 |
| Police collected items like gloves and bats before allowing people into the rallies |
 |
| These are the 7 who were arrested in Portland |
On Sunday, the Antifa group threw smoke and projectiles at police officers in Portland. AAntifa stands for Anti Fascist and they are radicalists who try to fight far-right principles. They had done this during a protest against white nationalism. This all started when the police attempted to change the route of marching. This lead to tensions between the Antifa group and Patriot Prayer, an opposition group. The rally with Antifa was set up by, Portland Stands United against Hate. Officials said that the Portland group has a permit while Patriot Prayer’s possession of a permit is unclear.
The Patriot group wanted to have a rally in Portland but actually moved it to Vancouver to try and prevent conflict. Before the protests, Portland’s Mayor Ted Wheeler said that he wouldn’t accept any violence. In the end, police arrested 7 people in Portland and 2 in Vancouver. Also, at least one or two police officers were injured.
My opinion: It’s clear that the racist protests in Charlottesville were horrible and something that should never be repeated. I believe the rally that was supposed to happen was okay because it should’ve been peaceful. However, the fact that again violence has occurred is disappointing. In my opinion, the national government and state governments should take more action to put more police officers on duty and try and decrease the amount of protests.
Discussion:
- Do you also believe that the national government should get involved in this issue?
- What other solutions are there other than direct government action? Can the citizens do anything to improve this growing problem
- Lastly, article 2 briefly mentioned how the election of Trump has caused an increase in the activity of Antifa members. What is your take on this? Do the president’s words or remarks in any way play a role in this problem?
3 comments:
I actually disagree with the statement that national and state governments should work to prevent or lessen the amount of protests through police enforcement because, one, it infringes upon our right of speech, and, two, the overwhelmingly shifty relationship between police and ethnic groups (especially those of color) could often result in an inequality when a police officer is asked to direct a protest. Protests, in my opinion, should be encouraged because it allows the citizens to voice their opinion, which as a result, gains attention from their legislation, thus, pushing officials and legislators to take a stance on an issue that is apparently of utmost importance to their people. Without protests, laws such as the legalization of same-sex marriage, and civil rights acts would have never come into place. The issue lies when extreme methods are taken by protesters, such as violence or actions that violates law, in which case permits the aid of police. However, I believe that prejudice towards one group over another is an issue that should tackled. While I’d like to preach that citizens should protest peacefully, it is unrealistic in society today. Nevertheless, their right to free speech shouldn’t be infringed because that helps create a progressive society
I will agree with Shweta for the most part on this. Peaceful protest is a right protected by the Constitution and rightfully so. Like Shweta said, without peaceful protest, LGBTQ and ethnic minority rights may not have improved to the point they have today. There are also the many antiwar protests like for the Vietnam War and 2003 Iraq War that helped to form public opposition these costly and unnecessary wars as well as countless strikes throughout US history that have lead to more favorable labor and wage laws. That being said, violent protest is not and should not be protected in any way. I think it's fair for police to be on standby in case tensions do rise between protesters and counter-protesters and to employ body cameras and nonlethal force to ensure that justice is most efficient (though police brutality isn't entirely related to every protest that turns violent, approaches to prevent it would still be helpful). I think the idea that a nation having little or no protests is not necessarily a sign of a healthy and egalitarian democracy. I am reminded of a quote from current Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross about his trip to Saudi Arabia: "there was not a single hint of a protester anywhere there during the whole time we were there. Not one guy with a bad placard." Saudi Arabia is a monarchy and brutal police state, arresting and executing dissenters left and right, so I really think the very ability to protest and the employment of it, especially in times of turmoil, is a good indicator of a respectable democratic nation.
I actually do not necessarily think that nonviolent protests drive legislation, but rather, the opposite. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but if I remember correctly, the protest that caught the attention of legislators and the White House was the Children's Crusade in Birmingham, in which an extreme form of violence was used upon children. I am in no way advocating violent protests, but I do think that in reality, violence naturally induces more human attention than peace does, especially when it comes to something everybody believes is inherently wrong, like hurting children.
While I do agree with Shweta that police should get involved with the protests if laws are violated, I do also think that Petros's assertion that policy brutality is real is valid. Instead of settling a violent protest, I think that police interference often augments it.
Post a Comment