The violence this past day in Washington D.C. today and Washington State this past day demonstrates there are times you should not join in protesting. When protesting pits two sides against each other -- when counter-protesters are present -- it is often time to stay home.
Both protests involved counter-protesting. And, predictably, both led to violence, at least four stabbings in D.C. and a shooting in Olympia.
It is good to express your views. And, if you have grievances against government, you should petition for redress. But, do you want to end up participating in violence such as there was in D.C. and Olympia?
There may be times for counter-protesting. But, I wonder if it is usually better to take the counter-protest to another part of town, or have it at another time. When two sides confront each other, each in anger, violence brews.
"Congress shall make no law . . . prohibiting . . . the right of the people peaceably to assemble." So says the First Amendment. Counter-protests are by nature not peaceable assemblies. Not that violence always erupts, but anger most always does. Two sides shouting obscenities at each other is not peaceable assembly.
So, I do wonder if we should outlaw counter-protesters who do not pledge to be peaceable in advance. And, maybe altogether. Many of these protests end up being dispersed once they've started. As soon as they get too uncivil, police move in to clear them out. So, if it is going to come to that, why not forbid the counter-protest from the get-go?
We, as a people, generally object to violent demonstrations. We look back on all the violent protests since March, and we do not approve. Maybe it is time to understand that counter-protesting lends to increased violence. Perhaps we should be discouraging our own -- those with political beliefs that fall on our side of the aisle regardless which side that may be -- perhaps we should discourage them from counter-protesting. Perhaps we should tell them that is a wrong thing to do.
No comments:
Post a Comment