Okay, let’s ASSUME you are correct: :
- How then, does that justify your actions?
- If I perceive YOU, or your actions, as immoral, should I be allowed to do you harm?
I think you miss the pint. I am in no way suggesting that people do harm to other people. I am suggesting that it is feasible that corporate property is fair game.
I am going to miss some of this because I am off to sleep, but I do think that might clear up a few things.
No. I’m afraid it doesn’t. You said your rationale for destroying property was that you perceived it and the corporations that created it as immoral.
If your position is valid you should be able to answer the questions I posed.
And I would add: if the CEO of the organisation that you perceive to be the most immoral presented himself to your group, would you then feel allowed or obliged to do him harm. Certainly he is more responsible than the organizations property (which, by the way, can be neither moral nor immoral). How about if you confronted him alone, and without the protection of your mask? Would you still feel the same need obligation to “battle” the immoral?
I look forward to your answers tomorrow morning. Sleep well in your comfortable product of another immoral, profit-seeking corporation.
Why do you think the Klu Klux Klan wore hoods. :smack:
I did read your post. Does everyone who wears a mask to a WTO protest carry a card or another way to identify themselves as anarchist? Is law enforcement expected to “just know” that a particular group is going to act up and make arrest before it happens? I don’t see a practical way to ban some protest groups and allow others to wear masks so it’s either an all or nothing proposition.
You know what, don’t be a condescending dink.
Marc
That’s why I love anarchist. I guess it’d be ok for whoever insured that Nike store to smash up your property. Fair is fair.
Marc
Moderator’s Note: Please don’t call other posters “dinks” in Great Debates.
But neither the mens rea, nor the past history, is the actus reus itself. By making mask/black wearing the critical factor in whether or not you are arrested at any given event, you are effectively criminalising apparel we are all currently free to wear wherever we choose.
There is nothing in undercover police operations which undermines civil liberties, so long as no entrapment or other misconduct is involved: I admire and salute the bravery of those dedicated to such dangerous but sadly necessary work. In this case, the masks help those officers by marking out potential troublemakers who can be given a surreptitious squirt of invisible spray (on a bodypart which distinguishes them from others in identical garb) which shows up on a camera or can be traced by a sniffer dog.
Like I said, smarter, not more draconian: fewer police and laws, not more.
And, again, black clothes and masks do not cause that violence. Indeed, were they to be banned, the troublemakers would just wear baseball caps, sunglasses and raised collars, which obscure one’s face just as effectively and make it even more difficult for the undercover infiltrators to mark out potential rioters in the first place. Difficult as it may be, by clever use of infiltration, camera footage and, say, gait recognition software, those specific individuals can be tied to specific crimes, requiring no innocents to be presumed guilty just for wearing black clothes or masks.
I’d suggest that the very KKK uniform is effectively “hate speech” every bit as much as a racist slogan on a sign or shouted from a megaphone, so there are other laws (which I don’t necessarily agree with either, but that is beside the point here) which this apparel trangresses. However, I’ll continue as though there were not:
And, using CCTV footage, spray from infiltrating undercover (literally!) officers, gait/height/body recognition software and other smart police tactics, these individuals can be tied to these crimes.
Far more dangerous would be for them to disguise themselves as regular folks and not advertise their potential riot in advance by marking themselves out so distinctively. The police would then be called to a riot which had already happened rather than be alerted well in advance by a responsible citizen noticing that a bunch of goons had congregated in her street and helpfully kitted themselves out in a threatening uniform.
Marc, I don’t mind your gentle admonition (thanks, though, MEBuckner), but I don’t see this as condescending. If I would have said “Now, if you are able to process…”, THAT would have been condescending. Am I missing something? I must not be completely correct as you did read it that way.
It’m not suggesting it’s JUST the mask and black garb. It’s ALSO assembling in a group that, based on their past behavior, is LIKELY to turn violent. Also, keep in mind, that these groups carry signs to for the very purpose of distinguishing themselves from other groups and to communicate their message.
And I’m not sure about this, but in LA or NYC, haven’t they, to some degree, banned the wearing of gang colors under certain circumstances?
My mistake. I thought when you said “tracking devices”, you meant the electronic kind, which, I think you’d agree, would raise some CL issues.
While gait recognition is promising, it is not as good as face recognition software. I have no doubt they if not allowed to march in their black and masks that they would adopt garb as protective as possible of their identification. But I see nothing wrong with making it MORE DIFFICULT for them to conduct violence with anonymity.
If it’s immoral to not pay people a fair wage for their labor, it’s much more immoral to steal somebody’s property without any recompense at all. And least moral of all is to simply destroy property so that nobody has it. Any “anarchist” smashing a Nike factory has less morality than the Nike Corporation.
Well said.
I would suspect that taking part in a riot is illegal. If not, then the solution would not be to ban masks, but to make being in a riot a crime and, if possible, define the terms by which an innocent bystander may behave so as to not be identified as a rioter.
Speaking more generally than the KKK:
It is more than reasonable to suggest that people who wear masks to protect their identities do so out of concern for being targeted by the powers that be. They want to protest, but they are afraid to because they can then be singled out for reprisals. While I support the idea that the prostestees should be able to know who is protesting against them, I can’t see how that would carry more weight than the legitimate fear that the State can use your identity to punish you for your political speech.
I simply don’t see how the police couldn’t get offenders reliably if they chose to. With a video camera, a paintball gun, and a shock team, the police should be able to identify and arrest anonymous protesters engaging in violent behavior. I’m suspicious that the mask law is addressing a legitimate problem rather than being a tool to make intimidation easier.
The KKK used to have two kinds of marches. One, undercover of dark and hoods were simply vilolent mobs out to do violence. The other type were “legitimate” marches down Main Street, which the members (with the help of the ACLU in the famous Skokie case) argued was a protected form of speech. This type of march never had violence as a component.
Acknowledged. I was just working w/ the hypothetical that was given.
The two examplpes do point to an important distinction, though. The KKKers when viewed in their hoods in public were not violent. Everyone knew that the same “group” was responsible for the violence, but didn’t actually see them DO the violence. The thirty guys in sheets on Main Street might or might have not been the 10, 20, 30 or 100 guys in sheets that did violence the night before.
With the Anarchists discussed in this thread, we see the people actually commit the violence. I think the ideas offered such as paiint ball guns, infiltration, and gait recognition software are all good. But there does exist a point, I think, that the likelihood of violence is so great that the authorities should be able to (and have the responsibility to) act preemptively.
Agreed. I just don’t think outlawing masks is the answer; for reasons given, I feel it will create more harm than it will solve.
Just to be clear, you know I’m not talking about ALL masks, right? Just where there is a confluence of masks and high likelihood of violence.
Given that, if you still feel a “ban” will do more harm than good, how?
Unwritten Nocturne
Heh, the police are not threatened by airhead punks. Anarchists are a sad few that will never have any impact on the socio/political structure of the United States. It’s funny, they advocate abolishment of the police force but they don’t address the abolishment of crime. So they finally take over the country, then establish a “new” system to keep the peace. Guess what, they call them something else but they’re still POLICE.
:rolleyes:
No, I did in fact make that mistake. My bad.
Yeah, I think so. Why? Preliminarily because that is not a decision I’m willing to leave to the State to make, on the ground, in the heat of the moment. A person should be able to know in advance whether she is breaking the law. Under the circumstances (I think) you are describing, her mask would go from legal to illegal at some arbitrary point which she cannot pinpoint ahead of time.
As an alternative, if the police were to announce over loudspeaker, for example, that the Riot Act is being read, so that our hypothetical non-violent protester can vacate the area without removing her mask, then anyone remaining in a mask may be arrested, I think I’d be all in favor of that. That way people at the demonstration, masked or not, when it appears it is about to go critical can be advised that the police are going to go from protest mode to riot mode.