Now professional protesters, incited by the media, are protesting. Very unfair! --Donald Trump, November 10, 2016
Once again, protests captivate the attention of the nation, most notably at the site of the proposed Dakota Access Pipeline, but also in multiple sites across the country, as people express their disappointment at the election of Donald Trump, his proposed policies, his terrible campaign tactics, and his odious cabinet picks.
Trump's attempt to delegitimize protests against him puts him in the dubious company of repressive governments and strongmen across history and around the world. Sisi of Egypt, Putin of Russia, Erdogan of Turkey, Iran, China, North Korea, the list goes on. Stalin and Hitler also come to mind. The idea that those protesting are somehow paid plants from a nefarious opposition is a long-favored and completely baseless ploy used by many of these same figures. The fact that Trump would expend his energy on this tweet some 36 hours after he won an historic electoral sweep tells us that he plans on running a preemptive assault on all dissent going forward in his administration. Considering that he was swept to victory in no small part by the campaign of misinformation and fear-mongering foisted upon us by Steve Bannon and Breitbart "News," this is not surprising. Considering that Trump's appointee to the Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, has spent his career dismissing and attacking the Voting Rights Act of 1965--one of the crowning jewels of the protests known as the Civil Rights Movement--Trump's tweet, and his coming assault on the civil rights of all of us, is to be expected.
We must never forget that our republic was literally launched out of a protest, an act so outrageous and defiant, and certainly illegal, that its participants felt compelled to disguise themselves for fear of violent retribution: The Boston Tea Party of 1773. The right to assemble and speak freely is codified and enshrined in the first amendment. Another passage of that law states that
The people shall not be restrained from peaceably assembling and consulting for their common good; nor from applying to the Legislature by petitions, or remonstrances, for redress of their grievances.
Now the Boston Tea Party was not peaceful: it involved the willful destruction of property, a lot of it, and few would condone that type of action today, yet it is widely celebrated as the act of the most patriotic band of citizens in our nation's history. Its organizers and participants were vilified in much the same way Trump dismisses protesters to him today. It is no small irony that the modern virulently anti-government movement known as the Tea Party is essentially the same as the Trump base, that staunchly nativist band of people who attended his rallies with such gusto and who gave him the energy to sustain his campaign. A campaign many saw as one big protest to the establishment.
Protests have a long history in our country, and not just on the left. Marchers in Birmingham, suffragettes, and pro-lifers outside abortion clinics have all exercised their profoundly important right to expression. We may not always agree with the message of these protests, but we must defend with our last breath the right to speak, publicly, to those with whom we vehemently disagree, particularly those in power. I will leave aside here the issue of protests that turn violent or that break the law: civil disobedience has a long and noble history and has been well theorized and defended. I am talking for now about protest actions that stay well within the law.
Recently I have had cause to call the local office of one of my Senator's, Richard Burr, who happens to be from Winton-Salem. I have spoken with multiple staffers there, and whenever I tell them that their responses to me compel me to protest on the street outside of the office, they always shoot back, "well you'd better get a permit." For the record, that is categorically untrue. Permits are only necessary for actions that block traffic, obstruct the sidewalk, or that use loudly amplified voices and music. If you want to march up and down the sidewalk with signs, chanting your displeasure, you are free to do so as long as you don't impede the flow of cars and pedestrians. Burr's staffers' comments feel like intimidation to me. When I argued this point with one of them, he said, "really? I didn't know that." What a shame that someone working for the highest legislative body in the land is not aware of the basic rights of the citizenry.
As I finish this post on Saturday morning, I am reminded that a wonderful corollary to the Boston Tea Party is that many of the protesters continued to boycott the drinking of tea well after the protest. This gave rise to a fad that caught on quite well, and of which I am an avid adherent: coffee.
Comments
Post a Comment