| |
Stephen writes:
"People have referred to the Unabomber as right-wing because his manifesto attacks the Left (and "Leftism") by name. Click on the hyperlink in my article, which goes to his manifesto."
Lots of lefties attack the left all the time -- it doesn't mean they aren't leftists -- anyways this is a minor matter..
He doesn't just attack elements or aspects of the left--he attacks the Left as such, for being Left. A lefty who did that wouldn't be on the left anymore.
International ANSWER are -- like Piekoff, Kerry supporters -- perhaps they should have a joint press conference ;) -- also I was at the April 2003 rally you mention -- what latitude did the police give? I've never seen them give any. The anarchists who were there were small in number and International Answer has a real problem with them and vice versa -- the anarchist websites and discussion forums are often filled with rage against International ANSWER -- they use their rallies to their own ends. All the International ANSWER protests I have witness have been permitted by the local authorites, on schedule, etc.
What lattitude? A condition of the protest was that they were to confine it to a specific location. They didn't, and when they didn't, they weren't immediately arrested or even told to stop; the police just kept following them, slowly, or keeping pace with them, & waiting for them to do something more overt. By contrast: Try parking your car somewhere illegally. No meter maid is ever going to sit there not giving you a ticket in the hopes that you will come back and feed the meter. Try putting an addition on your house, however small, without a permit. Try getting out of a moving violation in municipal court by saying, "No fair, your Honor! It was trivial!"
I don't buy the sharp distinction between International ANSWER and the dreaded anarchists. I know all about the anarchist "rage" for Int'l ANSWER and vice versa. It strikes me as a sectarian dog-and-pony show. But the fact is, if International ANSWER were really serious about dealing with the anarchists, they've had done it by now. They've had five years to do it. People so used to demanding the sky from others are not in a position to plead incapacity in dealing with the "small number" of anarchists who, for the last five years have habitually "infiltrated" International ANSWER's rallies and exploited them for their own ends despite Int'l ANSWER's deep "hatred" for them. Instead of making colossal demands of the government, why not start by cleaning up their own act?
On the police not arresting the right people (and arresting the wrong ones), I'd need to see something in the way of evidence.
On violence vs. civil disobedience, it's a false dichotomy. Both are acts of force, and both violate rights. If you're going to make this distinction and excuse the latter, you might as well distinguish between violence and fraud and excuse the latter.
I don't accept the idea that there is a "right to civil disobedience," except where one's rights are being systematically violated. The concept is a self-contradiction. If the function of law is to protect rights, how could there be a right to violate the law? That would be a right to violate rights. And the laws guaranteeing access to government buildings, like those guaranteeing access to abortion clinics, do protect rights. It is the people blocking access who are violating rights in both cases and should be removed. My right to have my passport renewed is not contingent on some activist's deciding that he'd like to block the door that day.
The "right to assemble"--like all rights--has to be regulated by a whole system of rights and made consistent with them. There is no "right to assemble" to commit crimes, and there is no "right to assemble" in such a way as to block other people's rights of movement. Nor, incidentally, is there a "right to assemble in such numbers as will destroy public property," which is precisely what "United for Peace and Justice" wants in Central Park. UPJ's ludicrous claim is that they should have the right to assemble in Central Park in any numbers they want even if it wrecks the lawn--and if they do, they shouldn't have to pay for it, everybody else should. In this respect, Bloomberg was 100% correct in describing their supposed "right" to assemble there as a "privilege." That is exactly what it is. They are being granted privileges that New Yorkers ordinarily do not have. And if they don't like it, they should exercise their right to assemble in a place where it doesn't impose exorbitant costs on everybody else.
Meanwhile, they are being allowed to march, Bloomberg is waving discount coupons in their faces, and a good number of them they are threatening to break the law and march into Central Park regardless of the outcome of the court decision. Such tyranny! I don't recall the last time the mayor of my town gave me coupons to bribe me into compliance with the law.
As for my expectations of 100% good behavior, they are hardly more utopian than the actual demands that "United for Peace and Justice" and its allies are making on the government and the rest of us. It's utopian to expect people not to commit vandalism or assault, but not utopian to "end the occupation, brings the troops home" tomorrow, end US support for Israel, stop military recruitment, end globalization, disarm the US of its nuclear weapons, etc. etc.?
|
|
