How Many People Does It Take to Make a Protest?
- Details
- By Greggory Moore Follow @greggory_moore
- | Monday, 06 February 2012 07:00
Protestors in front of Congressperson Laura Richardson's branch office in Long Beach.
10:00am | Long Beach has not been a major hub in the Occupy movement. Although you wouldn't always know it from police interest, aside from the first couple of nights at Lincoln Park, and with the notable exception of the "Occupy the Ports" event and a couple of city council meetings, Occupy Long Beach has suffered from low turnout.
Friday afternoon was a case in point, when OLB held a rally in front of Congressperson Laura Richardson's branch office in (to quote the OLB press release) "a Call to dissent of the N.D.A.A. (National Defense Authorization Act)" because it "effectively ends the bill of rights and nullifies amendments four through eight of the U.S. constitution, at the whim of military or federal order" and "grants military the unchecked power to arrest, detain, interrogate, imprison (as long as indefinitely) and even assassinate suspects, even american citizens on home soil or foreign land" [sic].
But perhaps it's not quite right to say that OLB showed up Friday, because the total turnout was 15 members. And "rally" -- the term used in the OLB press release -- may not be quite right, either, because the two-hour stay in front of 100 W. Broadway consisted of little more than the members standing out front with signs. A couple of members did venture up to Richardson's office -- one wielding a sign reading, "NDAA IS TERRORIST" -- but Richardson was in Washington, D.C. (They did have a brief parley.)
So, does Friday count as a protest?
One person can conduct a protest, of course; and surely it takes more gumption to put yourself out there as part of a tiny group than to blend into a mass of humanity. But the question of protest size can't be avoided. As one OLBer posited last month, "I think they [i.e., the City] look at the size of our group and think, 'I don't really have to listen to them right now.'"
On Friday one of the group members who did show up ("in the hopes that [Richardson] can petition the government to get rid of [a certain] clause in the NDAA" because "it gives [the government] a more free reign to detain Americans without due process and indefinitely. […] Everyone that can petition the government is a step towards getting rid of it") stated that the low attendance was due to most OLBers having committments that precluded them from being present at 3-5 p.m. on a weekday.
"A lot of people are working," he said. "The ones that can [be available] are here. The thing with the Occupy movement is that a lot of the folks that are part of the Occupy movement do have jobs or go to school. They're not just lazy people; they're not just people without jobs. […] They come out on weekends, bigger turnouts; but during the week it's up to when they get off work or out of school."
In December Richardson was one of the "ayes" that contributed to the passage of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2012, which has been roundly criticized by civil-rights groups as being unconstitutional on a number of counts, including its authorization of indefinite detention of American citizens without trial.
A statement issued to the Long Beach Post from Richardson's office says the while the NDAA "was imperfect [… l]ike most bills that come to the floor for a vote," she voted in favor of it "for three principle reasons: First, it provides for troop and equipment readiness. Second, it provides much needed help and support for military families. Third, it authorizes critical investments in technology to ensure that the United States is prepared to defend against emerging threats now and in the future."
"Occupy has realized that the corruption we're fighting is not just one place, it is in so many departments, so many levels of the government, from the White House right on down to the individual municipalities," said an OLBer who took part in the protest said. "The corruption is so ingrained in our society, [and] the people have been asleep and letting it happen. It's now ingrained itself so well that we're that we're basically being run by corporations, which is terrible. We're just trying to wake people up. We're trying to get people awake and aware of what's going on in their world."
On the occasions during which they distinguish themselves from a typical average riotous mob, and when they are not defecating on police cars or leaving tons of garbage, bio-waste, and other debris in their wake, I actually support their peaceful protests.
That said, whenever they violate the law, they can and should be cited and/or arrested for doing so. Every single time.
In my view, NDAA is an absolute over-reaching farce. Whatever true benefits may be found within it should be enacted separately, if that's what Congress seeks to do.
Oh and Johnny B. - the only people that know about the "violent lawlessness" of the occupy movement are people who watch Fox news.
A few weeks ago a young woman was on Book Notes. She works for Tucker Swanson McNear Carlson at The Daily Caller, a confessed conservative. She went to NYC to document the drug use, open sex, rape and other violent crime for their right wing loony bin blog. What she found was that the only problems came from the cops, which any sentient being could have told her in advance.
So dream on, Johnny B. Not So Good.
The simplest of internet searches will reveal considerable coverage of these types of events from news sources of all types and stripes.
Are all "Occupy" groups violent and lawless? OF course not, nor did I say they were. But to deny that some are is pure and unfortunate ignorance.
1. Repeated the press release FROM THE POLICE!
2. Talked about the small tangent of counter-productive people doing stupid things (burning flags, throwing bottles)
What about the part where Oakland PD started shooting tear gas at protesters immediately after they approached an abandoned building to Occupy it (confirmed by the National Lawyers Guild)? What about the part where Oakland PD is being investigated by the Feds for using excessive force? What about the MAJORITY of people who did not take part in any flag burning and didn't throw anything at anybody?
The Occupy movement, by and large, is a peaceful movement. The mass media is lazy and is obviously looking for the most exciting stories, which naturally leads to reports that are almost exclusively about arrests, conflict, and acts of violence (but only by the protesters). Turn off your TV and exit out of your news sites for just a second and visit Twitter to sample the tweets coming live from the people on the ground. When hundreds of individuals are tweeting about what is happening you can get a very good idea, when combined with mass media, about what is actually happening.
Occupy may need to re-focus, but it is definitely NOT a violent movement.
You are free to seek to minimize and speak dismissively of the Occupy-initiated violence, injury, and property damage in Oakland if you feel you must, but many news outlets (some of them far from politically conservative in their editorial policies) tell a very different tale of what happened there than you have here.
This from the predominantly-liberal Huffington Post (11/3/11):
"A protest that shut down the Port of Oakland to show the broadening reach of the Occupy Wall Street movement ended in violence when police in riot gear arrested dozens of protesters overnight who broke into a vacant building, shattered downtown windows, sprayed graffiti and set blazes along the way...Protesters also threw concrete chunks, metal pipes, lit roman candles and molotov cocktails..."
Granted, not all Occupy protests have degraded into abject and riotous violence the way Oakland did last November, but the fact that this and similar nonsense elsewhere *has* occured, and no legitimate spokesperson for Occupy seems willing to condemn it, tells me that Occupy is a lot more about "anything goes" than mere peaceful protesting and civil disobedience.
"and no legitimate spokesperson for Occupy seems willing to condemn it, tells me that Occupy is a lot more about "anything goes" than mere peaceful protesting and civil disobedience."
There are no spokesman for Occupy, only the voices of many together (which, as I mentioned, speak out against violence of all kind).
Where are the arrests for "violent lawlessness." And you're going to cite Internet news to back up your dream? I can use the Internet to prove you are a bisexual goat.
Second, When multiple news sources of differing biases all report the same information about an event (such as that quoted in the Huffington piece) then it reasonable to presume that those reports are accurate. It seems disingenuous to discount them, simply because one may not happen to like the facts that are being reported. I do not rely solely upon the news media (internet or otherwise) for my information. I have personally observed the conduct of Occupy activites in five different countries now.
While I agree (which is why I *stated*) that not all Occupy groups are violent or lawless, *some* have proven themselves to be very much so and I find it eminently convenient for Occupiers that they profess to have no recognized spokespersons.
This permits them to evade organized representative commentary and also allows any one Occupier to deny or decry what any other Occupier has stated publicly (e.g. "He deosn't speak for me!")
Official spokesperson or not, I have not heard *any* Occupier condemn the sort of violence and lawlessness that has occurred in Oakland or elsewhere. This is but one VERY good reason to have such authorized spokespersons...so that someone withing the movement can stand before a camera and microphone and state, unequivocally, that Occupy condemns any and all violent lawlessness perpetrated in its name.
Unless/until they do, they have zero credibility with me.