Protest rules create double standards
Is protesting, in and of itself, a good or bad thing? There seems to be the funny attitude among many that protesters who are against the same things we are against are honorable, yet those who protest against our beliefs are just out to make trouble.
How many of you remember the liberal outrage during the so-called Battle in Seattle when it came to the police’s response to the protests going on during the World Trade Organization summit? If the mayor of Seattle and the governor of Washington hadn’t both been Democrats, they’d have been compared to Hitler! When they set up “no protest” zones, it was called an excoriation of the First Amendment.
A repeat incident recently occurred in Washington, D.C. More protests broke out about the evils of globalization, the WTO and so on. It transcended the scope of the first protest, however. People used the publicity to protest whatever was on their mind. No one has explained to me what the Free Mumia movement has to do with globalization. National Public Radio referred to the collection of protesters as a “pageant.”
So liberals believe protests are a virtuous and noble thing. After all, the civil rights movement and women’s suffrage were both accomplished via protest. The Vietnam War was also undermined by domestic turmoil and protests. I guess that means that the liberals are defenders of free speech!
Well, they certainly are, but only if you are protesting for liberal causes. Otherwise, well, you’re just a nuisance! Let’s take abortion, for example. Liberals and Democrats are always trying to push the protesters further and further back. They call the areas where the protesters are prohibited “safety zones” … well gosh, I guess that makes them a lot better (and more constitutional) than “no protest” zones!
Liberals often respond that such laws are necessary for the safety of the women at the clinics. Well, it seems to me that if any of the protesters do any physical harm to her, they can and will be charged with assault. How exactly are they in danger? Well, they often respond, they might block a woman from going inside. Many of these will be the same liberals who cheered when the protesters literally blocked the WTO from going to their meeting.
This is the point where they bring up that some of the abortion protesters actually support violence toward the clinic! They point to countless incidents where abortion clinics are bombed or doctors killed. So does the violence of a few mean that we can silence their point of view? Will that lead to less violence? Besides, what would happen if those protesting animal experimentation or fur-making plants could suddenly only protest across the street? Would that be fair? The Animal Liberation Front openly supports the bombing of buildings and doing “whatever it takes” to stop animal experimentation. How many janitors have died in this organization’s moral crusade?
Let’s also consider the protests in Miami regarding the little Cuban boy, Elian Gonzalez. Those who protest sending the little tyke back to Cuba have been dubbed as radicals and extremists. They have been accused of causing disorder, and there have been calls to disband these malcontents for causing a “riot” — as opposed to Seattle, where officers were assaulted and tear gas expelled. Needless to say, when they were separated and broken up the night Elian was taken, there were no cries for First Amendment rights or the right to protest.
This double standard is not solely the domain of Democrats and liberals. If you take all of the above instances and flip-flop them, you have the Republican paradox. After Washington, D.C., more than one conservative brought up how much money it cost the District to deal with the “riots” and how that money could have been put forth to such better causes. When you say the same for the Elian protesters they say, “That’s different, the Elian protesters are protesting an injustice!”
Says who? Says them.
