Riot Police on Mcgill campus

[Patroklos]

I love watching you guys strawman this to death instead of providing actual rebuttal, it is the greatest admission of defeat I could have asked for.

I challenge any of you (with the exception of Camakazi) to actually address what I said instead of dancing around it with forced sarcasm.

 

[aelf]

Violent strawmen, I might add, since they refuse to budge.

 

[Commodore]

I love watching you guys strawman this to death instead of providing actual rebuttal, it is the greatest admission of defeat I could have asked for.

What's to rebutt? Your arguements are childish at best. When you say something like standing in someone's way is violence and then use Wikipedia as your source to support your claims, you can't expect to be taken seriously.

Face it, you are just an authority junkie, who thinks protestors are always wrong and police are saints. This is evidenced by your constant criticism of every single protest that takes place along with your view on how a "proper" protest should be conducted.

 

[Camikaze]

Moderator Action: Closed until someone not involved can get to it.

 

[IglooDame]

Moderator Action: Thread reopened. A bit less 'nya nya nya' about what is violent and what isn't would be wonderful.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[IglooDame]

Is this how kids think now of days? That as long as they are being "non violent" (which I believe they weren't), they can commit a crap load of crimes, infringe on others people right and property, and shouldn't have the cops get called on them? It's selfish.

I'm a big believer in civil disobedience, it's a very patriotic American act in someways. I'll just quote this guy as he says it better then I could.
http://www.actupny.org/documents/whywe get.html

They didn't follow several rules to a good civil disobedience rally. This was just an unorganized mob that broke off from the main protest. This wasn't pre-planed, and there was no specific demands or message. This was a mob of kids wearing bandanas over there face, forcibly breaking there way in to buildings and offices (peacefully?), and just breaking a lot of laws.

And whats the message at the end of the day? The high cost of tuition? Nope, its kids crying about having the cops called on them. These kids who broke in and occupied the builds didn't really care about what was going on, they just saw a good time and excuses to do something dumb. And because of there selfishness to not face the consequences of there actions, what ever important issue has been casted aside.

Indeed.

I think arguing whether trespassing is by definition violence misses the point entirely. "We told them we were peacefully occupying the place" does not place any duty on the police to use less force on them when they do not leave as requested than if they were hitting people and breaking things.

 

[Traitorfish]

Is this how kids think now of days? That as long as they are being "non violent" (which I believe they weren't), they can commit a crap load of crimes, infringe on others people right and property, and shouldn't have the cops get called on them? It's selfish.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flint_Sit-Down_Strike

But, yeah, it's just these damn hippy beatnik kids that do that sort of thing. Your great-grandad would never have dreamed of something like that.

 

[CaptainF]

Sounds like the school administration is a bunch of weenies.

They were "disturbed" by a bunch of students sitting on their asses in a building that is part of the school they attend and pay for? Pathetic.

 

[woody60707]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flint_Sit-Down_Strike

But, yeah, it's just these damn hippy beatnik kids that do that sort of thing. Your great-grandad would never have dreamed of something like that.

??? Did you even read my post? Hell, that link would fit in great with my post. I'm going to edit it now.

 

[Traitorfish]

??? Did you even read my post? Hell, that link would fit in great with my post. I'm going to edit it now.

Well, I may have skimmed over all that stuff about "unruly mobs" and "kids finding an excuse for a good time", what with it being trite and uninteresting, but I believe my point stands- that disrespect for the Highest and Most Sanctified Right of Private Property is in no sense a novelty. Qualifying your praise for the Flint Sit-Down Strike as "extreme" (and if you think that was "extreme", then, to be frank, you evidently know next to nothing about the history of the pre-'45 labour movement!) in no way relieves you of the burden of resolving your support for the blatant infringing of property rights in one case and your specific condemnation of it in this case- and saying that one action was more organised and coherent than the other is merely tactical criticism, not a solution to your ethical contradiction.

 

[woody60707]

Well, I may have skimmed over all that stuff about "unruly mobs" and "kids finding an excuse for a good time", what with it being trite and uninteresting, but I believe my point stands- that disrespect for the Highest and Most Sanctified Right of Private Property is in no sense a novelty. Qualifying your praise for the Flint Sit-Down Strike as "extreme" (and if you think that was "extreme", then, to be frank, you evidently know next to nothing about the history of the pre-'45 labour movement!) in no way relieves you of the burden of resolving your support for the blatant infringing of property rights in one case and your specific condemnation of it in this case- and saying that one action was more organised and coherent than the other is merely tactical criticism, not a solution to your ethical contradiction.

That we are talking about this proves my point. And I believe your point is off-topic as to the OP.

 

[Commodore]

Indeed.

I think arguing whether trespassing is by definition violence misses the point entirely. "We told them we were peacefully occupying the place" does not place any duty on the police to use less force on them when they do not leave as requested than if they were hitting people and breaking things.

Legally no, they don't have a duty to use less force, but I think they do morally. To treat someone who is just sitting somewhere he isn't supposed to as a form of protest the same as someone who is breaking windows and starting fires is just plain old not right. Technically, yes both types are committing crimes, but that does not mean they should be treated in the same manner.

It would be prudent to use force that is proportionate to the crime being committed. Just as you wouldn't treat a jaywalker the same as a car thief, you shouldn't treat a non-violent sit-in protestor the same as a rioter with a molotov in his hand.

 

[Masada]

white terror tiem

 

[Thedrin]

Read it and weep:

Violence is the use of physical force to apply a state to others contrary to their wishes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence

Physically using your body to deny access to an area others wish to use is violence, however mild.
Guess what the military's use of force continuum is?

1.) Presense
2.) Verbal Commands
3.) Soft Controls
4.) Hard Controls
5.) Intermediate Weapons
6.) Deadly Force.

The OWSs are definetly using one and two, and I bet a good portion are using three. All those resisting arrest are guilty using four. We have evidence of many using five.

We only have evidence of one using six as a means of protest (pushing the cop in front of the a bus). Though a few have used six for tangental reasons while at the OWS sites.

1)

Violence is the use of physical force to apply a state to others contrary to their wishes.

I'm sticking to an older definition of force:

F = ma

Protestors who does not attempt to cause a non protestor of mass m to experience an acceleration of a will only apply a force to the non protestor in the form of a reaction or a normal force, both of which result from the non protestor attempting to force the protestor.

By this, 1) and 2) of the force continuum do not qualify as force.

2)

What I'm seeing you trying to do here (however unintentionally) is redefine the term violence and reduce the negativeness of that word. Compared to the more broadly accepted but ill-defined definition of violence, your definition of violence contains many more cases that people often consider to be not-unacceptable behaviour. Widespread adoption of your definition would not cause people to view the McGill protestors more negatively - it would just diminish the negativeness of the word violence.

 

[Patroklos]

1.) Read the thread before posting.

2.) I am glad to hear you don't think chemical or biological agents constitute force.

What I'm seeing you trying to do here (however unintentionally) is redefine the term violence and reduce the negativeness of that word.

No, I am doing the opposite. Protests want to pretend their actions are not negative so they can accuse the police of abuse.

Compared to the more broadly accepted but ill-defined definition of violence, your definition of violence contains many more cases that people often consider to be not-unacceptable behaviour. Widespread adoption of your definition would not cause people to view the McGill protestors more negatively - it would just diminish the negativeness of the word violence.

Incorrect, it would prevent protesters from abusing their right by pretending they are doing nothing wrong. Wrongly occupying places is in fact wrong and violent, period. It is irrelevant as to how mild or strong that violence is considered.

And that just lays the foundation for understanding why these protests don't work. People are more than willing to tolerate you having a voice, to speak to your hearts content about whatever you want. What they are not understanding aout is when protesters attempt to FORCE people to listen, something you have no right to compel in the first place. Thats what people do with theri sit ins or traffic stoppages or building occupations, they are physically forcing people to do something they may otherwise chose not to do, and they phisicality of it alone constitutes violence.

So why is it that the OWS types don't like being able to stand in a square and say their peice without obstructing anyone vice their MO of compelling attention via force? Its because they fear being ignored, which is a failure of message on their part. The answer to that is not to compell attention. The answers are either to get a better message or be better at communicating it or indeed do compel attention and accept the consequences instead of quibbling your way out of them.

 

[deanej]

So were the civil rights protests wrong too? Perhaps we should just say that Martin Luther King Jr was a villain of history. Ditto for Tiananmen Square.

I guess you want the US to set up "free speech zones" where you can protest without fear of anyone actually listening. Seems to be what you're going for. Why is it only wrong when the Chinese do it, but if the US tries to do it, it's perfectly OK? Here's a hint: if you need a double-standard for your government's behavior to be OK, it's not OK.

It's only wrong if you support authoritarianism.

 

[CaptainF]

Protesting under the approval of authorities kinda defeats the point of protest.

Of course, it's not like I'd expect someone with a raging hard-on for all things militaristic to understand that.

Moderator Action: Discuss the points, not the poster.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Mark1031]

To call trespass a violent crime is unjustified. In the 2 most famous examples (King Gandhi) the technique was called non-violent protest. However, the whole point of civil disobedience it to get arrested in the hopes of drawing attention to an unjust law. So get arrested, don’t resist, and if excessive force is used use this to your advantage. That’s the play book. It is hard and requires a lot of guts but if you fight back you lose.

 

[Hygro]

I love watching you guys strawman this to death instead of providing actual rebuttal, it is the greatest admission of defeat I could have asked for.

I challenge any of you (with the exception of Camakazi) to actually address what I said instead of dancing around it with forced sarcasm.

You are scattering your arguments, making claims that doesn't allow for any distinction thereby rendering terminology useless, and then declaring victory when no one falls for your bait.

 

[illram]

The whole point of the "use of force continuum" (also used by police forces and investigative bodies charged with overseeing them) is precisely to avoid the one size fits all use of the term "violence."

In other words, implying that anything on the continuum is "violence" and somehow the same thing is missing the point of the continuum. Even if we agree protesters are at stage 1 or 2, and maybe even 3 of the continuum, you are inherently agreeing that the "force" utilized is at the low end of the spectrum. Ignoring the spectrum and what it means, however, is missing the point entirely, probably intentionally. Being on the spectrum in and of itself does not really tell anyone much.