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.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 57 | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 409 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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 WayPosts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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;
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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."
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.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11265 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
