Way to have the point sail over your head. It’s not just that the dressed the same, or that they had similar beliefs, or that some of them smashed up stuff. It’s all of that. They dressed to make it difficult to identify them individually (“who smashed the window?” " guy in black with a bandanna over his face and a hood up"). This isn’t women wearing pussy hats. This is deliberately conspiring to make it difficult to identify and arrest those responsible for crimes.
Once you’ve entered a conspiracy, you’re responsible for everything done by members of the conspiracy. (Conspiracy: the agreement to commit an illegal act, and the commission of an action (legal or not) in furtherance of the conspiracy). And since black bloc protests nearly invariably result in violence and property damage, merely becoming part of the protest is that agreement.
Seriously, the comparison to the Klan isn’t far fetched. Unless you do believe that you shouldn’t arrest all the guys in white robes at a cross burning.
The thing though, is that black bloc is not a conspiracy, nor is it an organization of any kind. It is a protest tactic used by all kinds of leftists, affiliated or not. Don’t take my word for it though. Towards the end of this interview with a long-time protest medic, they provide an excellent snapshot of what the black bloc is all about.
Also, this essay by an undocumented Berkeley student.
I don’t support everything that comes with black bloc protests, but every reference I catch of them in Very Serious Adult world reduces my pity for broken bank windows and missed yoga classes by half. Oh well.
Yeah, wasn’t this the standard tactic for Standing Rock? They don’t need to actually charge you, just get you out of the way. Causing the protesters legal grief down the line is just a side benefit for them.
Where is your evidence that any such crimes were “deliberated”? You speak as if that was The Only Obvious reason why protesters would make themselves difficult to identify. Are you not aware of organized campaigns by police and government operatives to entrap, harass, and otherwise implicate even peaceful protesters?
So if a nation-state is willing and able to play dirty to get protesters in trouble, what are some of the better strategies open to them? The obvious two are: 1. protest openly and hope for fair treatment, or 2. stop making waves so that you don’t get into trouble. Those are the options which LEOs and intelligence prefer. What they don’t like is for people to use the same tactics they do - to organize so that they can act without being compromised. To actually act as if they really are in occupied territory, where they cannot expect fair or humane treatment.
So by this reasoning, if we know that some police are attacking unarmed people, should we restrain only those witnessed carrying out those attacks - or be on the safe side and restrain all of them? Or would it be more reasonable to use double-standards here?
For a moment there, I thought that Baez had developed a sideline of songs commemorating martyred anarchists. For those playing along at home, these guys were also known as Sacco and Vanzetti, which is an alternate title for the song.
world reduces my pity for broken bank windows and missed yoga classes by half. Oh well.
