I have been saddened by reading certain perspectives in Kos on the Palestine protests. Some people are defending the indefensible because they agree with the ultimate aims of the protesters. That is not only wrong but also highly counterproductive. It’s not that I disagree with the right to protest. To the contrary, I adamantly defend the right to peaceful protest and non-violent civil disobedience, of course including Palestine protesters and anyone else. But what has been happening is not remotely comparable to the non-violent civil disobedience of the Civil Rights era. To the contrary, it has often (not always, I know, but often) devolved into violence and criminality. Kudos to the many protests and protesters who have kept it nonviolent and positive. But far too many protests have devolved into criminality. I know many folks don’t want to hear this, but it is the truth.
Folks rightfully condemned J6 defendants for what they did. We all know what happened. The J6 defendants participated in protests which may have begun as legal, but which quickly devolved into illegal and outright criminal actions. The J6ers illegally invaded and occupied public property, in this case the Capitol, and used their illegal occupation of that space, and their violence actions, as a tool to try to compel an arm of the government (in this Congress) to vote the way they demanded. That was illegal, criminal and deserving of swift action.
Unfortunately, many recent protests have done the exact the same thing. The Palestine protesters are trying to get government officials, mostly state boards regents boards of trustees, to do what they want, ie. divest from Israel. Ok, I understand and respect their views and their right to protest for that. But the indisputable fact is that a number of protests involved violence and criminality — physically and taking over public spaces and then illegally controlling entry to those public spaces, often accompanied by heavy vandalism. In a number of documented cases, protesters conducted illegal political and issue-specific litmus tests to determine entry into these public spaces, such as demanding those who seek to enter publicly proclaim that they do not support the existence of the state of Israel or that they oppose “zionism” — or even in some cases, rejecting entry to those openly wearing Jewish symbols such as Star of David necklaces, etc. In many other public spaces, the protesters physically blocked people and journalists from filming the encampments and in a number of documented cases, they assaulted those who dared record without their permission. These were large, organised groups which used physical force and in many cases violence to impose their illegal control over these spaces
Other than a few private colleges, these were public spaces. Public property is, by law, accessible to all and nobody has the right to deny anyone to peacefully access those spaces or to prevent anyone from taking photos, videos. Peaceful protest is protected. That is not peaceful protest but instead mob imposition of illegal controls by force. Such actions were not only illegal, but they violated the rights of non-participants. In short, they constituted clear violations of a whole laundry list of civil rights laws.
Failure by the authorities to take action to eliminate these violations of civil rights would constitute government accepting the principle any any group can use a protest to commandeer public space for however long they wish and thereafter dictate to the public who can enter and use that public space and what rights professional and citizen journalists may exercise in public spaces. The protesters want to compel government officials to change take specific governmental action they seek — in this case, divestment from Israel. Again that’s their constitutional right. But far too many protests have undeniably used illegal conduct, including force and violence, to try to compel government officials to take the actions they seek. That is no different from what the J6ers did. Yes, the stakes are lower, vastly lower (divestment decision vs. choosing the president), but the principle, and the laws violated, are exactly the same. In addition, the protesters have violated the civil rights of others by controlling access to these public spaces — something the J6ers were never accused of doing.
This is wrong and further, any failure to take action to clear these public spaces would give the J6ers a legitimate reason to cry “selective prosecution”. We fight for the right to peacefully protest and support non-violent civil disobedience. Not for the right to emulate people like the J6ers or to take over public spaces and exercise control over the activities of journalists, photographers and others who seek to enter. Again, this applies only to those protests and protesters who have committed these acts and I recognise that a great many have not and will not do so. But many have. And thinking ahead, let us be honest here and understand that this will reflect far heavier on Democrats and the left than the GOP and the right come November. Is this really the impression we want independents and undecided voters to have in the voting booth in a few months?