Protesters in the Streets of Portland - Rant Ahead

[Kissimmee JP]

Ok, maybe it’s because I didn’t grow up in the age of the protest, but this stuff is getting out of hand. Someone forgot to tell the people here in Portland that the war is over. Protesting something that already happened won’t change it.

There was supposed to be a peaceful rally for workers who were protesting “unfair” workdays against certain companies. Of course, the self appointed “moral majority” took it upon themselves to join this rally, only espousing anti-war sentiments. They blocked rush hour traffic for more than an hour yesterday. The original protesters did have a permit for this.

Now, my whole problem is this - in my opinion, your rights END where mine BEGIN. In other words, my right to get home after work in a timely fashion is no greater than your right to protest. So if you wish to protest, please do so without stepping on my rights. Besides, the war is over. You cannot change history, nor do you stand a great chance of changing the future. Why doesn’t everyone get together and write their frickin congressman if they feel so strongly. Just like they can’t ignore 1,000 protesters in the streets, they really can’t ignore 1,000 or more letters. I mean, come on, these people say they are speaking for the public, but nobody asked my opinion which is this - the time to protest the war was over the minute we invaded Iraq. Support your troops and your country. They are not only fighting for Iraq’s freedom, but they are fighting for our well-being as well. Besides, if we didn’t go to war in the past, your “right” to protest wouldn’t exist today.

Sorry to rant like this, but I had to get that out. Carry on.

 

[shortbun]

Sorry about your loss of time-more sorry about
the colateral damage still being done in Iraq! How dare
the Iraqi people want us out of their country!!! dripping
with sarcasm The war is not over-even Rumsfeld agrees
with that assessment as of May 2nd. As far as changing the
future goes, it's been done with protest many times. Our country
was founded by protest. We wouldn't have the freedoms we do
if not for those original protesters. women wouldn't be voting
if not for protest. Children would still be legally working in factories in this country if not for protest. I'm a member of
the DAR-Daughters of the American Revolution. The American
Revolution was a huge protest. Protest is the way we do things
of importance often in this great country. Men and women have died for my right to protest and I honor their lives and their
sacrifice by using that right. This is America, my friend, not some
small, third world country where a vocal minority controls
the population and holds most of the money and power.....
wait a minute...oh, never mind.
"Singin' songs and carryin' signs"

 

[Grog]

I don't think the OP, or any of us have anything against protestors. What is wrong is when they deliberately cause people to be late for work, cause them to pick their kids up late from school or daycare, cause ambulaces and firetrucks to be slowed or stopped. What if someone's boss is having a bad day and fires them for being late due to protestors blocking their path? How can you justify taking away someone's livelihood? The Constitution guarantees the right to peaceably assemble, it does not guarantee the right to block streets, etc. Perhaps if they didn't go to extremes more people might stop and listen to them.

 

[Laz]

Shortbun,

Everything you say is right on the money. However, rights of others to go about their business must be upheld as well. (I may get virtually shot by alot of people with this next comment). If I blocked the entrance to an abortion clinic, I would be arrested in a minute for denying the rights of people (workers and patients) from going about their business within that clinic. IMHO, the same holds true on the streets of Portland.

 

[MJames41]

LAZ,

Don't you understand? They have all the rights in the world to protest in any way they want to, but when we point out that they are violating our rights, then we are trampling on theirs. We are the ignorant majority who have no rights, even the right to point out that the actions of a minority are placing American lives in jeopardy.

 

[AirForceRocks]

This is America, my friend, not some small, third world country where a vocal minority controls
the population and holds most of the money and power.....

Do you mean the vocal minority that thought the war was the right thing to do? Oh wait, that wasn't the minority, was it? It was, what is that word again...oh yeah...majority.

I agree that people have the right to protest, but they don't have the right to break the law in the process.

 

[Kissimmee JP]

Originally posted by shortbun
Sorry about your loss of time-more sorry about
the colateral damage still being done in Iraq! How dare
the Iraqi people want us out of their country!!! dripping
with sarcasm The war is not over-even Rumsfeld agrees
with that assessment as of May 2nd. As far as changing the
future goes, it's been done with protest many times. Our country
was founded by protest. We wouldn't have the freedoms we do
if not for those original protesters. women wouldn't be voting
if not for protest. Children would still be legally working in factories in this country if not for protest. I'm a member of
the DAR-Daughters of the American Revolution. The American
Revolution was a huge protest. Protest is the way we do things
of importance often in this great country. Men and women have died for my right to protest and I honor their lives and their
sacrifice by using that right. This is America, my friend, not some
small, third world country where a vocal minority controls
the population and holds most of the money and power.....
wait a minute...oh, never mind.
"Singin' songs and carryin' signs"

I honestly hope you don't believe all this. I do believe that all of that stuff would have been changed without protest. IMO, protests are nothing more than an excuse to get together and cause civil unrest. The funny part is that when some protesters get arrested for being unruly, they whine and carry on like they did nothing wrong. I got news for you, just because you're protesting, doesn't mean you can break the law in doing so.

 

[WillyJ]

I certainly agree that purposefully causing hardships like that on fellow citizens who are just trying to go about their day is counterproductive and not very bright. . It stands to reason that kind of behavior alienates people who might be willing to give consideration to their point of view and help change how things in the future rather then giving them a reason to listen. . .


But having said that. .


The right to protest has nothing to do with timing or whether or not it has a chance of changing anything. . . according to our constitution, it's a God-given right that the government can't take away; not something the government grants us out of the goodness of their hearts-

The concept of civil disobedience may not always be the right method, but it's certainly a valid and effective way to initiate change and in the 60's it definitely helped raise awareness and bring an end to years of brutally forced segregation by forcing the media to pay attention to it and thus not allowing people who had been more comfortable ignoring it to face the facts it was happening and take a moral stand. . .

Of course, Dr. King's public demonstrations were not the same as the protests today or even the typical Vietnam War protests back then- they were dignified, somber, unified, purposeful. . and they knew they would be abused and beaten and arrested because of the color of their skin- they didn't need to provoke anything; it wasn't a party atmosphere; most didn't have the luxury of participating for a few hours then going back and blending into mainstream society if they wanted to; they were never surprised by how they were treated; they didn't retaliate; . . . and in the end, that's why they were so successful.

But they also paid a much higher price then they should have in country that prides itself on fairness, liberty, and equality for everyone because for a long time for the majority of the country failed to stop and consider the merits of what they were protesting for; it was easier to demonize, degrade, and ignore them.

Just 40-odd years later, the right of any American to vote, sit on bus, eat at a lunch counter, or drink from a water fountain no matter their race seems so obvious it's hard to grasp just how many people were so thoroughly convinced back then it was wrong. . . People literally died for those rights, and not back in some distant past, but in most of our lifetimes.

So maybe the people out their protesting this war are going about it the wrong way; maybe some aren't sincere; maybe some aren't informed; and maybe when it's all said and done history will show us they were way off base no matter what their motives are. . .

But this thing in Iraq is far from over- we still have 125,000 troops there and they're going to be there at least year- and there are some valid reasons to think maybe this isn't the end of anything but the beginning of wars in Syria, Iran, and then North Korea, and the potential consequences of some of the domestic policies of this administration are down-right scary, and even if you trust them 100% the policies will still be there after they're gone if they aren't rolled-back now. .

So no matter how wrong you think the protesters are now, or how irritating. . it might not hurt to cut them some slack and tolerate their right to speak out, because someday you may want the same right yourself.

 

[Laz]

I teach High School Law and I cover the concept of Non violent protest and civil disobedience as covered by Dr. King. Dr. King followed the ideals of Gahndi (sp?) in this area. According to Dr. King:

1) Their must be a civil wrong
2) The individual or group must have exhausted all legal means to right the wrong.
3) The protest or disobedience must be non violent.
4) The protesters must be willing to accept punishment for their actions. (The protestor must feel so deeply about the wrong that he is willing to go to jail for it.)

I think I am missing one point in the list, but these are the ones that stand out. Dr. King said that if these points are not followed, then the person is a scofflaw.

Do the protests in Portland follow these rules? Someone in the know let us know.

 

[Laz]

I just looked up the point I missed. Dr. King asserts that the reason for the disobedience must not advance ones own self interest.

So again, those in the know about the protests must help us decide.

 

[MJames41]

Seems to me there is another issue that is being missed. Is it right to take over a protest for one cause with something completely different? According to the original post, the planned protest wasn't for or against the war.

And, based on what LAZ has pointed out, I don't believe there are more than a very few which would meet all of the conditions as set interpreted by Dr. King, origininally from Ghandi. I think they trip over the self interest part, but that is just my opinion.

 

[WillyJ]

You lost me with the "self-interest" one Laz. . . obviously it was in Dr. Kings self-interest to see himself and his people no longer subjected to the "Jim Crow" laws of the south and the immoral, Supreme Court, government-sanctioned economic and social bonds that crippled their opportunties in their own country. . .

If you mean "self-interest" as in. . well, just do you mean?


As far as the protesters in Portland. . I agree with Kissimmee JP that it was stupid and irritating of them to tie up traffic like that- and I added counter-productive. I just disagreed that a) the war was over- it's not. b) that there was some time-frame when protesting a war was just or legal- when was it right to protest Vietman? When Eisenhower or Kennedy sent advisors? When Johnson used the phony "Gulf of Tonkin" incident to escalate it? and c) that protests were useless and never worked and that writing you congressman was always the better way to go. . because sometimes you have to take to the street to get people's attention to what's happening.


I have no clue if the protesters in Portland were sincere, and I keep up on current events quite a bit and I still have no clue what the WTO people are protesting so I'd say maybe they aren't doing a such a bang-up job at getting their message across. . . I just don't agree that there's nothing to protest about the Iraq situation and/or protests and civil disobedience is not called for at times.

The whole thing in Portland sounds wrong-minded to me, but not wrong in a moral sense. . if that makes any sense. . LOL!!

 

[Laz]

I am just quoting from Dr. King when he states:

"The goal of those engaged in civil disobedience is not to advance their self- interest but rather to make the law or government more just. The participants must be willing, or even eager, to be arrested in order to test the validity of the law or government." He further states: "A law or government is unjust when it is out of harmony with the moral law."

Takes us back to the never ending debate on whether the war was a "just war."

More as I find it..........

 

[Laz]

Dr. King also mentions this article by Thoreau:

http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/Literature/Thoreau/CivilDisobedience.html

Some quotes:

Unjust laws exist: shall we be content to obey them, or shall we endeavor to amend them, and obey them until we have succeeded, or shall we transgress them at once? Men, generally, under such a government as this, think that they ought to wait until they have persuaded the majority to alter them. They think that, if they should resist, the remedy would be worse than the evil. But it is the fault of the government itself that the remedy is worse than the evil. It makes it worse. Why is it not more apt to anticipate and provide for reform? Why does it not cherish its wise minority? Why does it cry and resist before it is hurt? Why does it not encourage its citizens to put out its faults, and do better than it would have them? Why does it always crucify Christ and excommunicate Copernicus and Luther, and pronounce Washington and Franklin rebels?

If the injustice is part of the necessary friction of the machine of government, let it go, let it go: perchance it will wear smooth--certainly the machine will wear out. If the injustice has a spring, or a pulley, or a rope, or a crank, exclusively for itself, then perhaps you may consider whether the remedy will not be worse than the evil; but if it is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then I say, break the law. Let your life be a counter-friction to stop the machine. What I have to do is to see, at any rate, that I do not lend myself to the wrong which I condemn.

Thoughts??