Protests

This blog post is in response to those who have been upset by the recent #TakeAKnee controversy. 

A “protest” is always an action taken by one or more persons that challenges a de jure reality (a bad law, e.g., illegal marijuana) or a de facto reality (where people, not governmental fiat, are the problem, e.g., racism). Protests are always disruptive and often illegal, else what is the point? Many if not most protests are instances of “Civil Disobedience” and in consequence expect police involvement and even jail time. Protests are NOT necessarily non-violent, or non-destructive of private property (the best minds suggest that non-violence is the proper tactic when their side does not have fire power enough to take on the opposition (Gandhi preached non-violence because the ruling Brits had all the weapons)).

I am always supportive of protests (they are in our national blood: the Boston Tea Party, the publication of the Declaration of Independence, Shays' Rebellion, the Civil Rights Movement, all anti-war movements) even when I may oppose the protestors on the grounds of their particular issue. The opposite of protest is silence, and political silence is political death. And I am NOT in favor of anyone not being self-expressed.

Protests are always in the name of a minority cause that either seeks a remedy from government or seeks to become the majority of its own public constituency.  Anyone who has read my works knows that my default position is to favor the minority (in a working democracy, oppression is often the majority imposing its collective will upon a minority).

In a paraphrase of the immortal words of Voltaire (“I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it”), “I defend your right to protest even if I don’t agree with your cause.” Whether violence erupts does not undermine my support for protests (“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is its natural manure”, Thomas Jefferson). And the violence as often as not is provoked or initiated by the protestors' adversaries (e.g., the police, counter-protestors), who are nearly always better armed. 

Finally, even videos that “prove” the justice or injustice of the protestors’ cause are a poor witness, as all videos have an agenda (in these cases, the agenda of the person making or editing or distributing the video).

For those who considered that Colin Kaepernick's kneeling disrespected our flag, let me upset you even further.

In the years following the Civil War, on both sides of the Mason-Dixon line, men took to desecrating the American flag as a show of protest.  They began to be prosecuted under state laws which were written just before the turn of the century.  But, beginning in 1972, state laws that banned "contempt" of the flag were overturned by the Supreme Court.  And in 1984, the Court struck down all laws that banned contempt, desecration, even burning of the flag.  Since then, there have been several (misguided) attempts to pass a Constitutional amendment that would allow states to again ban desecration of the flag.  But they have failed. A proper understanding of our republic is that we defend our national Constitution, before its symbols.  And the Constitution (and its proper interpreters, justices of the Supreme Court) is pretty clear about flag "desecration" being a form of political speech and therefore  protected under the law.  To feel otherwise is to put personal feelings of honest reverence before the words and spirit of the Constitution.  It is not an easy call, but it is a clear one.

Am I clear?