On Mon, Mar 1, 2021 at 5:28 AM Robert Rossi <<email obscured>> wrote:
> I fear my point is being lost. I am not making an argument about the
> response to any protest blocking a freeway, but to the decision to block
> a freeway in the first place, made by (the leaders of) the protestors -
> its use as a tactic. That is independent of the response, and the
> responsibility for resorting to it lies with the protestors, whatever
> the response.
>
> Unless I dearly misunderstand the dynamics, the intent of blocking
> freeways (as a protest tactic) is to force members of the general public
> (and to impel the media) to pay (more) attention to the protest. It is
> not done because a permit to protest in a highly visible location could
> not be (or was not) obtained, but because that was deemed insufficient.
>
> Tiger, you cite four historical cases, all in which the response of the
> authorities was wildly disproportionate. In his (first) comments
> (quoted below), Matt seems to have been focused on the proportionate
> response angle as well. Maybe you both truly believe that being
> arrested and charged for blocking a freeway is wildly disproportionate,
> but I do not. It is what should happen to anyone choosing to block a
> freeway, in support of any cause. Anyone choosing to resort to that
> tactic should expect arrest, not a free pass. I will also reiterate
> that in the specific case in question, I strongly feel the decision to
> block the freeway was unwise, and did more harm than good to the cause
> for the protest: support for the lawful transition of power in our
> system of federal governance.
>
> I have learned through the school of hard knocks that good intent is not
> enough: we have to look back at the consequences of our well-intended
> actions and assess to what extent they actually did make the world a
> better place. It is often difficult to predict what will happen, but we
> must learn from what does such that we improve our odds of choosing
> wisely going forward. (In my case, my hardest lesson of this sort came
> in the Peace Corps, in Fiji.)
>
> Rob
>
> On 2/28/2021 6:43 PM, Tiger Worku wrote:
> > Hello Rob,
> >
> > I commend you for mustering up the courage to share your opinion of
> > dissent. I understand the feeling of wanting to be heard in the public
> > square as a member of any given minority group. Five months ago I was an
> > eighteen-year-old struggling to come to terms with my first arrest. Now,
> > I'm still an eighteen-year-old but with better moral clarity who chooses
> to
> > use this arrest as a badge of honor. As you stated in your post: "We as
> > Americans are fortunate to have a clear right to speak our minds (within
> > limits) and to protest (within limits). Sometimes those limits are
> > unreasonable." I think what happened on I-94 that night was unreasonable.
> > When you have 646 peaceful individuals, including but not limited to
> union
> > leaders, neighborhood leaders, young adults, and small children just feet
> > away from an exit intending to get off, the best thing to do is let them
> > off so that the flow of traffic can continue. Remember, it cost taxpayers
> > to utilize the massive police force, and to Matt's point, it made it more
> > difficult for emergency vehicles to get to their destination.
> >
> > I think it's easier* now* for us to look back on what we've been through
> > over the past year and feel a sense of stability, but we mustn't forget
> how
> > we felt in the moments of great challenge. As a young person, I was
> exposed
> > to multiple concurrent crises and did what I believe a majority of young
> > people did which was to try and help. I was born a year after 9/11 so I'd
> > never seen a national moment(s) so poignant. Although our country's
> > temperature is still high, things seem to be stabilizing. I choose to
> point
> > the finger at the system for its barbaric flaws rather than the
> protestors
> > who work to fix it. I believe that in an arm wrestle a broken institution
> > doesn't stand a chance against the people united. I'd like to leave you
> > with some questions from a historical lens:
> >
> > *Did Congressman John Lewis deserve to be beaten and arrested alongside
> > hundreds of other civil rights activists because they blocked the Edmond
> > Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama?*
> >
> > *Were workers fighting for better labor standards wrong for occupying
> > Haymarket Square in Chicago, Illinois? *
> >
> > *Was the Boston Massacre justified due to British troops commanding
> > American protesters to disperse under the orders of King George III in
> > Boston, Massachusetts? *
> >
> > *Were the unarmed Kent State students in the wrong for protesting the
> 1968
> > Democratic National Convention during the anti-war movement in Kent,
> Ohio?*
> >
> > Many at the time shared the same, if not, similar views as yours. I'm not
> > "hurting the cause" but trying to follow in the footsteps of those who
> came
> > before me. The revolutionaries. The activists. The martyrs.
> >
> > *Tiger Worku*
> > *President*
> > *Seward Neighborhood Group*
> >
>
> On 2/28/2021 9:42 AM, Matt Plummer wrote:
> > Hi Rob, thanks for your message. I don't think your views are unusual,
> but I agree that it's important to have these debates in different spaces,
> including on E-Democracy.
> >
> > I've organized a number of actions, mostly in the labor movement, over
> the years in both New York and the Minneapolis metro area. Whether you
> agree with the reason for an action/disruption or not, there are couple
> dynamics worth highlighting.
> >
> > One basic standard of any police arrests is*supposed* to be giving
> folks notice of imminent arrest and the opportunity to disperse. In this
> case, without warning hundreds of people were literally blocked from
> leaving and trapped on the freeway for hours by the police.
> >
> > If the supposed goal was to avoid further disruption of a public road,
> the police did the opposite. What would've been a 20-30 minute closure was
> turned into freeway closure of many hours. Cops also maced, grabbed and
> arrested bystanders who were not even on the freeway. In my 10 year
> experience running actions, the reason for this kind of police overreach is
> not to bring order, but to intimidate and make it clear that dissent is not
> going to be tolerated.
> >
> > The mass arrests in November occurred in the context of a major
> crackdown on Minneapolis protests following the uprising this summer. We
> have reached the point now where whenever any type of protest is
> anticipated, especially re: racial equity or police brutality, Walz and
> Frey et al bring in the National Guard, establish a city-wide curfew, and
> OK aggressive policing to ensure "order" is maintained.
> >
> > This "order" is the part of the same system that sanctioned the police
> murder of George Floyd and many others, and continues to harass and
> brutalize POC every day. So as we see further militarization of our civic
> life, including multiple barricades, razor wire, a military presence, and
> more in preparation for the trial of Derek Chauvin, I don't think your
> statement "violators of just laws should fully expect to suffer the legal
> consequences of their protest actions" really tells the full story of
> what's going on in the city.
> >
> > The military is literally being deployed to suppress dissent and
> disruption to the status quo. While we all worry about our own safety and
> security, please also consider that "business as usual" isn't working for
> BIPOC folks and other marginalized groups. I think most Minneapolis
> residents support a push for major reforms to policing, inequality, and
> more. But without protest and disruption, nothing is going to change. We
> need EVERYONE's active solidarity to change this horrific system. And in
> part that should mean pushing back against attempts to suppress dissent.
> >
> >
> > Matt Plummer
> > Seward, Minneapolis
> > About/contact Matt Plummer:http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/mattplummer
>