hitting people who were down. The problem is that flopping on the ground like a sack of potatoes it is such a common tactic among certain types of protestor. Were the people from Greenpeace down, signaling submission, or were they up to their usual "peaceful sack of potatoes in a place they have no right to be in" routine? That tactic may have worked years ago, when it was new. It made skillful use of television cameras, creating the appearance that the attacker was in fact a victim. To put it subtly, however, this is a new generation and a much more media savvy one. We've seen it before and we know more than the camera shows, making the potato tactic yesterday's news. I also note that the protestors entered illegally, while "blowing whistles and sounding fog horns ... Rape alarms were tied to helium balloons to float to the ceiling and create noise out of reach." Tactics like these emphasize that what is happening is a soft form of war, or of terrorism. It is intended to disrupt the opposition and make it difficult for them to respond. It is a form of intimidation. The whole stupid exercise was one large act of intimidation. If, however, the protestors were backing off, then they should not have been beaten. Restraining them so that they could be arrested for trespass would also be fair. Perhaps in the future Greenpeace can either conduct a more peaceful protest, or find another way to get the camera's attention. After all, you bright things are future, right? I'm sure you'll think of something.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Reuters joins CNN on the bench

Makes room for CanWest to join the majors Kudos to CanWest for calling a terrorist a terrorist . Many, including The Last Amazon , will be happy to hear it. Reuters is among the worst of the major western news services, where I would also place the BBC and the CBC. Unsurprisingly, Reuters is not happy about the changes CanWest made to Reuters wire stories: Our editorial policy is that we don't use emotive words when labeling someone," said David A. Schlesinger, Reuters' global managing editor. "Any paper can change copy and do whatever they want. But if a paper wants to change our copy that way, we would be more comfortable if they remove the byline." Mr. Schlesinger said he was concerned that changes like those made at CanWest could lead to "confusion" about what Reuters is reporting and possibly endanger its reporters in volatile areas or situations. "My goal is to protect

Where credit is due

A good'un from Sawyer Brown . Thank God for You Well I've been called a self-made man Girl don't you believe it's true I know exactly how lucky I am When I'm gettin' this close to you It's high time I'm giving some praise To those that got me where I am today Chorus I got to thank momma for the cookin' Daddy for the whuppin' The devil for the trouble that I get into I got to give credit where credit is due I thank the bank for the money Thank God for you A strong heart and a willing hand That's the secret to my success A good woman - I try to be a good man A good job - Lord I know I've been blessed I'm just a part of a greater plan It doesn't matter which part I am Chorus I got to thank momma for the teachin' Daddy for the preachin' The devil for the trouble that I get into I got to give credit where credit is due I thank the bank for the money Thank God for you

A very limited form of inquiry

Real Clear Politics is carrying commentary on James Q. Wilson's WSJ article on ID (got that?). Wilson, the respected social scientist, gets it mostly right when he says that ID is not science because it can't be tested: So ID is not science. Does this mean that science, in any way, implies the non-existence of God? No. Does this mean that belief in God is irrational and that we should all be "free thinkers"? No. Does this mean that it is impossible to arbitrate between various theories of the existence/non-existence of God and come to some reasonable conclusions? No. Does this mean that we cannot say that humanity is meant to exist? No. In other words, rationality outside of science is quite possible, and has been around for a long time. How do you think humanity invented science in the first place? We surely did not do it scientifically. Science as we know it is the product of millennia of philosophical debate -- from Aristotle to Lakatos. Science depends upon phi