I'm kind of taking a couple days off from the NDY stuff to help support the national action here in Chicago - 500 disability activists "on a mission from ADAPT" (for the appropriate Chicago theme).
As luck would have it, today they targeted the American Medical Association, which has its headquarters here in Chicago.
Oh, yeah. Forgot. Diane sent me a few pictures from her cell phone so they're up there too. Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
What are they being arrested for? Trespassing? Failure to obtain a permit to protest? I'm a little confused and can't find the info anywhere.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
Blocking entrances/protesting.
More material coming up as it becomes available.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
In my experience, the charge for that kind of thing would be criminal trespass.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
In protests like that, do people intend to get arrested?
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
MPH,
In a protest like that, they're not *planning* on it, but there are people who are willing to go that far (refusing to move) if it comes to that. It's not at all uncommon for organizations to negotiate something - usually a firmly scheduled meeting - as a compromise. When something like that happens, it's great. The goal is to effect change, not to get arrested.
But people need to know that your people are willing to do that.
FWIW, I did not expect to be one of those organizations that would negotiate. The AMA likes to think of medical professionals as a law unto themselves - between tort reform and the quiet push to carve out exemptions from manslaughter prosecution, they really want to be free of accountability to a degree unmatched by any other segment of the population.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Stephen, do you have any response to this (a comment on on of the blogs the NDY blog linked to)?
quote:What your article fails to mention, is that thousands of people, including myself, who work in this building but NOT for the AMA were locked inside for hours because the protesters were blocking all the doors. No one could come in or leave; a woman was crying because she could not get past in order to pick her young child up form school. People missed appointments, flights and numerous other important commitments. This was not a "peaceful" protest. Last year, the protesters spit on those who entered and exited the building. I support anyones right to speak their voice, but why involve innocent people and disrupt their lives?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I'm trying to imagine how they could keep me from leaving the building short of physically preventing the doors from opening.
Did they physically lock the doors? If so, major fire hazard. Such action deserves physical removal and criminal charges.
If they were just in the way, I would have pushed through - physically. My claustrophobia will not tolerate that.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Dags, I don't know. I also wonder whether it was the activists themselves, or building security in response to their presence.
I tend to agree with you -- both on the basis of claustrophobia, and because I would have been the frantic mother who couldn't go pick up her kid.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
rivka,
I don't have a reply. I'm not part of this action - not in planning or execution. At least some of your questions will be addressed by going back to the same blog entry, which now involves about twenty posts. A lot of the posts are from activists who were there.
BTW, I really don't want to cop out here - when NDY does an action I'm part of the decisionmaking team. I can and do answer as to why any given tactic gets adopted. I've encouraged activists involved in the protest to get engaged in the discussion on this particular blog and some have obliged. Just a reminder - it's here: ADAPT Storms the AMA
BTW - I think I've learned that giving a list of four demands to the media is two demands too many. Outside of the blog of the Chicago Reader, neither major paper and none of the tv stations mentioned the "conflict of interest" issues with nursing home ownership and investment by physicians.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
From someone claiming to be from ADAPT:
quote:P.S. btw, we worked an agreement with the police to let people with urgent/emergent situations in and/or out on a case by case basis.
A case-by-case basis? That would REALLY piss me off. It means they are purposely taking power over others' right to leave the building, not just having that access denied as a side-effect of the demonstration.
Assuming that's the case, arrests were warranted. Without negotiation beyond "leave within X minutes (where X is small) or be arrested."
If I'm ever caught in a protest like this one seems to be - meaning intentional violation of the law to prevent my ability to move about - I most likely will sue. I've worked out the cause of action in both DC and Virginia.
I am not including traffic slowdowns/stops and restrictions that arise merely from the presence of crowds of people.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: I'm trying to imagine how they could keep me from leaving the building short of physically preventing the doors from opening.
Did they physically lock the doors? If so, major fire hazard. Such action deserves physical removal and criminal charges.
If they were just in the way, I would have pushed through - physically. My claustrophobia will not tolerate that.
If you can get enough people pressed together you'd be surprised how little headway you can make even if you resort to violence. Doors make that twice as likely.
But I personally would have tried to press through the crowd. If I had encountered any resistance that was not simply gravity in action, I would sue.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
This is very distressing to me. I definitely support the rights of the disabled and completely understand the desire to make a statement but I cannot condone or be supportive of the methods used. I can imagine myself being in that building, and my kids needing me and someone blocking my ability to get to my children. I think, like BlackBlade, I would have forced my way through the crowd and pressed charges against any protestor who forcibly tried to restrain or stop me.
Posted by guinevererobin (Member # 10753) on :
Yeah... it sounds like a worthy thing to protest, but what a way to do it. If I were trapped in a building by protesters, I wouldn't have any respect for them and it certainly wouldn't engender any sympathy for their cause... Some of the comments from folks claiming to be ADAPTers on the "ADAPT storms the AMA" were really just ridiculous.
although thanks sndrake for bringing this up, I'd never heard of the whole disabled/nursing home/medicare issue. That's really interesting - and frightening - reading.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
According to their blog, they're at it again today at a different location:
quote: CHICAGO - A group of disabled protesters is blocking access to elevators and escalators in a government office building in downtown Chicago.
A wall of wheelchairs is preventing occupants of the James R. Thompson Center from exiting or entering their offices, although people are being allowed into the building.
Man, and people call atheists "extremist" or "fundamentalist" for daring to talk and write about religion. When we start blockading churches and actually *doing* something rather than talk, then those terms will be justified Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Did I miss something about the religion of these protesters?
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
In reading the blog kmb, it appears that those who are most ticked off are also the same folks who were upset by the anti-war protests inconvienencing them also.
They write as if the world exists for their convience to begin with... when there aren't really any guarantees in life at all.
AJ
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:These tens of thousands of people would give anything to be late to a community engagement, miss a flight or some other community commitment...because it would mean they were living free lives like the ones some of the commenters may take casually for granted.
This statement is so condescending though. she makes it sound like these are casual things people missed. "Community engagement"? How about a mother trying to get to her children? That's not trivial! And missing flights is not trivial, how does this arrogant woman know it wasn't someone trying to fly home to see a critically ill parent, or whatever.
And even if it were some "trivial" thing I was late to - I still say protestors don't have the right to block my exit of a building regardless of who I work for or where I was intending to go.
I hope the people arrested are charged and punished to the fullest extent possible. This is ridiculous.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
kmbboots: I was referring to this thread where certain atheists are called extremists and fundamentalists, not due to what they're actually doing but due to what they're (supposedly) saying.
I'm contrasting that situation with this, since both groups in reality have rather moderate stances (at least from a superficial reading of a few pages of the blog, when judging this group).
I just find it a bit odd that one group can use forced detention and intimidation to further its goals whereas one group is writing books for its goals. Yet its the latter group that gets deemed extremist and dangerous.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I was confused as to why Mucus was comparing them to atheists.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Mucus:
quote:Man, and people call atheists "extremist" or "fundamentalist" for daring to talk and write about religion
I'm sure no religious person says that on the basis of atheists writing about religion at all, more likely it is what sort of substance their writings contain.
quote:I just find it a bit odd that one group can use forced detention and intimidation to further its goals whereas one group is writing books for its goals. Yet its the latter group that gets deemed extremist and dangerous.
Why can't we lable both groups if they employed these illegal and more importantly inhumane measures extremists?
Also you may have forgotten two orgies of mass murder flying under the banner of atheism that are the French revolution and the founding of the PRC. The latter being what one historian called the greatest travesty in human history.
I'm sure everyone is comfortable calling THOSE atheists extremists and dangerous.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Ah...I think that discussions of methods is different than discussion of goals. We are mixing apples and oranges. A goal to change policies that impact people who have no choice in the matter is different than a goal to mock or insult peoples' personal faith decisions. Again, we have a distinction between trying to change how people behave and trying to change what people believe.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
From the blog...
quote:ADAPT did a great job blocking all of the entrances/exits and generaly getting noticed, which I conclude is what a protest is all about.
Belle, if you felt a cause was of such importance that you would participate in a public protest to begin with, and wanted to gain visibility, what would you suggest?
I'm not diminishing the circumstances of the people in the building. However, as far as a non-violent protest goes, it seems to be one of the few ways you can go short of lying down in the street.
AJ
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by BannaOj: They write as if the world exists for their convience to begin with... when there aren't really any guarantees in life at all.
There is no guarantee that some people might not steal your car.
However, if someone goes outside of the law and does that, you are perfectly justified in being angry, upset, and advocating that they be punished.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:Belle, if you felt a cause was of such importance that you would participate in a public protest to begin with, and wanted to gain visibility, what would you suggest?
Assembly and protest outside the building with picketing, but no blocking of people's right to egress. A very visible protest, with the ability to get their message out, but not going so far as to violate the rights of people who did nothing to them.
I support their cause, I truly do - it's worthwhile - but blocking people's egress from a building is way too extreme. Get your message out, yes. Infringe on other people's rights to come and go from their place of business - no.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
So when Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat on the bus, was everyone else truly morally (not legally) justified in being angry and advocating that she should be punished?
AJ (to mucus, not Belle)
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
It would be wonderful if there were ways for groups like this to get people's attention without inconveniencing them.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Belle, I hear you, and I'm thinking about it.
What if the city refuses to issue a permit? I know in the case of the anti-war-in-Iraq marches, the city pretty much refused the requests of the planners, and was going deny any decent march route no matter what. So the organizers went ahead and did it anyway, because they felt it was their right to assemble and protest and the city of Chicago was wrong. (Mind you if it had been a Union protest of some kind, the City probably would have allowed the unions to march, down the optimal routes for visibility)
I don't know how much of this was in play with this disability rights group, but knowing that stuff like that goes on constantly in Chicago, thissort of action may have been one of the few ways to gain higher profile visibility, directed at a particular target.
AJ
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: It would be wonderful if there were ways for groups like this to get people's attention without inconveniencing them.
Inconveniencing them, as in making it impossible to not notice or be exposed to their message? Or inconceniencing them, as in making it a matter of you coming and going at their convenience?
It's strange to me that in this day and age where we are connected as a globe more tightly then at any other point in history that people are arguing there is no way to spread one's message and have it heard.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I'm sure no religious person says that on the basis of atheists writing about religion at all, more likely it is what sort of substance their writings contain.
Incorrect.
quote:Why can't we lable both groups if they employed these illegal and more importantly inhumane measures extremists?
Writing books and selling DVDs is illegal and extreme? I know where you're coming from, but there are specific examples in that thread and its linked articles where specific writers such as Dawkins are labelled extremists for those specific actions.
quote: Also you may have forgotten two orgies of mass murder flying under the banner of atheism that are the French revolution and the founding of the PRC. The latter being what one historian called the greatest travesty in human history.
I'm sure everyone is comfortable calling THOSE atheists extremists and dangerous.
Well, at least you didn't Godwin the thread, thank goodness for small favours
But seriously, *what* is a banner of atheism? What does it even look like? If I went back in time to the French Revolution and the PRC would I be able to pick those out? Nope.
Those people were flying real banners, the French revolutionary flag, the PRC flag and waving Mao's red book.
Those movements were as "atheist" as much as the founding of the United States was "Christian".
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:It would be wonderful if there were ways for groups like this to get people's attention without inconveniencing them.
Yet again, someone calls blocking egress from a building an "inconvenience." It's not at all - it can be extremely, extremely serious. If I have to pick up my child and I can't get to them, then they are abandoned, alone - which is child endangerment, depending on the age of the child.
What if someone in that building were a cancer patient on their way to a chemo treatment? What if they were on their way to an interview at their university that would determine whether or not they would be admitted to the academic program they needed? What if their mother was very ill, and calling from a doctor's office needing them to come get her so she could be driven to the hospital?
All of those are things that have happened to me, recently - things that were I prevented from accomplishing them it would have been far more than an "inconvenience." Some of the people posting on the blog talk about a mother crying because she was being prevented from going to pick up her children - I don't call that a mere "inconvenience".
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I don't think it is a case of spreading the message so that it is "heard" but taking action to influence actual change. Lots of things are heard and ignored every day.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by BannaOj: So when Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat on the bus, was everyone else truly morally (not legally) justified in being angry and advocating that she should be punished?
Thats a red herring. Rosa Parks defied a law that she disagreed with by flouting the law in question.
These activists are disagreeing with a law (or a series of regulations about long term care) that are completely separate from the law that they are breaking.
People are not justified in randomly picking people and laws to flout to make a point. This was an obviously peaceful (but unjust) demonstration. However, one can easily see where the extreme goes.
BB made my concluding point for me, there are many ways of obtaining publicity and exposure these days, especially for worthy causes such as this. However, their chosen methods ended up almost like extortion.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
This is an interesting blog of what has been going on today... http://thecapitolfaxblog.com/ Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
BlackBlade, I think there are a lot of ways for some people to spread their messages. Wealthy corporations, for example, can make commercials and buy air time. But most of us are not going to pay much attention to smaller causes that don't immediately effect us. What might you suggest for a group with limited resources?
And there is a lot of grey area. Is someone who works for, say, a company dumping toxic waste, sufficiently complicit in that company's activities that they should bear some inconvenience when people protest their activities? What if is is someone who doesn't make policy? It gets complicated.
I don't know that blocking entrances was a good tactic here. It just isn't black and white.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I understand your one to one corellation of directly breaking a law connected to the issue vs breaking a different one.
I just don't know how these disability protesters could break a "law" specifically associated with what their cause is because there isn't a one to one corellation...
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Incorrect.
Um...correct? Well here I'll be gracious, I am SURE there are religious people who are so close minded the mere fact an atheist is writing about religion leads them to assume it must be something along the lines of, "put all the god fearing in jail, they are dangerous."
quote:Writing books and selling DVDs is illegal and extreme? I know where you're coming from, but there are specific examples in that thread and its linked articles where specific writers such as Dawkins are labelled extremists for those specific actions.
I was referencing blocking buildings and molesting it's occupants.
quote:Those people were flying real banners, the French revolutionary flag, the PRC flag and waving Mao's red book.
Those movements were as "atheist" as much as the founding of the United States was "Christian".
If atheists shouldn't have to own up to communism and the French revolution don't ask Christians to own up to the Crusades, the Inquisition, or Fred Phelps. If you have never done that, this does not apply to you.
But I am curious, why don't you think the founding of the PLA and the Chinese Communist Party are examples of atheism?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
BannaOj: I'm a bit sketchy on this point, but my interpretation is that they want equal Medicaid money for care at home as in institutions such as nursing homes. (Completely, aside I'm not sure if this is entirely possible, if only for economies of scale, especially since Medicaid is only for lower-income people(?) ... but it does sound like a worthy goal)
So one could directly protest by refusing to go to these nursing homes, restraining themselves to their homes when someone tries to take them away, going on hunger strikes if they do not receive compensation for living at home, etc.
Admittedly, these are not as fun as "storming the AMA", but one could certainly argue that they might be more sympathetically received than blockades and demands.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
quote:But I am curious, why don't you think the founding of the PLA and the Chinese Communist Party are examples of atheism?
Because atheism is a simple attribute - non-belief in deity. That's it. There's no dogma, scripture, prophets or temples. Nothing about atheism requires any particular action.
The Chinese Communist Party was also formed by men, but I don't consider it a male movement either.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:But I am curious, why don't you think the founding of the PLA and the Chinese Communist Party are examples of atheism?
Because atheism is a simple attribute - non-belief in deity. That's it. There's no dogma, scripture, prophets or temples. Nothing about atheism requires any particular action.
The Chinese Communist Party was also formed by men, but I don't consider it a male movement either.
OK then if it's not atheism what would you call the belief that, "There is no God and religious people are dangerous or at best an obstacle in the way of a neccessary action, and need to renounce religion or die?" Is that not enough substance to warrant its own term?
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
Thought y'all should know. An agreement was reached with the Governor.
*The governor has agreed to meet with ADAPT by no later than October 17th. *There will be no re-opening of Lincoln Developmental Center as a residence for people with disabilities during the present administration. *Rahnee Patrick (Chicago ADAPT activist) will be an ADAPT liaison on the Governor's "Money Follows the Person" Advisory Committee. (caveat - I got all this in a rushed phone call with lots of background noise so there might be some details slightly off that will be edited later.)
If anyone thinks other avenues could have achieved the same outcome, it's because you have no idea of the time, energy and advocacy that have been put into achieving these very goals with the Governor for months - to no avail.
I am still collecting my thoughts on motivations, tactics and related issues and will probably post in the morning when I have time before helping with the press and internet stuff.
One thing, as I've shared here in some thread or other - almost every person I know who uses a wheelchair has had a cup of favorite beverage ruined when enjoying outside. Someone passes by, sees the chair, sees the cup and tosses change in. They didn't look closely enough to see this was a person's drink they were soiling.
I'm willing to bet that not *one* person at the protests yesterday or today had a cup of beverage ruined by someone tossing change in their cup.
An irreverant and irrelevant thought. Or maybe not.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: So one could directly protest by refusing to go to these nursing homes, restraining themselves to their homes when someone tries to take them away, going on hunger strikes if they do not receive compensation for living at home, etc.
Admittedly, these are not as fun as "storming the AMA", but one could certainly argue that they might be more sympathetically received than blockades and demands.
But it wouldn't get much attention and attention is what is needed for policy change.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:OK then if it's not atheism what would you call the belief that, "There is no God and religious people are dangerous or at best an obstacle in the way of a neccessary action, and need to renounce religion or die?" Is that not enough substance to warrant its own term?
Could be, but only the first four words of that statement address atheism. The rest represent some other ideology or subcomponent of an ideology, like Maoism.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
sndrake I just wanted to let you know that Diane's and your personal examples has let me to re-evaluate my thoughts on some of these things.
At Kama Con, when we walked to a restraunt for dinner, Diane wouldn't let anyone even boost her wheelchair up a curb. As an able person at the time, in some ways I felt hurt. Why was she refusing something that I could do so easily for her, and make everyone's life easier?
But that wasn't the point. I see it now. The point was, that according to the laws of this country she *should* be able to do it herself. Refusing help up a curb (that should have been handicap accessible but wasn't), and taking the long way around is one way to visibly demonstrate that and take power back in her every day life. If she accepts help, however well-meaning, it errodes what little freedom she has.
AJ
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
quote: If anyone thinks other avenues could have achieved the same outcome, it's because you have no idea of the time, energy and advocacy that have been put into achieving these very goals with the Governor for months - to no avail.
This may not be exactly what you're saying, but the implication seems to be "These methods are OK because they worked." That justification seems incredibly dangerous to me. If something else illegal, like say kidnapping the governor's children, had worked for the admirable social goals it was trying to achieve would that be okay?
I'm glad that progress was made, but I don't think the ends necessarily justify the means here.
I'm completely with Dagonnee on my response if I was inside the building. If I needed to leave the protestors would need to physically restrain me to prevent me from doing so, which would be immediately followed by a call to the police and/or a lawsuit.
--Enigmatic
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
I suspect that most people wouldn't be nearly so upset if the protesters had blocked access to people trying to get in to the building. It's detaining people who want to get out that's upsetting. I hadn't thought about the fire hazard aspect, but that's a good point, too.
Why was it necessary to keep people from leaving? Refusing to let people into the building, particularly if done early enough in the day that a majority of people who work there would not be able to get in, would have been pretty effective, I'd think.
I don't buy the argument that if something bad happens to you, you therefore have the right to do it to others. It's appalling what has happened to many disabled people. However, it almost seems that some of the protesters posting on the blog are devaluing the people that they trapped in the building. Yes, it was a lesser offense than what has been done to disabled people. I still think it was wrong.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I could see inconveniencing people on their way in and out. . . parking the wheelchairs in staggered rows so that people had to wind through them, making them slow down and think/acknowledge what was going on. Or standing in rows in front of the entrances to create "cattle runs" like before airport security, so it impeded entrance and exit but didn't actually stop it. But this:
quote:A wall of wheelchairs is preventing occupants of the James R. Thompson Center from exiting or entering their offices, although people are being allowed into the building.
Strikes me as basically false imprisonment. And no, I don't think that's okay, regardless of what other tactics have been tried and failed.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Yeah, I feel really conflicted because I do appreciate that the goal was accomplished, and I'm sympathetic that it took a long time to get there and was a frustrating experience for the activists, but I still cannot condone this.
I don't care how long it's taken or how difficult it's been, that doesn't justify the kinds of actions done here. My conflict is even more extreme in that while I'm simultaneously glad that the demands were met, I'm also angry that this tactic succeeded because that means, of course, it will be used again.
If I recall my history correctly, Rosa Parks bravely refused to give up her seat, she did not prevent anyone from exiting the bus. There are ways to get your point across that do not require you to infringe upon the rights of other people, especially people who had nothing to do with the situation you're protesting.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:If she accepts help, however well-meaning, it erodes what little freedom she has.
I'm not sure that logic works, given that Diane's generally supportive of public aid. Why in the name of "freedom" would someone endorse taxing people and/or legislating mandatory assistance but choose to turn down freely offered help from an individual?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by sndrake: rivka,
I don't have a reply. I'm not part of this action - not in planning or execution. At least some of your questions will be addressed by going back to the same blog entry, which now involves about twenty posts. A lot of the posts are from activists who were there.
I read them. Most of them made me very angry. ("I'm really sorry about the woman's child, but they were probably being watched over by someone in the school." !!!!! ) But generally, I'd rather hear from people I actually know, and so I was looking for your opinion.
I'm with Belle and ElJay on this. It is a hazard, and WAY more than an "inconvenience." And it is just NOT ok. It is also a tactic that, IMO, will lose far more in public support than it may gain in visibility.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I haven't reached a definitive judgment on the matter, but I wonder if by responding favorably to such actions, and thus encouraging others protest in the same ways, we as a people have lost more than we've gained.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I haven't reached a definitive judgment on the matter, but I wonder if by responding favorably to such actions, and thus encouraging others protest in the same ways, we as a people have lost more than we've gained.
I think the issue is more complex than that. This isn't an isolated incident.
The judgement of the effectiveness of this action is relative to the effectiveness of others that were/could be tried. So, it's not, to me, a matter of the problem being responding favorably to these actions, but responding to them more favorably to these actions than to other ones*.
I think that protest actions need to be judged in the context of the effectiveness of what has gone before.
edit: That is to say, I don't know that the error in this case would be so much responding to these tactics, but rather not responding to other, more legitimate tactics./edit
---
Of course, I do think that the people who blocked off the building and the people who planned it should be facing legal reprecussions.
---
* This is predicated on sndrake's description of a long, hard campaign on this not yeilding much in the way of results of the magnitude that this has.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Ah...I think that discussions of methods is different than discussion of goals. We are mixing apples and oranges. A goal to change policies that impact people who have no choice in the matter is different than a goal to mock or insult peoples' personal faith decisions. Again, we have a distinction between trying to change how people behave and trying to change what people believe.
I would have to disagree. Actions speak louder than words, so words have to be pretty out there before I would be comfortable labelling them as extreme. However, both have to be taken into consideration before labelling a group.
I would also note that many people try to change what people believe all the time. Restaurant critics write reviews, bloggers try to bring attention to certain causes, science is all about developing and changing ideas based on evidence.
No, I would say that trying to change how people behave through physical action is more heavy handed than trying to change what people think through words.
quote:Originally posted by MattP: The Chinese Communist Party was also formed by men, but I don't consider it a male movement either.
++
I was halfway through a post on French/Chinese revolutionary slogans and the religious content (or lack thereof) of Mao's Red Book when I noticed this cut to the chase much faster.
quote:Originally posted by Belle: I don't care how long it's taken or how difficult it's been, that doesn't justify the kinds of actions done here. My conflict is even more extreme in that while I'm simultaneously glad that the demands were met, I'm also angry that this tactic succeeded because that means, of course, it will be used again.
I can definitely agree with this thought. Governments should never negotiate with groups that try to use illegal coercion to gain bargaining power. Its really not a path that a government should go down.
In Ontario, we have the same problem with native groups that blockade rail lines due to disagreement about land claims. The problem just escalates over the long term every time the government gives them credibility due to their illegal actions.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I agree with ElJay and Shigosi - that stopping people from entering or making it inconvenient (but not impossible) to leave would have been better and kinder and probably as effective.
From what I saw, though, they got more local TV time (and "local" means Chicago which is a big market) than the anti-war protest in 2003 with 10,000 people or the anti-war protests that still go on every week that get no coverage at all.
And they achieved their goals. We failed.
And I am faced with the same question that I have faced for the last four years: if I (and others like me) had been willing to go further, to bother/anger/distress/even endanger more people, would thousands of our soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis be alive today?
There isn't really a way to answer that question.
So while I'm not crazy about their methods and wouldn't have chosen them, I do understand the motivation. And on some level, admire the conviction. Civil disobedience is harder than I thought it would be and more frightening. And, while there can be a sense of camaraderie and humour, isn't, at least for me, "fun" as was suggested in this thread.
So my feelings about this are pretty mixed. I'm just full of moral ambiguity these days.
Posted by guinevererobin (Member # 10753) on :
quote:if I (and others like me) had been willing to go further, to bother/anger/distress/even endanger more people, would thousands of our soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis be alive today?
Even ENDANGER people?
There was an anti-war protest out on the street corner every Tuesday night when I was driving to and from school from 2003-2005 (when I graduated; they might well still be assembling there). I certainly noticed them and read their signs every time I drove past, and although I didn't buy their ideology, I respected their right to peacefully protest. From me, they got as much notice and consideration as they ever would. If they'd been blocking my way, or running over to my car to throw pamphlets on it, or whatever might be considered "inconveniancing" or "bothering", or even "endangering", it absolutely would have shut down my consideration of their ideas because I would have been far too angry.
I don't know why people confuse the idea of "notice" and "sympathy". I'm sympathetic to the right-to-life movement right now, but if someone throws a fetus at my car in protest of abortion, we're going to have a problem, and they're certainly not going to get any help from me nor recruit me to their side. I don't care how worthy the cause is, it doesn't justify hurting other people whom you are, theoretically, trying to persuade of the righteousness of your cause.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:anti-war protests that still go on every week that get no coverage at all.
Why is something that happens every week newsworthy? Is new information being presented?
The weekly protests I've seen have the same group of people waving the same signs shouting the same slogans. I don't know if the ones you're speaking of are like that, but the ones I've seen aren't worthy of weekly coverage.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Endanger if there had been a fire, as someone mentioned.
Protests are less about changing the minds of people who already have an opinion than they are about getting people to pay attention. And, I agree, there are tactics that I am not crazy about and don't endorse - the pictures of late term abortions, for example.
But where those lines are drawn is a tricky thing. Someone brought up Rosa Parks. No doubt the civil rights marches bothered/angered/distressed/even endagered a lot of people, but I think that it was worth it as it brought attention to a monstrous injustice. Some ends do justify some means. And it isn't always clear where the balance is.
edit to add: Dagonee, that's kind of the point. Since their goal is to get people to pay attention, and they are only going to get that by doing something newsworthy, people go to more extreme measures to get noticed.
Those protestors likely do provide what would be new information to a lot of people who haven't been paying attention. But no one does unless the protesters get more newsworthy.
[ September 12, 2007, 11:54 AM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I think there is are significant differences in antagonistic issue protesting, like anti-/pro-war rallies, protests aimed at informing people of an unjust situation, and protests aimed at a specific entity (like the AMA).
The protest described seems to fit into the latter two to me
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
I'll be another voice saying that while I think the cause is just, the methods are troubling at best. No one, no matter how just their cause is, has the right to hold another person hostage to that cause. Methods that didn't completely prevent exit or entry could've been used (like ElJay suggested), and achieved a similar notice of the cause. It isn't simply a matter of inconvenience, as those on the blog suggest.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
Just to let y'all know I haven't forgotten this discussion - and I don't plan to abandon it.
Things just kinda ran away from me today.
Today is ADAPT's last day. Tomorrow should leave me with more time to get away. I actually started typing a reply earlier and got called away by some issues related to getting stuff up on the web.
Tomorrow it's back to NDY stuff and I think that will look easier after the last few days.
Posted by just_me (Member # 3302) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by sndrake: rivka,
I don't have a reply. I'm not part of this action - not in planning or execution. At least some of your questions will be addressed by going back to the same blog entry, which now involves about twenty posts. A lot of the posts are from activists who were there.
I read them. Most of them made me very angry. ("I'm really sorry about the woman's child, but they were probably being watched over by someone in the school." !!!!! ) But generally, I'd rather hear from people I actually know, and so I was looking for your opinion.
I'm with Belle and ElJay on this. It is a hazard, and WAY more than an "inconvenience." And it is just NOT ok. It is also a tactic that, IMO, will lose far more in public support than it may gain in visibility.
One thing on the school issue. I don't know what time this particular protest was, but as example of how serious this type of thing can be...
My son is in daycare. If I'm not there by 6 to pick him up I'm charged $5/min for every minute after 6. If I'm not there by 6:30 the center calls child and family services.
Anyone who thinks keeping me from leaving work is a good idea is, frankly, an idiot. And also in serious need of a good lawyer.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
I'm sorry for the delay. I tried to get back to this when I said I would, but the forum went down.
A few thoughts...
Boots and Squick grappled with the issues of matching "means" and "ends" - it's extremely relevant to tactical discussions. Chicago activist and organizer Saul Alinsky always said the phrase "the end justifies the means" is BS - the question is "which means" and "what end?"
I read a lot of criticism of the tactics - and there's validity in those criticisms. What I didn't hear is good alternatives that would call attention to the issues as effectively.
Specifically, how do you draw the attention of the public, policymakers and the media in a large city - regarding an issue that most of the public isn't even aware of?
The real world is one that is a struggle for power - over policy, our lives, you name it. The interests wanting to maintain the status quo in regard to keeping institutions the "first choice" for long-term care have lots of money. Those interests include a kind of unholy alliance between owners of nursing homes (who tend to be at the top of the list of campaign contributors on the state level) and some service unions, most notably the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME).
Anyone who's read some of the accounts of NDY actions might notice ours don't play out the same way. I can only think of one time that we blockaded a building - that was the admin building at Princeton University. Most of the time, we find alternatives - but it's because our issues, our resources and our numbers are different than those of ADAPT.
Last week, when thinking of responding to this thread, I found myself thinking about LeGuin's "The Ones Who Walk Away From the Omelas." A lot of people here know the story. A wonderful city whose welfare depends on one unfortunate mistreated in a pit outside of town. In LeGuin's story, the ultimate act of rebellion is walking away from Omelas, no longer being a part of the society that benefits from someone else's torment.
I never liked the piece. LeGuin lacked imagination. True rebellion would have been to jump into the pit with the unfortunate - or to knock out the guard and take the child out of the pit, not caring how the good people of Omelas fared as a result.
When it comes to ADAPT, many of the people at the protests *were* that neglected, dirty wretch in LeGuin's story. Still others in ADAPT have day jobs getting people out of those situations.
This probably isn't real coherent and people might not be interested any more. But I'll offer up a couple links to some interesting comments.
My favorite comment from someone who found his plans at the state building were not going to happen, and how he tied it all to an earlier piece of Chicago history: Lager Beer Riot
And then there is this activist (and former union member) with his thoughts on AFSCME: AFSCME: Lost Its Way Posted by Kama (Member # 3022) on :
quote: What I didn't hear is good alternatives that would call attention to the issues as effectively.
I thought Eljay and Shigosei's options would be quite effective.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Actually, I do still care and I'm glad to see you come back to address it more thoroughly. While the guy at Lager Beer riot was entertaining, he was only spared from having to take a license test, not prevented from getting his children, or kept from any other family obligations or responsibilities, or any of the myriad other things that people who were trapped inside were complaining about being kept from.
quote:I read a lot of criticism of the tactics - and there's validity in those criticisms. What I didn't hear is good alternatives that would call attention to the issues as effectively.
Specifically, how do you draw the attention of the public, policymakers and the media in a large city - regarding an issue that most of the public isn't even aware of?
This is going to sound harsh, but it's not our job or responsibility to come up with alternatives, that's for ADAPT and NDY to do. We weren't the ones blockading doors and trapping people inside. I'm sorry, but the fact is when sitting down trying to come up with a way to gather attention, the first thing you should do is say "How can we do this legally, ethically, and without violating the rights of other people?" If you don't say that, if instead you're only focused on what gets the most attention and the rights of others be damned, I have a hard time seeing why you are any different from the ones you criticize? Aren't you angry that AMA and AFSCME are focused only on the bottom line and not seeing people as individuals?
That's exactly what those protestors did that day, disregard the individual rights of people in favor of their own agenda.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I read a lot of criticism of the tactics - and there's validity in those criticisms. What I didn't hear is good alternatives that would call attention to the issues as effectively.
That sounds an awful lot like saying that the means justify, which is precisely what some of the criticism were about.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
quote:I thought Eljay and Shigosei's options would be quite effective.
They wouldn't be. No reason for the powers that be to negotiate at all if business is conducted as usual. The public just hurries on its way refusing flyers or grabbing them and then trashing them. And in a city the size of Chicago, no reason to pay attention at all, as far as the media is concerned.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I read a lot of criticism of the tactics - and there's validity in those criticisms. What I didn't hear is good alternatives that would call attention to the issues as effectively.
There's at least one alternative presented in this thread that would have gotten the same reaction:
quote:parking the wheelchairs in staggered rows so that people had to wind through them, making them slow down and think/acknowledge what was going on. Or standing in rows in front of the entrances to create "cattle runs" like before airport security, so it impeded entrance and exit but didn't actually stop it.
A one-way blockade (no one allowed in) would have gotten the same press and gotten rid of the most serious objections.
Quite simply, there hasn't been a showing in this thread that other tactics wouldn't work. Such a showing is a necessary - but not sufficient - condition of demonstrating these tactics are justified.
What if AMA really believes their position is better? What was done was blackmail, and if the AMA gives into those demands, I'm not going to be convinced ADAPT's position is correct.
That's the heart of my problem with the actual demand to endorse a particular act (as opposed to the tactics). This wasn't a demand that someone vote for the act. This wasn't a demand that someone with particular resources make that resource available to the protesters (or those represented by the protesters).
This was a demand for someone's opinion. If the AMA endorses it now, the fact of that endorsement will be meaningless.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
quote:This is going to sound harsh, but it's not our job or responsibility to come up with alternatives, that's for ADAPT and NDY to do. We weren't the ones blockading doors and trapping people inside. I'm sorry, but the fact is when sitting down trying to come up with a way to gather attention, the first thing you should do is say "How can we do this legally, ethically, and without violating the rights of other people?" If you don't say that, if instead you're only focused on what gets the most attention and the rights of others be damned, I have a hard time seeing why you are any different from the ones you criticize? Aren't you angry that AMA and AFSCME are focused only on the bottom line and not seeing people as individuals?
First, NDY and ADAPT tend to use different tactics. And not even ADAPT uses these tactics all the time.
As to how we're different...
I have to go to a very pragmatic and concrete set of differences. We're different in terms of economic influence, social status and political clout. Those are realities.
Advocates can work for months on a bill that will enable more people to get out of nursing homes - to have it all come to nothing when the nursing home and AFSCME lobbyists get to insert a few lines into the legislation at the last minute. A few critical words that *guarantee* the current level of occupancy for nursing homes, making the community supports an "unfunded mandate" which won't pass fiscal review.
And the public mostly doesn't care because it has so many other things to worry about. Until, of course, it affects one a member of their own family.
Side-note. I was unable to find a web copy, but back when Dick Morris was an advisor to Clinton, he was the center of a scandal when a tabloid photographed him at the apartment of his mistress. She did a "tell-all" interview with one of the tabloids and said that she got to listen to Morris talking to Clinton. At one point, Morris was trying to push Clinton to cooperate with changes in Medicare being pushed by Republican legislators. Clinton balked, saying he didn't want a "bunch of cripples chained to the white house fence."
ADAPT had been to Arkansas when Clinton was governor.
Edit to add: the quote might be slightly off, but it's close to what Clinton allegedly said. I remember it because I got quoted in a disability magazine as saying I was pleased to hear Clinton say it because I would rather he feared our power than feel our pain.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Clinton balked, saying he didn't want a "bunch of cripples chained to the white house fence."
So here's at least one alternative form of protest that would work on at least one politician.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
BTW, I had already heard about this issue and support the idea - haven't looked into this specific implementation - for much the same reason I support school vouchers.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:True rebellion would have been to jump into the pit with the unfortunate - or to knock out the guard and take the child out of the pit, not caring how the good people of Omelas fared as a result.
The point of the story is that Omelas is a true utopia, not a dystopia. It is a blissful, otherwise perfect place. To take the child from the pit would be to doom the rest of Omelas to destruction for the sake of a single child's misery.
This is morally unconscionable. According to the terms of the thought experiment, removing the child from the pit will do nothing but increase the net misery of the city; everyone will be worse off, and numerous individuals may in fact wind up as bad as that child happened to be. So, for the good of everyone, the child has to suffer.
The ones who walk away understand this and are unwilling to doom their compatriots to misery -- but can no longer in good conscience reap the benefits of a society built on pain. So they leave, but do not drag down the world behind them.
I don't think Le Guin lacked imagination; her thought experiment was designed specifically to make "pull the cripple out of the pit" the option that would unquestionably cause the most pain and evil. She had already considered rebellion, and wrote her story to demonstrate one situation in which active rebellion against an unjust society -- even motivated by compassion -- is actually the worst possible response.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:This is morally unconscionable. According to the terms of the thought experiment, removing the child from the pit will do nothing but increase the net misery of the city; everyone will be worse off, and numerous individuals may in fact wind up as bad as that child happened to be. So, for the good of everyone, the child has to suffer.
I think it's morally unconscionable to call this morally unconscionable. Pulling the child out of the pit does not cause pain and evil - it causes other factors to cause pain and evil.
Moreover, Omales is not a perfect Utopia unless one ignores the fact that the adults know about the bargain. It is this crucial fact that makes it actually dystopian.
The story is a perfect example of why pure results-oriented utilitarianism is ultimately not a successful ethical theory. It can be made ethical by assigning higher weights of unhappiness to deliberately caused harm, but at that point you've added at least some deontological aspect to the theory.
The act of intentionally putting/keeping the child in misery is a far greater harm than the mere existence of other misery. And stopping others from continuing to profit from her misery is not an evil act, but a good one.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote:Originally posted by sndrake:
quote:I thought Eljay and Shigosei's options would be quite effective.
They wouldn't be. No reason for the powers that be to negotiate at all if business is conducted as usual. The public just hurries on its way refusing flyers or grabbing them and then trashing them. And in a city the size of Chicago, no reason to pay attention at all, as far as the media is concerned.
My suggestion did not involve handing out fliers and would not allow the public to hurry by business as usual. The fact that you apparently did not read it and respond honestly to it does not lead me to believe you're honestly interested in finding alternatives that work without violating people's rights, although I realize that you've said this action was not one your were involved in. Although you use different tactics, you certainly seem to condone these. I don't.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:The act of intentionally putting/keeping the child in misery is a far greater harm than the mere existence of other misery. And stopping others from continuing to profit from her misery is not an evil act, but a good one.
On what grounds? Intentionally keeping this innocent child in misery ensures bliss for thousands. The issue here isn't that hurting the child causes greater harm -- because clearly the reverse is true -- but rather that it causes a different sort of harm. You're saying that intentionally harming an innocent is categorically worse than any amount of incidental harm; it's the same argument that people use when they say that we as a country should not torture someone under any circumstances. (You can make the argument that every single person who says "I would never have an abortion myself, but I respect someone else's decision to make that choice" comes down on the other side of the same argument.)
I don't think it's possible to come up with an objective appraisal of harm that reaches a solid conclusion either way, however. For select individuals to decide that this form of harm is so bad that it warrants destroying the happiness of thousands who disagree with their ideals is insanely presumptuous -- especially since, as the experiment is set up, the child is already permanently damaged by its experience. Which is why some people walk away from Omelas and do not, say, burn it to the ground.
One can actually make the argument that confronting the residents of Omelas with the tiny misery that makes their perfect lives possible -- and thus forcing them to choose whether they'll knowingly tolerate and accept it, or refuse to do so -- is far more responsible than our own society's approach. In fact, I'm almost certain that this is to some extent what LeGuin is saying.
I would say that every single person who eats a Chicken McNugget or watches network TV is not walking away from Omelas.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The issue here isn't that hurting the child causes greater harm -- because clearly the reverse is true -- but rather that it causes a different sort of harm.
No, the reverse is only "clearly" true if one ignores the fact that it is intentional in the weighing of the harms.
I'll have to address the rest later, but we part ways at such an early stage in the analysis that this is probably the point where the true discussion lies.
quote:You're saying that intentionally harming an innocent is categorically worse than any amount of incidental harm;
No, I'm not.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:No, the reverse is only "clearly" true if one ignores the fact that it is intentional in the weighing of the harms.
I'm saying that you're treating deliberate harm as a different class of action than incidental harm without acknowledging it.
quote:"You're saying that intentionally harming an innocent is categorically worse than any amount of incidental harm..." No, I'm not.
How are you not? The situation as described in Omelas is almost the best-case for the above scenario, and you still assess the harm to the single innocent as the greater of the two harms.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I'm saying that you're treating deliberate harm as a different class of action than incidental harm without acknowledging it.
I am clearly acknowledging it. My whole disagreement with you is about you not acknowledging it.
quote:How are you not? The situation as described in Omelas is almost the best-case for the above scenario, and you still assess the harm to the single innocent as the greater of the two harms.
There are many situations where harm to an innocent individual to prevent greater harm to other innocents is morally licit in my moral view. This harm for this good is not one of them.
You're the one adding a false premise here -- specifically, that if this is not good, then no possible analogous situation can be good.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:My whole disagreement with you is about you not acknowledging it.
Ah. I'm not saying that I don't acknowledge the possibility. I'm saying that imposing the decision that any amount of deliberate harm is categorically worse than any amount of incidental harm on a society which clearly disagrees is hubristic.
quote:You're the one adding a false premise here -- specifically, that if this is not good, then no possible analogous situation can be good.
I'm acting, yes, on the assumption that the situation which LeGuin describes -- that the child is already crippled and damaged beyond repair, that the misery isn't that awful, that the bliss is perfect and otherwise universal -- is meant to describe a best-case scenario for this particular thought experiment. If you disagree as to what specific elements would make up a best-case scenario for this experiment, that's fine -- but to spend time quibbling over those elements defeats the point of the story (and the thought experiment.) I think part of the implicit assumption behind her story is that you're entitled to substitute your own details for hers.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Can I just say it's freaky you guys are discussing Omelas when I mentioned the short story in a thread just yesterday and have never heard it mentioned in conversation since I read it years ago.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
It's come up several times on HR that I recall.
Trivia tidbit: the name Omelas comes from her seeing a sign for Salem, OR and spelling it backwards.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
The Wikipedia entry on Omelas has a quote from LeGuin indicating it's not a "thought experiment" but a "psychomyth":
quote:"The central idea of this psychomyth, the scapegoat," writes Le Guin, "turns up in Dostoyevsky's Brothers Karamazov, and several people have asked me, rather suspiciously, why I gave the credit to William James. The fact is, I haven't been able to re-read Dostoyevsky, much as I loved him, since I was twenty-five, and I'd simply forgotten he used the idea. But when I met it in James's 'The Moral Philosopher and the Moral Life,' it was with a shock of recognition."
BTW, near as I can recall, my reading and reaction to the story occurred before any involvement in the disability rights community or work as a direct support person for people with developmental disabilities.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote:Originally posted by ElJay:
quote:Originally posted by sndrake:
quote:I thought Eljay and Shigosei's options would be quite effective.
They wouldn't be. No reason for the powers that be to negotiate at all if business is conducted as usual. The public just hurries on its way refusing flyers or grabbing them and then trashing them. And in a city the size of Chicago, no reason to pay attention at all, as far as the media is concerned.
My suggestion did not involve handing out fliers and would not allow the public to hurry by business as usual. The fact that you apparently did not read it and respond honestly to it does not lead me to believe you're honestly interested in finding alternatives that work without violating people's rights, although I realize that you've said this action was not one your were involved in. Although you use different tactics, you certainly seem to condone these. I don't.
Repeated because I would like a response from sndrake.
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
Coming back to this discussion after not looking at it for a while, I think the organizers of this protest should be willing to plea guilty to a charge of Wrongful Imprisonment (or whatever the appropriate term is) for each of the people they trapped inside the building who wishes to press that charge. For them to do so would be to make a personal sacrifice for the cause they think is important. For them to refuse to do so would be to admit that they're only willing to sacrifice the freedom of other people for their cause.
And if they actually do so, they can get the lighter sentence for the plea deal and cooperation, naturally. As it is, they don't seem particularly concerned about the consequences of their actions apart from "We FORCED the government to give us what we want."
--Enigmatic
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
Eljay said this:
quote:My suggestion did not involve handing out fliers and would not allow the public to hurry by business as usual. The fact that you apparently did not read it and respond honestly to it does not lead me to believe you're honestly interested in finding alternatives that work without violating people's rights, although I realize that you've said this action was not one your were involved in. Although you use different tactics, you certainly seem to condone these. I don't. ----------
Repeated because I would like a response from sndrake.
about this...
quote:I could see inconveniencing people on their way in and out. . . parking the wheelchairs in staggered rows so that people had to wind through them, making them slow down and think/acknowledge what was going on. Or standing in rows in front of the entrances to create "cattle runs" like before airport security, so it impeded entrance and exit but didn't actually stop it.
In a city like Chicago, slowing people down is nothing - it happens all the time for reasons that have nothing to do with protests or anything else. It would be well within the normal set of experiences that Chicagoans can face.
I didn't organize this, I wasn't even there, for a variety of reasons. But I won't condemn it, if that's what you're looking for. And since my main work is in other areas, I don't really have an interest in discussing the "whys" - I doubt that any of them would matter.
FWIW, to other posters on this thread, there are no guarantees at an ADAPT Action in regard to how far the "arrests" will go. In recent years, police are more likely to hand out citation and appearance summonses as they did in Chicago. In other years, protesters have spent hours or days in jail while their release was negotiated by lawyers. (and in some cases for "milder" actions than the ones in Chicago) Also in previous years, many wheelchair users used to go into "passive resistance" mode when the police came to escort them. But power chairs have gotten heavier and more complicated - I think that it's not done often (or at all) because of the risk of injury to both chair users and the police trying to deal with a motorized chair that won't move - and the person in it.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I recall there was a suggestion of totally blockading people from entering the building rather than leaving, not just running a gauntlet
I would think an "entry" blockade might be as effective as an "exit" blocade, however then there wouldn't have been anyone in the building to negotiate with I guess.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I'm not looking for you to condemn it, but I am looking at you to discuss the trickier moral questions related to it. If you don't have an interest in discussing the "whys" and have already decided they wouldn't matter, I guess that's not going to happen.
But you said no one had offered alternatives, and then when it was pointed out that I had you mischaractarized it and said it wouldn't work. When it was pointed out that you mischaracterized it, you dismissed it instead. If it's not something you want to talk about, fine. But you could have said that much earlier instead of condescending towards those of us who do have sympathy towards your cause but have serious problems with the methods used at this particular protest.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)