Open letter to David Eby and the BC Civil Liberties Association
As a BCCLA member and a friend and ally of the anti-Olympic protesters, I was extremely disappointed to hear about David Eby’s comments to the media regarding Saturday’s protest:
David Eby, executive director of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association, said he was “sickened” by images of Black Bloc members smashing windows and tossing newspaper boxes into the streets.
Eby, who’s been outspoken against what he considers police intimidation of Olympic dissidents, said protesters were prepared for civil disobedience, such as sit-down demonstration to block an intersection.
Eby said there was a hint that the protest would turn violent when his group was asked by a faction of the protesters not to send legal observers to the march, saying they were worried they’d been infiltrated by police and could have their video documentation used as evidence in court.
This is completely unacceptable for exactly the reasons outlined by Lawrence A. Hildes, a member of the U.S. National Lawyers Guild whom I saw at two separate anti-Olympic protests in the past few days:
I don’t expect Eby or the BCCLA to condone the black bloc’s actions. But as Lawrence Hildes says, it’s not the job of either Eby or the BCCLA to decide which protesters are “good” and which are “bad” — it’s their job to ensure that the civil liberties of all protesters, peaceful or not, are protected. Talk of being “sickened” by a few broken windows protects no one’s rights; on the contrary, it lends legitimacy to the authorities’ ongoing efforts to repress dissent by sowing division among the dissenters. It also raises questions about the ability of the BCCLA to provide adequate and unbiased legal counsel to protesters who face charges over acts of civil disobedience.
This problem is compounded by Eby’s decision to reveal that some protesters asked BCCLA legal observers not to attend Saturday’s protest. Not only could that information be extremely damaging for those who are facing charges related to the protest, but clearly those who sent the email had placed a certain amount of trust in the BCCLA in matters like that. It’s no secret that there was at least some communication between anti-Olympic activists and the BCCLA in the months leading up to the Games, and it was the BCCLA’s phone number that was circulated to protesters so they’d know who to call for legal representation in case of arrest. (It speaks volumes that the Olympic Resistance Network, which did not even organize Saturday’s protest, has begun distributing a different number instead.) I have no idea whether Eby’s statement was a violation of attorney-client privilege or of BC’s Canons of Legal Ethics, but I do know that it was a shameful and profoundly disrespectful breach of trust.
I have a great deal of respect for the work that the BCCLA and David Eby personally have done over the years, Olympic-related and otherwise, and I hate to see their reputations tarnished. Nor do I want to undermine the Olympic-related work that the BCCLA still has ahead of it — like holding the RCMP accountable for the fact that many riot cops did not display their badge numbers on Saturday. But so far at least thirteen people in this province have faced charges over their opposition to the Olympics, in a climate of intense official and popular hostility to their views. They — and all of us who confront the threat of repression when we choose to dissent — deserve better.
Comments
“it’s their job to ensure that the civil liberties of all protesters, peaceful or not, are protected.”
Oh really?
And there was me thinking that the job that the BCCLA have taken on is to ensure that the civil liberties of the *people* are protected.
Your demand that they look after the protesters, but not the businesses, is a demand that the BCCLA become hypocrites advocating a double-standard.
Once you start breaking windows, you are no longer committing civil disobedience, but criminal disobedience. Integrity demands (as per Thoreau) that one stands up and takes responsibility for ones crimes, and not hide under a balaclava (or avoid the cameras).
As soon as a window is broken, you are demanding that the BCCLA be complicit in the crime. Unacceptable.
The job of the BCCLA is to ensure that everyone’s civil liberties are protected. When they start making exceptions for people who break windows — or prioritizing the rights of businesses, who are already protected by the authorities, over the rights of protesters, who have no such protection — then they are no longer doing their job properly.
As I said, I don’t expect the BCCLA to condone the black bloc’s actions. But I do expect them not to volunteer incriminating information to the authorities. Remaining silent (or, for that matter, ignoring the request and sending legal observers anyway) would have been the right thing to do.
Can you explain the difference between civil disobedience and “criminal disobedience”? Is it only civil disobedience if you let yourself get caught doing it? Thoreau’s approach was very noble and self-sacrificing, but remember that he lived in a time before tear gas and security cameras, and his only crime was refusing to pay his taxes. Integrity can take different forms in different contexts. If you think the black bloc dresses that way because they are cowards, I think you misunderstand their tactics and intentions.
You are being vague as to what business rights are being protected, and which rights of the protesters are not. Your sentence, in it’s ambiguity, suggests that there is a double-standard in play. Please explicitly outline the double-standard.
‘X asked us to stay away from the protest’ isn’t incriminating. Footage of them breaking the window is incriminating. While volunteering may not have been the preferred (by various people) option, that doesn’t make it unethical.
As for civil vs. criminal disobedience, I’d roughly and loosely define the difference as expressing your rights, vs committing harm. Expressing your right to speak, or walk, even into a restricted area, is civil disobedience. As soon as you commit a harm (be it physical or economic), you’ve moved beyond mere civil disobedience.
Thoreau not only refused to pay his taxes, but he presented himself to take on the consequences of his actions. Your reference to tear gas is irrelevant. I also don’t see the relevance of security cameras.
I never said that they were cowards, and I’d appreciate words not being put in my mouth. I said that the lacked integrity, which is to say that if they believed that they were on the side of justice, they would act without the face masks and present themselves to the courts for trial. Knowing that ones actions have consequences, it is a mark of integrity to accept the consequences (and yes: denounce them), not hide from them.
I believe that I misunderstand (if I misunderstand) their tactics and intentions because they have completely failed to express them in a meaningful and rational way. I’ve read the communique linked below, and it’s a stream of babble. It’s incoherent nonsense, full of emotional arguments and rhetoric.
You are being vague as to what business rights are being protected, and which rights of the protesters are not. Your sentence, in it’s ambiguity, suggests that there is a double-standard in play. Please explicitly outline the double-standard.
Well, you’re the one who brought up the distinction between businesses and protesters, and I’d say it’s business interests rather than business “rights” that are already being protected. But okay. In this society, the authorities will do what they can to defend the interests of businesses — whether that means sending in riot cops when their windows get broken, as we saw on Saturday, or running society at large for the benefit of those businesses and at the expense of ordinary people, which is how the world works these days (as I’ve tried to show, one way or another, in almost every post I’ve written for this blog). When ordinary people start to organize themselves, they have to deal with police intimidation (e.g., VISU visiting not just protesters but their friends and family and workplaces) and infiltration (e.g., VISU refusing to rule out the use of agent provocateurs); when ordinary people actually take to the streets, as we saw on Saturday, the authorities will happily hide their badge numbers so they can kick the protesters’ asses with impunity; when ordinary people are arrested for their actions, the authorities will almost always throw the book at them, because they are challenging the system that the authorities exist to protect. Given that kind of imbalance, I think the BCCLA is obliged to make a special effort to stand up for the rights of the protesters.
To put it another way, our rights — to free speech, to free assembly, to a fair trial — face their greatest threat when we choose to dissent. The protesters are dissenting, and so the BCCLA should do its best to defend their rights. The businesses are not dissenting; the only threat they face is the odd broken window. Your rights don’t need defending when you speak up in defence of motherhood and apple pie, they need defending when you say that apple pie tastes like crap and you never really liked your mother anyway.
‘X asked us to stay away from the protest’ isn’t incriminating. Footage of them breaking the window is incriminating. While volunteering may not have been the preferred (by various people) option, that doesn’t make it unethical.
Prosecutor to jury: “We know that some protesters specifically asked legal observers to stay away from this protest. The only reason they would make that request is so that they could smash windows and turn over newspaper boxes without being observed. This clearly shows that the accused, as the organizer of the protest, is guilty of conspiracy to commit criminal acts, rather than merely organizing an innocent little march that got out of hand.”
I don’t know if BCCLA lawyers were retained as counsel (or whatever the terminology is) before Saturday’s protest, so I can’t say whether revealing the request was a violation of attorney-client privilege. But at a minimum, there was an expectation that the BCCLA would be called upon to represent the protesters. Since David Eby’s revelation undermines the protesters’ ability to defend themselves in court, I consider his revelation unethical.
As for civil vs. criminal disobedience, I’d roughly and loosely define the difference as expressing your rights, vs committing harm. Expressing your right to speak, or walk, even into a restricted area, is civil disobedience. As soon as you commit a harm (be it physical or economic), you’ve moved beyond mere civil disobedience.
What gave Thoreau a “right” not to pay his taxes? Arguably his action harmed the American government’s ability to fight the Mexican-American War. (A minimal harm, true — but it’s not like one broken window is going to have a noticeable impact on HBC’s bottom line.)
Thoreau not only refused to pay his taxes, but he presented himself to take on the consequences of his actions. Your reference to tear gas is irrelevant. I also don’t see the relevance of security cameras.
My point is that the potential consequences for Thoreau were far less severe than the consequences for the black bloc. When Thoreau refused to pay his taxes and openly admitted doing so, he knew that at worst, he’d spend a little time in jail. Once released, he’d be free to move over to the next state and no one would be the wiser. By contrast, when protesters take to the streets these days, they face the direct threat of physical violence from the cops (aside from their ability to deploy tear gas, which is not exactly fun for those on the receiving end, remember that half the RCMP riot cops weren’t wearing their badge numbers, as I observed above). If they’re convicted and go to jail because the cops were able to identify them (thanks to those security cameras I mentioned), that conviction will hang over their heads for the rest of their lives; it will be harder for them to get a job or cross the border. It also means there will be one less person around to fight for the things anarchists fight for, which is not insignificant considering how small the anarchist movement is. Moreover, when the authorities know exactly who did what, they can use that knowledge to pressure individual protesters into betraying their friends; again, this undermines the larger movement.
In other words, the existence of a billion-dollar security apparatus changes the rules, and I don’t think the black bloc’s decision to disguise themselves necessarily means they lack integrity — whatever that might mean in this context. Speaking of which…
I never said that they were cowards, and I’d appreciate words not being put in my mouth. I said that the lacked integrity, which is to say that if they believed that they were on the side of justice, they would act without the face masks and present themselves to the courts for trial. Knowing that ones actions have consequences, it is a mark of integrity to accept the consequences (and yes: denounce them), not hide from them.
You complain when I say you’re calling the black bloc cowards, but then you criticize them for “hiding” from the consequences of their actions. The trouble I’m having here is that “integrity” is such a slippery word that it’s practically meaningless. If you meant that the protesters’ actions should be consistent and reflect their ideals (which is one way that I’d define integrity), then I’d agree that that’s important and argue that there is no inconsistency in the black bloc’s choice of tactics. But I don’t think that’s what you’re saying. You obviously believe it’s more admirable to go to jail than to disguise yourself so you can keep fighting for your cause. I believe it would be foolish and counterproductive for protesters to willingly sacrifice themselves on the altar of the very system they are protesting, especially since they’re not going to win anyone over to their cause through such a sacrifice.
I believe that I misunderstand (if I misunderstand) their tactics and intentions because they have completely failed to express them in a meaningful and rational way. I’ve read the communique linked below, and it’s a stream of babble. It’s incoherent nonsense, full of emotional arguments and rhetoric.
HBC got its windows smashed; it is a sponsor of the Olympics and is making huge profits from the sale of Olympic paraphernalia. Newspaper boxes were pulled into the streets, blocking traffic; the protesters were explicitly trying to block the route up to Whistler, thus disrupting the Games (this was explained in the handouts distributed at the start of the action and in the video I posted two days ago, though the mainstream media may have chosen to ignore it so they could present the action as senseless violence). While they marched, the protesters chanted things like “No Olympics on stolen native land!” and “Homes not Games!”; if you live in BC you should already know what they’re talking about, but if you don’t, try reading this statement on the Olympic Resistance Network’s website. If you’re not clear on what the black bloc tactic is all about in general, well, Google is your friend.
That said, you’re not alone in finding with the black bloc’s actions questionable. Even some anti-Olympic activists have issues with them. Heck, I’m not sold on them myself, even though I’m willing to defend the people who participated in them — and, obviously, more than willing to call out the BCCLA for failing to do so.
I’m assuming Mr Eby is a criminal defense attorney. He should know better than to make statements which could help the prosecution to inflame juries against possible future clients or the associates of future clients. He also may have prejudiced the interests of possible future clients; all the prosecution has to do is to show that his client was in some way associated with the Black Bloc or was an anarchist, or cast his client in that light, and then use Mr Eby’s remarks to prejudice the jury in opening or closing arguments. Mr Eby’s remarks disqualify him as counsel for anyone arrested at the Games, in my not so very humble opinion.
As for attorneys being legal observers, it’s problematic at best. There’s a distinct possibility that they might be called as a witness to testify against their own client; since the demonstration occurred in a public place and there is no expectation of privacy and no attorney-client privilege can apply. It’s also possible that they might be called to testify against someone else who might turn State’s evidence against their own client, or incriminate their own client in order to plead out and avoid a harsh penalty. The best thing that attorneys can do is to *train* legal observers, not to do it themselves. I’d train them to observe facts and fact patterns that could be used as testimony which could show that there was no probable cause to make an arrest, or something else which could be of use to a defense attorney in making a case to a jury to get their client acquitted. I’d train them to avoid trying to make legal judgments about facts and fact patterns, just to personally observe pertinent facts about the situation and to document those facts at the time of observation or as soon as possible thereafter, write the facts and patterns down on a standard form, write down the date and time and location, and have a witness (or witnesses) who observed the action sign off on the report, giving their contact info. As a defense attorney, that kind of information is worth its weight in gold, but only from non-attorney observers.
It is pretty clear that the condemnation of the protesters was wrong. What is interesting is that the legal observers chose not to attend the one event that they were most needed at.
Many people participating were not aware of communication between BCCLA and ORN, and were probably expecting the legal observers to be attending. ORN was not the only or “official” organizer, and the other groups, independent citizens and media would have benefited from their presence.
Although it seems bizarre to me, I suppose the safety of the observers could be used as a valid excuse for them not too attend, but I have yet to hear a clear explanation or statement from BCCLA. I thing transparency is something that they should appreciate, and will be essential for them if they want to have the faith of the communities that need them (although that may not be the communities that would fund them).
I really appreciate your thoughts on this issue, it is an important one that didn’t really seem to hit too many peoples radar. Hopefully after the Olympics, people will reflect on this. I for one, learned a lot that day (more from reactions than the actual events) and have changed my mind about a few things.
I think every “protest” benefits from legal observation. streamfortyseven makes some good points about an attorneys role. From what I saw, the police and protesters generally acted appropriately, which kept things relatively peaceful – unless you consider a few scuffles and broken windows a big deal (which i suppose Dave Eby did and mistakenly felt was ok to say publicly).
This is likely to be long. You seem to have a lot of presuppositions here (I’m not saying that as if they are wrong, just letting you know that I still don’t see your justification for your position), so I’m going to do my best to push for them to be made explicit.
“Well, you’re the one who brought up the distinction between businesses and protesters, and I’d say it’s business interests rather than business “rights” that are already being protected”
And what, exactly, is wrong with ‘business interests’ being protected? Businesses are populated by human beings, and those human beings have rights and interests like you and I. Granted: if a particular interest is, itself, harmful, then it should be illegal and prosecuted. But assuming that no particular interests are harmful (and if you want to assert that they are, I’ll want the particulars), then why the complaint that they are being protected?
“In this society, the authorities will do what they can to defend the interests of businesses”
That would be a vast over-simplification. To the point of being blatantly wrong. Please cite specifics.
“whether that means sending in riot cops when their windows get broken”
Wait… I don’t have the right to stuff? I don’t have property rights? As a citizen of this nation (hell, as a *visitor* to *any* nation), I expect the authorities to deal with anyone who breaks my stuff….
Furthermore, why would my rights to stuff disappear if I incorporate? If I have some level of ownership in a corporation, why does that entitle me to less protection than (say) your personal front window? There seem to be some bizarre double-standards in play here that I don’t understand.
“running society at large for the benefit of those businesses and at the expense of ordinary people”
We agree on this point, ish. In kind, I suspect, but not in degree.
“the authorities will happily hide their badge numbers so they can kick the protesters’ asses with impunity”
Conversely, I know of a photographer who was presented with badge numbers when asked to present them.
“when ordinary people are arrested for their actions, the authorities will almost always throw the book at them, because they are challenging the system that the authorities exist to protect”
I don’t see the issue here: if those actions were illegal, then it is the job of the judiciary system to prosecute them to the full extent of the law. Again, your statements here imply the existence of a double-standard of which I am unfamiliar. Please elaborate.
“Given that kind of imbalance, I think the BCCLA is obliged to make a special effort to stand up for the rights of the protesters.”
Why? What promises did the BCCLA make for you to require of them so much?
“To put it another way, our rights — to free speech, to free assembly, to a fair trial — face their greatest threat when we choose to dissent.”
This is mere rhetoric.
Our rights face their greatest threat when we commit actions that we know, in advance, have the consequences of our rights being taken away. It’s already established in law that “breaking windows -> jail-time”. I don’t understand why it’s so surprising that when people break windows, they face jail-time. This law wasn’t invented on the spot. These people knew that they were breaking the law in the first place, hence the balaclavas…
“The protesters are dissenting, and so the BCCLA should do its best to defend their rights.”
Way to equivocate. I have *zero* issues with the peaceful protesters. I’m ***100%*** behind the peaceful protests. Please don’t equivocate and generalise when we’re clearly talking about (and *only* about) the violent protesters.
The violent protesters were not *merely* dissenting: they were violent.
Skipping more rhetoric…
“Prosecutor to jury: “We know that some protesters specifically asked legal observers to stay away from this protest. The only reason they would make that request is so that they could smash windows and turn over newspaper boxes without being observed. This clearly shows that the accused, as the organizer of the protest, is guilty of conspiracy to commit criminal acts, rather than merely organizing an innocent little march that got out of hand.””
And?
This isn’t incriminating. Incriminating is that which makes you a criminal. Evidence of the breaking of the window is incriminating. Statements like the above are *rhetoric* designed to bias the jury. And yes: it will likely have some success.
This is what confuses me:
1. Bob tells Fred to stay away, because Bob may commit a crime.
2. Bob commits a crime.
3. Fred tells Sam that Bob told Fred to stay away, because Bob was thinking about committing a crime.
4. You condemn Fred, but not Bob.
Wtf?
Fred committed no crime. If Bob’s action was wrong, then Bob is responsible for the incrimination. If Bob didn’t do something wrong, then Bob has nothing to fear. In neither case did Fred do something wrong (assuming Fred made no promises which were subsequently broken).
“Since David Eby’s revelation undermines the protesters’ ability to defend themselves in court, I consider his revelation unethical.”
You’re going to have to elaborate on this: assuming that they were going to tell the truth, how does Eby’s actions undermine their position?
Assuming they were going to lie, that makes *their* actions unethical, not Eby’s.
Regarding ‘unethical’, I don’t think that word means what you think it means.
“What gave Thoreau a “right” not to pay his taxes?”
I didn’t say that he did. Please don’t put words in my mouth. He clearly didn’t, but chose to do so anyway and owned up to the consequences.
You have a large paragraph here which I’m going to sum up as: the consequences of breaking the law suck.
To which I respond: then don’t break the law.
Let me be clear, lest some sort of misunderstanding creep in: I am not saying “don’t ever break the law”. I’m saying “If you are not prepared to deal with the consequences of law-breaking, then do not break the law”.
Yes, it’s *that* simple. If you genuinely feel that breaking the law is necessary to rectify or draw attention to some sort of injustice then do it, and have the courage of your convictions to stand tall as you are arrested. Use that situation as a podium from which to denounce that podium.
Anything short of that is just bullshit.
That said, I’m open to hearing any justification for avoiding the legal consequences. Note: “because I don’t like the consequences” is a given, not a justification.
“If you meant that the protesters’ actions should be consistent and reflect their ideals (which is one way that I’d define integrity), then I’d agree that that’s important and argue that there is no inconsistency in the black bloc’s choice of tactics.”
That is precisely how I’m defining integrity.
Interesting: so, ‘justice’ isn’t one of their ideals?
Or are you proposing that ‘justice’ is not a component of our legal system? I foresee an up-hill struggle if you wish to argue that point.
“especially since they’re not going to win anyone over to their cause through such a sacrifice.”
Interesting. That whole “letter from a Birmingham Prison” didn’t win anyone over either, right?
Oh, wait…
Cynicism isn’t an argument, it’s merely an attitude.
“HBC got its windows smashed; it is a sponsor of the Olympics and is making huge profits from the sale of Olympic paraphernalia. Newspaper boxes were pulled into the streets, blocking traffic; the protesters were explicitly trying to block the route up to Whistler, thus disrupting the Games (this was explained in the handouts distributed at the start of the action and in the video I posted two days ago, though the mainstream media may have chosen to ignore it so they could present the action as senseless violence). While they marched, the protesters chanted things like “No Olympics on stolen native land!” and “Homes not Games!”; if you live in BC you should already know what they’re talking about, but if you don’t, try reading this statement on the Olympic Resistance Network’s website. If you’re not clear on what the black bloc tactic is all about in general, well, Google is your friend.”
Statements of fact, by themselves, do not an explanation make.
Please (and here’s that word again) justify their actions.
Things to be aware of: two wrongs don’t make a right (otherwise known as the Tit for Tat Fallacy. Google is your friend too).
Your ‘calling out’ of the BCCLA still seems to lack justification.
A long time ago, there was a ship in Boston Harbor belonging to the British East India Company, whose cargo of tea, worth several millions of dollars in todays money, was dumped into Boston Harbor by 40 or 50 people in “Indian” disguise… It was an early example of a “black bloc” tactic, except that they didn’t have hoodies or black jeans and scarves. The same group, known as the Sons of Liberty and led by a Bostonian named Samuel Adams, broke into Governor Hutchinson’s house one fine day, proceeded to bash out all the windows, smash the furniture and throw it out the windows where it was used for firewood, use the linens to wipe their arses with, and generally destroy the place. They also tarred, feathered, and forced Stamp Tax collectors to ride out of town on the sharp end of a fence rail. The present Black Bloc is but a very mild and civilized version of the Sons of Liberty. All of the petitions of protest to the Crown were ignored, Franklin was hooted and jeered at Court, but the Boston Tea Party really helped to crystallize matters in the minds of what were to become Americans, the British Crown and its corporate supporters and financiers, and those who did not support the Sons of Liberty or their more moderate confreres. Without such actions, there would have been no speech by Patrick Henry, no Declaration of Independence… no vision of freedom and political liberty, and certainly no realization of it.
Would you like some more explanation?
Thinking about the issue some more, I think the following distinction is in order:
Protest is the action of asking the established government to change its policy, by showing that a large percentage of the population are in favor of the change in policy, usually by massing large numbers of people in the streets, having speeches, carrying signs, and the like. It’s also an attempt to use the popular media to spread the message and get more people to support the cause.
In a democratic/republican society, where there’s representative government and recognition by the government of the popular will through elections and the right to free speech, petition for redress of grievances, freedom of the press and so on, demonstrations are effective, because they get listened to and noticed. Vietnam War demonstrations had a huge role in bringing the Vietnam War to a halt; the same goes for the massive demonstrations of the Civil Rights movements in the 1960s.
Protest is only effective where the government respects the right to protest and the media is relatively free and honest. “Free Speech Zones” and media censorship by omission make protest a futile tactic and end up destroying true representative government.
I don’t think the Black Bloc is doing “protest”. I think, as I stated above, that they’re inherently revolutionary in nature, that they want to bring down the government or change it because they see government as the enemy. The old saying that a conservative is a liberal who’s been robbed at gunpoint could be paraphrased into “an anarchist is a peaceful demonstrator who’s been gassed and clubbed to the ground”
As for legal observers, they’re not revolutionaries. They’re part of the system, still, because they’re helping attorneys, who are “officers of the court” and sworn to obey the law and uphold the constitution, do their job of ensuring that the government obeys its own rules.
Legal observers are present to help ensure that the police do not go beyond their constitutional powers, that they do not turn into a government-sanctioned army of thugs and bullies who will do nothing but engender further violence and violent reaction by excessive use of force against demonstrators or by falsely arresting people innocent of criminal action or by using intimidation to suppress free speech.
It is not the role of legal observers or “civil rights” organizations to judge which protestors are “good” and which are “bad” or which actions are “good” or “bad”; that’s for the prosecutors to do, in league with the police. For someone in charge of a “civil rights” organization to make this sort of public pronouncement is unconscionable and unethical, and he should be removed from his position forthwith.
And what, exactly, is wrong with ‘business interests’ being protected?
Nothing at all, assuming those interests are not themselves harmful. But it’s not the job of a civil liberties organization to defend business interests. It’s the job of a civil liberties organization to defend civil liberties, and that means standing up for the rights of protesters, including the right to a fair trial when protesters break the law. Eby’s comments actively hindered that, as I tried to show earlier and try to show again below.
“In this society, the authorities will do what they can to defend the interests of businesses”
That would be a vast over-simplification. To the point of being blatantly wrong. Please cite specifics.
One example, off the top of my head: ACTA. Big business has had privileged access to the ACTA treaty process from the beginning, while civil society groups (which are concerned, among other things, about chilling effects on free speech and freedom from unreasonable searches at the border) have been deliberately excluded. Another example: the Safe Streets Coalition — whose members included the Downtown Vancouver Business Improvement Association, the BC Chamber of Commerce, and other business groups — successfully pushed for the passage of legislation like the Safe Streets Act; now the authorities enforce these laws, while objections from groups like Pivot (whose arguments are based in part on the notion of fundamental freedoms) are effectively ignored.
Please understand, I’m not trying to argue that the authorities should never defend the interests of businesses. Nor am I saying that the authorities always serve those interests and never any others. I’m saying that, in my experience, the authorities will all too often prioritize business interests over the rights of the public — and a group like the BCCLA should be taking that imbalance into account when it decides where to focus its energies. Specifically, I think civil liberties groups should make a special effort to defend the rights of those whose positions and actions are unpopular. That means not going out of their way to demonize the black bloc.
“whether that means sending in riot cops when their windows get broken”
Wait… I don’t have the right to stuff? I don’t have property rights? As a citizen of this nation (hell, as a *visitor* to *any* nation), I expect the authorities to deal with anyone who breaks my stuff….
I did not say “The cops should not prevent protesters from smashing windows.” I said “When the cops prevent protesters from smashing windows, they are defending a particular set of interests.” As I said above, defending those interests is not necessarily wrong in itself.
“the authorities will happily hide their badge numbers so they can kick the protesters’ asses with impunity”
Conversely, I know of a photographer who was presented with badge numbers when asked to present them.
So? They have no reason to hide their badge numbers from photographers, unless a photographer caught them doing something wrong. They hide their badge numbers so that protesters who see them do something wrong can’t hold them accountable for it. That is deeply troubling, and I hope the BCCLA follows up on it.
This isn’t incriminating. Incriminating is that which makes you a criminal. Evidence of the breaking of the window is incriminating. Statements like the above are *rhetoric* designed to bias the jury. And yes: it will likely have some success.
First, it is incriminating as evidence of premeditation, if the Crown decides to upgrade its charges from mere vandalism (mischief under $5000) to conspiracy to riot, or whatever the equivalent is under Canadian law.
Second, BCCLA has been providing legal support to protesters. They should not be giving prosecutors ammunition for biasing the jury against the very people they’ve already agreed to defend.
1. Bob tells Fred to stay away, because Bob may commit a crime.
2. Bob commits a crime.
3. Fred tells Sam that Bob told Fred to stay away, because Bob was thinking about committing a crime.
4. You condemn Fred, but not Bob.
I see it like this:
1. A big party comes to town. To help it run smoothly, the authorities take actions that undermine/violate people’s rights.
2. Alice and Bob organize themselves to protest the party.
3. Fred, a lawyer whose business it is to defend people’s rights, establishes a relationship with Alice and Bob whereby he provides them with legal support.
4. Bob tells Fred to stay away from his protest, because Bob may commit a crime. Fred agrees.
5. Bob commits a crime during his protest.
6. Fred tells Sam, a reporter, that Bob told Fred to stay away, because Bob was thinking about committing a crime. Moreover, Fred says he was “sickened” by Bob’s actions. This violates the privileged relationship Fred established with Bob in step #3.
7. I condemn Fred. Everybody else, including Fred, is already falling over themselves to condemn Bob.
My concern (well, one of them) is with step #6. When a lawyer defends someone, they are obligated not to divulge information that can hurt the defendant’s chances in court. By establishing a relationship with Bob, Fred took on that obligation. By speaking out about what Bob told him — by going out of his way to publicly put Bob in a bad light — Fred violated his obligation.
“What gave Thoreau a “right” not to pay his taxes?”
I didn’t say that he did. Please don’t put words in my mouth. He clearly didn’t, but chose to do so anyway and owned up to the consequences.
You distinguished civil disobedience, which involves “expressing your rights,” from criminal disobedience, which involves “committing harm.” You did this to separate real civil disobedience, which you had been using Thoreau as an example of, from the actions of the black bloc. If that’s not what you meant, then I apologize for putting words in your mouth. But if you do consider Thoreau an example of criminal rather than civil disobedience, why make the distinction in the first place? I mean, if you’re pro-Thoreau but consider Thoreau’s action to be criminal disobedience, you can’t condemn the black bloc on the same grounds.
If you genuinely feel that breaking the law is necessary to rectify or draw attention to some sort of injustice then do it, and have the courage of your convictions to stand tall as you are arrested. Use that situation as a podium from which to denounce that podium.
I gave several reasons why the black bloc might think that this tactic would not serve their larger goals. What I don’t understand is why you feel the go-to-jail tactic is the only acceptable one. Seriously, I don’t get it, and I am genuinely interested in hearing reasons for that position (beyond “Thoreau and MLK did it”).
“If you meant that the protesters’ actions should be consistent and reflect their ideals (which is one way that I’d define integrity), then I’d agree that that’s important and argue that there is no inconsistency in the black bloc’s choice of tactics.”
That is precisely how I’m defining integrity.
Interesting: so, ‘justice’ isn’t one of their ideals?
Speaking of putting words in people’s mouths… I don’t think the black bloc’s actions were inconsistent with their ideals or their sense of justice. They believe the Olympics hurt communities and that they have the moral right to respond by destroying the property of large capitalist organizations like HBC which support and profit from the Olympics, or by pulling corporate-owned newspaper boxes into “our streets” to disrupt the Games. Their actions aren’t consistent with your ideals, but that’s not the same thing.
“especially since they’re not going to win anyone over to their cause through such a sacrifice.”
Interesting. That whole “letter from a Birmingham Prison” didn’t win anyone over either, right?
I’d say MLK’s Letter from Birmingham Jail is an exceptional case. Yes, I’m cynical on this particular point. I’d be glad to be proven wrong.
Statements of fact, by themselves, do not an explanation make.
My statements of fact were a response to your claim that the black bloc folks “have completely failed to express [their tactics and intentions] in a meaningful and rational way.” I was trying to show that the reasons for their actions are not irrational or difficult to understand. Whether they’re justified is a separate question which I was not trying to address with that paragraph.
two wrongs don’t make a right
I agree, and I don’t see how my position depends on that fallacy. I am making the following arguments:
1. The BCCLA should be defending all protesters, including those who have broken the law. It has a special obligation to defend those who dissent from the existing social system, because that system provides less protection for such dissenters. The BCCLA should not be drawing a line between “good” and “bad” protesters and speaking out against the latter for wearing masks and breaking windows.
2. David Eby should not have publicly stated that some protesters asked BCCLA’s observers to stay away from Saturday’s protest, because it harms the chances in court of people the BCCLA has been assisting. For a lawyer, that is unethical.
3. While I don’t necessarily agree with the black bloc’s tactics, I think they are rationally defensible. In particular, I don’t think their decision to wear disguises in itself invalidates their actions. To put it another way, I am arguing that their actions are justifiable: they follow logically from the protesters’ initial premises. I am ambivalent about whether their actions are justified, which would be true only if you accept those initial assumptions and believe that less extreme tactics alone would be insufficient; I’m not trying to make that case per se, only to show why and how some folks are making it.
Where in there am I saying that two wrongs make a right?
Google is your friend too
Well-played, sir.
streamfortyseven, you make a strong case. That bit about “the black bloc aren’t protesters, they’re revolutionaries” is thought-provoking; I’ll have to mull that one over for a while. And I find the Boston Tea Party analogy very compelling. Thanks!
Conversely, I find the Boston Tea Party example to be nothing but rhetoric. Appealing to Emotions is a fallacy, and that’s the sum of the cited example.
I’ll respond to the longer post when I have time this evening.
This post got posted to the Vancouver Media Coop website, and subsequently quoted (with incorrect attribution) in an interesting article in the Tyee about divisions over diversity of tactics among anti-Olympic activists.
Apparently someone threw a pie at David Eby over this. Not very nice of them, but Eby took it in stride.
Brian Lynchehaun, you said
“Once you start breaking windows, you are no longer committing civil disobedience, but criminal disobedience. Integrity demands (as per Thoreau) that one stands up and takes responsibility for ones crimes, and not hide under a balaclava (or avoid the cameras).
As soon as a window is broken, you are demanding that the BCCLA be complicit in the crime. Unacceptable.”
I could write a bunch about this, but I’ll just get to the point(s). (1) Your argument assumes that the legality of an action determines its moral value. (2) It also assumes that everyone thinks that damaging private property is unethical. (3) Thoreau’s view on integrity is just an opinion of his personal moral system, and doesn’t necessarily have to be shared by everyone. (4) You’re asking people who are on your side to face the law, a law that those “criminals” think is unjust. I don’t understand why someone who disagrees with a law is willing to be subject to it. Would you tell the people who helped prisoners in concentration camps escape to “take responsibility” and accept their punishment to maintain their integrity? I don’t think so.
In all honesty, your simple minded opinion makes me really upset; mostly because I have to take it personally, because if it were the case, you’d be asking me to face prison time too, even when what I did was ethically correct to me.
I suggest you get off your moral high horse; every type of civil disobedience is criminal. If it weren’t, it wouldn’t be disobedience.
Oh and just so you know, the only “integrity” Thoreau had to ever face was one night in jail. Not thousands of dollars on a ticket, not a ruined career because of criminal records, not years of rape and harassment in prison, not a police beating, nothing. One night in prison.
(1) No, it doesn’t. Please try again.
(2) No, it doesn’t. Please try again.
(3) I agree. So what?
(4) I agree. So what?
My ‘simple minded opinion’ is the result of long periods of study on the subject of Ethics. If you committed a crime: please, take my opinion personally, because it’s about you.
I’m sorry that you are of the opinion that an emotional appeal counts as some sort of justifying argument: you are mistaken.
Also, you’ve managed to Godwin the thread. Good job.
If this is the level of thought that is ‘representing’ me on the streets of Vancouver: please, get off the streets. I do not wish to be represented by you, or people who think like this. I do not give you permission to represent me. I did not vote for you. You did not ask my permission to represent me. You do not speak for me, and I revoke any and all permission you believe (incorrectly) you may have.
Is that clear?
Wonderfully insightful article and even better for the discussion between Brian and Jeff!
If either of you would like to contact me to continue this on a different forum. I would greatly appreciate the opportunity to dive deeper into this discussion.
Finally catching up…
streamfortyseven:
I agree with your definition of protest.
“Protest is only effective where the government respects the right to protest and the media is relatively free and honest. “Free Speech Zones” and media censorship by omission make protest a futile tactic and end up destroying true representative government.”
While I agree with your description here, I do not agree with your implication that this is the case in Vancouver.
You have over-simplified the situation.
“I don’t think the Black Bloc is doing “protest”. I think, as I stated above, that they’re inherently revolutionary in nature, that they want to bring down the government or change it because they see government as the enemy.”
I agree on all counts. I shall not offer an opinion on whether they are right, or idiots.
“an anarchist is a peaceful demonstrator who’s been gassed and clubbed to the ground”
Over-simplified rhetoric.
I agree with your definition of “Legal Observer”.
So…
Given that “Legal Observers”, as defined by you, are there to look after the “protesters”, as defined by you, and that Black Bloc isn’t protesting (as per you), then what is your complaint?
Regardless of the nonsense of your actual argument (in which your stated conclusion is the exact opposite of what your stated premises lead to): we, as in everyone, have an ethical obligation to evaluate *everyone* around us all the damn time. To claim that the “legal observers” should shut their eyes so that they can’t tell the difference between a violent thug and a peaceful activist… That’s just gibberish. I’d need some sort of justification for that, and not just you defining it into “legal observer”…
Jeff:
It’s the job of a civil liberties organization to defend civil liberties
Interesting.
At what point did a right to own property cease being a civil liberty?
You seem to see some sort of disconnect between “business interests” and “civil liberties”. Could you elaborate on that? From where I sit, they’re on the same continuum.
Eby’s comments actively hindered that, as I tried to show earlier and try to show again below.
You have, thus far, failed to do so.
Big business has had privileged access to the ACTA treaty process from the beginning, while civil society groups (which are concerned, among other things, about chilling effects on free speech and freedom from unreasonable searches at the border) have been deliberately excluded.
1) “Big business” is conspiracy-speak. It’s up there with “big pharma” and “big tobacco”. This is emotional language designed to bias your argument.
2) Businesses *are* civil society groups. If disagree, then I’d ask you to differentiate the two in some meaningful way.
3) This doesn’t have anything to do with your point that “the authorities will do what they can to defend the interests of businesses”. It just doesn’t follow.
Another example: the Safe Streets Coalition — whose members included the Downtown Vancouver Business Improvement Association, the BC Chamber of Commerce, and other business groups — successfully pushed for the passage of legislation like the Safe Streets Act; now the authorities enforce these laws, while objections from groups like Pivot (whose arguments are based in part on the notion of fundamental freedoms) are effectively ignored.
This would be a far better example if it were true.
Except that the Safe Streets Coalition includes a whole bunch of “Civil Society Groups”. http://www.safestreetscoalition.com/members.html
Here’s the fundamental disconnect that I’m seeing:
Businesses *are* people. People want to do stuff, and they are working together in groups (ie corporations et al) to do stuff. This is business.
Business interests *are* the interests of the citizens of the country. They tend to be organised, and focused, which is why they tend to be successful, while a bunch of people doing stuff haphazardly tend not to be. The other advantage is that people in a corporate venture are paid to pursue those interests full time, while people pursuing a civil rights venture aren’t generating a revenue and thus can’t afford to pursue it full time.
So there’s a clear imbalance between the tensions, sure.
But that doesn’t automatically make “business interests” opposite to civil rights. This (incorrect) dichotomy seems to underly your entire site, not just this post and subsequent comments.
I did not say “The cops should not prevent protesters from smashing windows.” I said “When the cops prevent protesters from smashing windows, they are defending a particular set of interests.” As I said above, defending those interests is not necessarily wrong in itself.
Your post and subsequent comments seem to imply that it is necessarily wrong in itself.
The fact is that cops come when *anyone’s* windows get broken. Businesses are not getting any special interest or help here, over that of other citizens. If you don’t believe that the cops aren’t being unequal here, then why bring it up as a response?
Your response just doesn’t add up.
They hide their badge numbers so that protesters who see them do something wrong can’t hold them accountable for it. That is deeply troubling, and I hope the BCCLA follows up on it.
If that’s the case, then I completely agree with you. There were similar issues in Ireland a few years back.
First, it is incriminating as evidence of premeditation, if the Crown decides to upgrade its charges from mere vandalism (mischief under $5000) to conspiracy to riot, or whatever the equivalent is under Canadian law.
We’ll have to agree to disagree on this for now. When the case comes around, feel free to “I told you so” should it be presented as *evidence* (and not merely used as rhetoric).
Second, BCCLA has been providing legal support to protesters. They should not be giving prosecutors ammunition for biasing the jury against the very people they’ve already agreed to defend.
I don’t understand where this notion of ‘the BCCLA must help, period, and must not harm, period, the protesters’ comes from.
Members of the BCCLA are still human beings, and still entitled to exercise their free will. That you don’t like something doesn’t mean that it’s unethical, and you have yet to even come close to making a case for that. (‘should’ implies an ethical claim)
The BCCLA may have agreed to provide legal assistance to protesters, but that doesn’t entail that this assistance is without limit or bounds. According to Eby in a video release (http://rabble.ca/rabbletv/program-guide/2010/02/features/bc-cilvil-liberties-eby-defends-his-criticism-protesters), Black Bloc were witnessed ambushing and beating police officers who were merely standing back and observing Black Bloc. At that point you cease to be someone ‘merely’ protesting, and have become a criminal.
But if you do consider Thoreau an example of criminal rather than civil disobedience, why make the distinction in the first place? I mean, if you’re pro-Thoreau but consider Thoreau’s action to be criminal disobedience, you can’t condemn the black bloc on the same grounds.
I agree with your reasoning, but disagree with your analysis.
Thoreau refrained from giving money to the US Govt. “Not acting” is never harmful in and of itself. Watching someone drown at your feet is not a harm (as heartless as we may feel that that person is), that person is *not* being killed by your inaction.
Harms are positive actions, things that you *do*. Breaking windows, attacking police. Harmful acts. As a simple rule of thumb, if the action results in blood or broken glass, then it’s probably a harm.
I gave several reasons why the black bloc might think that this tactic would not serve their larger goals.
I don’t dispute that their going to jail isn’t *practical*, and doesn’t contribute to their “larger goals”.
To lay out my underlying premises:
If you reject the idea of “society” as a whole, then you’re basically an anarchist, and I have no time for you.
If you reject *this* society on the whole, but think that it can be changed through engagement, or if you agree with the existence of the society that is in place, though you may disagree with some instances of policy, then in both cases it’s implied that you accept the idea of “rule of law” as necessary to the maintenance of that society.
Given that you feel that *certain* laws are unjust, and you wish to break them to draw attention to them, then you must adhere to the ones you acknowledge as just. Otherwise, you are no different from any other criminal who simply breaks laws as the inconvenience arises.
This is basically the point: integrity, showing that you are not a mere criminal but are someone who is acting for a higher purpose, requires you to adhere to those laws that are inconvenient in order for you to demonstrate that you’re in this for the people and not mere for *yourself*.
If you recognise property rights in general, then you are beholden to recognise the property right of that group of people who incorporated under the name of HBC. That is integrity. You may break the window to demonstrate a greater purpose, but you present yourself for trial because you recognise the rule of law, itself, as valid.
If you reject the rule of law (and we’re assuming a non-totalitarian state like Canada), then you’re merely a mongrel making excuses.
I don’t think the black bloc’s actions were inconsistent with their ideals or their sense of justice.
Then I’d like to hear their ideals, and their sense of justice, articulated. Because I cannot see how their actions are compatible with any meaningful concept of justice.
They believe the Olympics hurt communities and that they have the moral right to respond by destroying the property of large capitalist organizations like HBC which support and profit from the Olympics, or by pulling corporate-owned newspaper boxes into “our streets” to disrupt the Games.
Oh, I see.
Because they don’t like something, they have the right to attack it.
Gotcha.
This would not be a “meaningful” sense of justice. This would be a “fucktard” definition of justice.
Their actions aren’t consistent with your ideals, but that’s not the same thing.
Relativism?
Really?
You’re not seriously going to making claims to the existence of moral relativism? Because that would be a waste of everybodys time…
I was trying to show that the reasons for their actions are not irrational or difficult to understand.
You failed to show any reasons.
You stated their actions. I can see that you’re trying to imply some ‘stuff’, but Tit for Tat is not a valid strategy (breaking a few windows scares the crap out of the citizenry, but doesn’t really impact HBC’s profit margins).
1. The BCCLA should be defending all protesters, including those who have broken the law. It has a special obligation to defend those who dissent from the existing social system, because that system provides less protection for such dissenters. The BCCLA should not be drawing a line between “good” and “bad” protesters and speaking out against the latter for wearing masks and breaking windows.
I’m aware of your opinion. You’ve made your opinion clear (over and over again).
You haven’t, however, justified your opinion.
You haven’t, for example, justified why it is the BCCLA suddenly don’t have the right to judge a situation, and *must* involve themselves even if (hypothetically) the Black Bloc ritually murdered one of the police in the middle of Robson Square. That is where your argument leads.
For some bizarre reason, which you haven’t outlined, the BCCLA aren’t entitled to limit their help to (for example) people who aren’t fucktards.
2. David Eby should not have publicly stated that some protesters asked BCCLA’s observers to stay away from Saturday’s protest, because it harms the chances in court of people the BCCLA has been assisting.
I agree that with your descriptive statements. I agree tht this statement *may* harm the people who are going to court. I suspect it probably harms them less than (I don’t know) actually committing the crimes, but sure, it’s a bit harmful. So what?
For a lawyer, that is unethical.
Please don’t make me quote the Princess Bride at you again. (see comment 7)
3. While I don’t necessarily agree with the black bloc’s tactics, I think they are rationally defensible.
Good luck with that.
In particular, I don’t think their decision to wear disguises in itself invalidates their actions.
No, their actions are just plain invalid. Their choice to wear masks speaks to their character.
To put it another way, I am arguing that their actions are justifiable: they follow logically from the protesters’ initial premises.
Yes. I agree.
And killing someone also follows logically from the premise “I’m a moron, and I’m going to kill someone today”.
Their premises are unjustified.
Where in there am I saying that two wrongs make a right?
Their tactics are based on that premise. By saying that you’re ambivalent about the justification of their tactics you are saying that you are ambivalent about “two wrongs making a right” being a justification.
Brian,
I don’t want to get involved with the entire debate, but I have to voice my disagreement with at least one thing you say: businesses are emphatically NOT people. It may be (and likely almost always is) the case that small businesses, “Mom and Pop” businesses, can be treated as people (the owners / few employees), with interests that align with those of society. This doesn’t mean that major corporations, which are driven by the monetary interests of shareholders, can be treated in the same manner. I’m not suggesting that businesses don’t have property rights, but it is clearly the case (essentially by definition!) that private corporations do not share the same goals as society.
I’m also curious as what sort of a definition of harm you can come up with that inaction never causes harm. I think you are probably saying something along the lines of “only causal acts cause harm”, but once you phrase it that way it’s pretty clearly not true (“Guns don’t kill people, people kill people”).
[I've removed a malformed comment -- although the way the text got smaller and smaller until it disappeared would have been kind of awesome as an intentional meta-comment -- as well as the follow-up request to have that comment deleted. I'll update the HTML tips below for clarity. We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread.]
This comment is so long, I’m breaking it into sections! Brian, I hope I haven’t misrepresented any of your positions by doing this.
Whom Should the BCCLA Assist?
I don’t understand where this notion of ‘the BCCLA must help, period, and must not harm, period, the protesters’ comes from. [...] The BCCLA may have agreed to provide legal assistance to protesters, but that doesn’t entail that this assistance is without limit or bounds.
I hope it’s clear by now why I think the BCCLA should support protesters as its default position. But yes, sure, there are limits. The whole situation stems from a failure to clearly communicate those limits. The BCCLA said, “We will provide you with legal assistance,” but did not specify limits to its offer, so the protesters assumed they were covered. The BCCLA ought to have understood that they were making this assumption; it was an obvious assumption to make, and it’s part of a lawyer’s job to be aware of such assumptions on the part of their clients. Also, the Heart Attack action was explicitly advertised as allowing a “diversity of tactics.” It was a huge blunder on the BCCLA’s part not to realize that that could mean property damage and to inform the protesters of their position on that sort of thing. Honestly, why else would a group of protesters explicitly ask them not to send legal observers?
And yeah, the protest organizers bungled this one too. But they’re inexperienced at large-scale protesting so I think it’s excusable, whereas Eby and the BCCLA are professionals and the protesters were relying on them. So I think the ball was the BCCLA’s to drop.
All that stuff is bad enough on its own, but the BCCLA’s handling of the aftermath has only made things worse. Instead of just quietly telling the protesters, “Look, we can’t support you if you’re going to do stuff like this,” the BCCLA is now going out of its way to publicly demonize some of the very people they originally offered to support. And they’re not just saying, “Those tactics are illegal and we don’t support that,” they are using words like “sickened.” That’s why the protesters are describing Eby et al. as traitors: they promised support without specifying any limits, and now they’re actually publicly attacking them, in a way that could make things worse for the people facing charges (though I realize you feel the harm is negligible).
According to Eby in a video release [...], Black Bloc were witnessed ambushing and beating police officers who were merely standing back and observing Black Bloc. At that point you cease to be someone ‘merely’ protesting, and have become a criminal.
Yeah, there’s no excuse for physically attacking people who aren’t already attacking you (assuming that’s what actually happened). There’s a pretty clear distinction between assault and vandalism. If Eby and the BCCLA were merely criticizing acts like that, it would be one thing, although they’d still have an obligation to protect the attackers’ right to a fair trial and access to counsel, since people who commit assault still have rights. But they have been just as vehement about the vandalism, and they staked out their position before any assault allegations came to light.
You haven’t, for example, justified why it is the BCCLA suddenly don’t have the right to judge a situation, and *must* involve themselves even if (hypothetically) the Black Bloc ritually murdered one of the police in the middle of Robson Square. That is where your argument leads.
If the black bloc were to engage in ritual murder, I would expect the BCCLA to keep an eye on things to ensure that the murderers got a fair trial. And I would be disappointed in them if they went out of their way to publicly denounce ritual murder, because enough people would be doing it already. Should criminal defence lawyers go out of their way to denounce their acts that their clients stand accused of committing, or should they focus on defending their clients?
For some bizarre reason, which you haven’t outlined, the BCCLA aren’t entitled to limit their help to (for example) people who aren’t fucktards.
Even fucktards have rights. And if the BCCLA were to provide assistance to a fucktard, only to withdraw its assistance once the fucktard did something fucktarded, I’d be at least a little disappointed in them.
Please don’t make me quote the Princess Bride at you again.
Please explain to me why it’s not unethical for lawyers to reveal information that harms their clients’ chances in court.
Also, I have no problem with people quoting The Princess Bride at me. (Speaking of people dressing in black and wearing masks…)
Business Interests and Property Rights
At what point did a right to own property cease being a civil liberty?
Property rights are not mentioned in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but I guess the case could still be made. But do you seriously want to argue that every broken window is a civil liberties issue?
1) “Big business” is conspiracy-speak. It’s up there with “big pharma” and “big tobacco”. This is emotional language designed to bias your argument.
I could say “large, profit-motivated corporations and the organizations that represent them,” but “big business” is less of a mouthful. If my language is “emotional,” well, that’s because I think regulatory capture of the international intellectual property system (which is the example I gave) is a pretty serious issue, the more so because I find it symptomatic of a larger problem around the influence upon our political process of
big businesslarge, profit-motivated corporations and the organizations that represent them. I see no problem with using “rhetoric” in the service of my argument (as long as it’s not empty rhetoric, but that’s not the case here).2) Businesses *are* civil society groups. If disagree, then I’d ask you to differentiate the two in some meaningful way.
The fundamental and overriding concern of all businesses, especially large businesses, is profit. The fundamental and overriding concern of civil society groups is the common welfare of all, or at minimum the welfare of some subset of the population whose interests do not normally receive adequate consideration. The two groups have entirely different goals and motivations (although of course they do also share some interests); they should be differentiated for that reason.
3) This doesn’t have anything to do with your point that “the authorities will do what they can to defend the interests of businesses”. It just doesn’t follow.
I gave you a clear example of the authorities (in this case, the government officials in charge of ACTA negotiations) giving various large business organizations plenty of opportunity to promote their interests, while at the same time not only keeping the content of the negotiations secret from the general public but systematically excluding groups that speak up for the interests of those of us who don’t own large business organizations. How is that not an example of the authorities defending the interests of businesses?
Except that the Safe Streets Coalition includes a whole bunch of “Civil Society Groups”.
The vast majority of groups in the Safe Streets Coalition are business groups, not civil society groups. I count two residents’ associations (Yaletown and Citygate), the Block Watch Society of BC, and four municipalities, compared to sixty or so business groups. Who do you think has the loudest voice at that particular table?
Businesses *are* people. People want to do stuff, and they are working together in groups (ie corporations et al) to do stuff. [...] Business interests *are* the interests of the citizens of the country.
No. As Tyler points out, businesses (especially large businesses) are not people. Businesses employ and are owned by people, and it is the latter group that ultimately determines how a business goes about its business, which is the pursuit of profit. The interests of business owners qua business owners are therefore not the interests of the rest of us, who aren’t fundamentally concerned with any given business’s bottom line. Yes, those separate interests do sometimes overlap, and businesses often pursue profit in ways that benefit me — making the clothes I wear, selling me the food I eat, etc. But as my ACTA and Safe Streets examples illustrate, businesses also pursue profit in ways that don’t benefit me, ways that may even be directly opposed to my interests as a member of the public. And the ACTA example in particular shows that the state is perfectly willing to privilege business interests over the interests of ordinary people like me, even when doing so harms our interests; I obviously find this objectionable.
It’s not that business interests are necessarily diametrically opposed to ordinary people’s interests or to civil rights specifically. It’s that their interests are not ordinary people’s interests, and that their pursuit of their interests can harm ordinary people’s interests, and that the authorities are willing to put other interests before ordinary people’s interests.
Incidentally, the BCCLA agrees with me on this. Here’s an excerpt from the “About Us” page on the BCCLA website:
The BCCLA says here that it’s concerned with the rights of citizens; the rights of businesses are secondary (although they’re clearly willing to defend business rights when doing so serves citizens’ interests, as in the Little Sisters case). When those two sets of rights are at odds, the BCCLA is saying it sides with the citizens.
Here’s the short version: Broken windows are not a civil liberties issue, and therefore the BCCLA has no reason to go out of its way to tell the media that it’s “sickened” by the breaking of windows, especially when it has committed itself to defending the civil liberties of the people who broke them.
The fact is that cops come when *anyone’s* windows get broken. Businesses are not getting any special interest or help here, over that of other citizens. If you don’t believe that the cops aren’t being unequal here, then why bring it up as a response?
I mentioned it merely as one point on the continuum of “things the authorities will do to defend the interests of business,” in order to contrast that continuum as a whole (not that specific point on it) to the kinds of things those same authorities do that undermine the interests (and rights) of ordinary people who choose to protest. I’d say I did a bad job of it there, but I’ve illustrated the contrast in other ways since then.
The Rule of Law
If you reject the idea of “society” as a whole, then you’re basically an anarchist, and I have no time for you.
This is not what anarchists believe, with the possible exception of a few extremely fringe Stirnerite individualists. It’s so remote from how most anarchists (including the ones who were in the street last Saturday) would describe their beliefs that I’m forced to conclude you don’t actually know anything about anarchism. An Anarchist FAQ is a good place to learn more. I don’t mean to be snippy, it’s just that your understanding of anarchism is fundamentally mistaken and it’s causing you to misunderstand what the black bloc was up to.
If you reject *this* society on the whole, but think that it can be changed through engagement, or if you agree with the existence of the society that is in place, though you may disagree with some instances of policy, then in both cases it’s implied that you accept the idea of “rule of law” as necessary to the maintenance of that society.
Given that you feel that *certain* laws are unjust, and you wish to break them to draw attention to them, then you must adhere to the ones you acknowledge as just. Otherwise, you are no different from any other criminal who simply breaks laws as the inconvenience arises.
In my experience, when asked about the idea of the “rule of law,” anarchists respond with questions about who writes the laws and who enforces them and how to prevent the law from becoming a club that one group of people uses to oppress the others. Every anarchist I know rejects the criminal justice system in its current form; in that sense, for an anarchist, there are no “just laws” per se in this society, precisely because those laws do not exist independently of the criminal justice system. Of course, anarchists would agree with the principles of justice that underlie many laws, but from their perspective, what you’re saying is like expecting a sports team to participate in a game when they know the referees are corrupt and will make all their calls for the benefit of the other side.
If you recognise property rights in general, then you are beholden to recognise the property right of that group of people who incorporated under the name of HBC. That is integrity. You may break the window to demonstrate a greater purpose, but you present yourself for trial because you recognise the rule of law, itself, as valid.
I think I’m safe in saying that the black bloc folks who smashed HBC’s windows don’t recognize property rights in general. So they can avoid presenting themselves for trial without damaging their integrity (more on that word below).
If you reject the rule of law (and we’re assuming a non-totalitarian state like Canada), then you’re merely a mongrel making excuses.
How so? Anarchists who reject the rule of law do so for reasons of principle. Have you ever actually met an anarchist?
Because they don’t like something, they have the right to attack it. [...] This would not be a “meaningful” sense of justice. This would be a “fucktard” definition of justice.
I assume that for the black bloc, the organizations they attacked were already attacking them. That Anarchist FAQ that I linked to earlier explains this line of reasoning; for now, suffice to say that it is a line of reasoning, not something they pulled out of thin air so that they could go break shit without feeling bad about it.
Moral Questions
“Not acting” is never harmful in and of itself. Watching someone drown at your feet is not a harm (as heartless as we may feel that that person is), that person is *not* being killed by your inaction.
Harms are positive actions, things that you *do*. Breaking windows, attacking police. Harmful acts. As a simple rule of thumb, if the action results in blood or broken glass, then it’s probably a harm.
So, by your definition, letting someone drown when you could save them is not harmful, but breaking a window is harmful. Are you sure you want to be relying on this distinction?
A protester chains herself to a bulldozer to prevent the logging of an old-growth forest. Is that a harm-causing positive action or not? What if she just links arms with her fellow protesters?
In response to my comments on integrity, you wrote:
You’re not seriously going to making claims to the existence of moral relativism?
No, I’m not. What I’m claiming is that “integrity” is defined by consistency between one’s actions and one’s ideals. We’re not talking about your actions, so your ideals don’t affect whether the black bloc folks have integrity. I think “integrity” is too often misused as a specious euphemism for “agrees with my definition of right conduct” (in other words, it’s usually what you’d call rhetoric). If that’s all you really mean by it, then we can skip the semantic question and get back to arguing notions of right conduct, hopefully with less misleading language.
By saying that you’re ambivalent about the justification of their tactics you are saying that you are ambivalent about “two wrongs making a right” being a justification.
I am ambivalent about whether breaking a large corporation’s window as an act of protest is morally wrong in any significant way.
Mr Lynchehaun, you repeatedly mis-state my positions as well as those of others. I’m not sure whether this is intellectual dishonesty on your part, whether you suffer from premature senility, or whether you’re trying to pull a fast one given the limitations of this particular technology.
You state:
“Given that “Legal Observers”, as defined by you, are there to look after the “protesters”, as defined by you, and that Black Bloc isn’t protesting (as per you), then what is your complaint?”
Your “given” isn’t; it’s an egregious misrepresentation of my position. What I said was:
“Legal observers are present to help ensure that the police do not go beyond their constitutional powers, that they do not turn into a government-sanctioned army of thugs and bullies who will do nothing but engender further violence and violent reaction by excessive use of force against demonstrators or by falsely arresting people innocent of criminal action or by using intimidation to suppress free speech.”
Legal observers are present to look after the police, not protestors. They are tasked with ensuring that the police obey the law, and observing and recording violations of the law by the police. You, sir, are being deliberately bloody-minded and obtuse. I don’t think that’s “rhetoric” or “over-simplification”, that’s a plain fact given the nature of your postings here. Legal observers are necessary because the police and civil authority have a longstanding reputation for not playing by the rules, by trying to pull a fast one, by stealthily breaking laws. Legal observers are being used to shine the light of day onto police action, to ensure that criminal acts by law enforcement will come to light and not flourish in the darkness. They are also being used to put police on notice that their criminal acts and violations of civil rights will not go un-noticed, that their actions will bear potential legal consequences for them, personally, in the hope, perhaps vain, that the quality of policing will be improved, and that the civil authorities will play by their own declared rules instead of descending into lawlessness.
streamfortyseven:
I’m sorry, you’re absolutely right. I breezed over your definition of Legal Observer, and strawmanned/misrepresented your position as a result.
You have my unreserved apologies for that.
That said:
If the job of legal observers is to look after the police, then how (in any way) is it an ethical violation for them to make judgements about good/bad protesters?
My final paragraph (from above, minus the inflammatory crap) stands:
Regardless of your above argument: we, as in everyone, have an ethical obligation to evaluate *everyone* around us all the damn time. To claim that the “legal observers” should shut their eyes so that they can’t tell the difference between a violent thug and a peaceful activist… That’s just gibberish. I’d need some sort of justification for that, and not just you defining it into “legal observer”…
Incidentally, I don’t see where I’ve misrepresented anyone else’s position, nor have they (by which I mean Jeff) objected to my representations.
Furthermore, I’ve misrepresented your position once. Judging your post regarding the Boston Tea Party to be nothing but rhetoric isn’t mis-stating it, it’s passing a judgement.
It’s not useful for Legal Observers to make judgments about “good” and “bad” protestors because the observer is supposed to be observing police action, not making judgments about the actions of protestors which might constitute just cause for the police to act in a certain way.
It’s irrelevant and prejudicial. If I put a witness up on the stand for the defense, and I ask him, “What did you see the policeman do?” and he replies, “I saw the policeman crack him across the head with a police baton but he fully deserved it because he broke out a department store window…” then that defense witness has just screwed my client. The legal observer has just become a prosecution witness.
And he’s made an irrelevant judgment, that the protestor or anarchist or whatever has done something to make the police act against him. It’s really worthless opinion testimony, it’s a speculation as to why the police performed a certain action. That sort of testimony is for the policeman to make: “Why did you hit the protestor with your baton?” “I did so because the protestor was an imminent danger to others, or to myself, or because he was resisting me in the process of my arresting him.” The testimony of the Legal Observer just serves to inflame the jury, and it’s inadmissible speculation about the state of mind of the officer, who is presumably able to testify in person.
Look, there are sides to this. The legal system is an adversarial process. The legal observer is a defense witness, the police and law enforcement people are prosecution witnesses. The legal observer is present to aid the prospective defendant as a witness in asserting affirmative defenses such as constitutional rights violations, use of excessive force, and the like.
And, by the way, this isn’t an ethical violation, because the legal observer doesn’t have an ethical duty towards an attorney’s client. The attorney has an ethical duty, though: if he’s established an attorney-client relationship with a client or a set of potential clients (“call on us if you get arrested and we’ll represent you in court…”) or worse, (“we’ll serve as your defense counsel if you get arrested, just write our contact numbers on your arm and give us a call…”), there’s probably an attorney-client relationship established from the moment the prospective client is placed under arrest.
Part of that relationship is: “As a general principle, a lawyer has a duty to give undivided loyalty to every client.” It’s true in the US as well as Canada, you have an ethical duty not to screw your client. That means you can’t say, after an arrest has been made and the attorney-client relationship formed, that certain protestors were “bad” and broke laws and didn’t deserve your counsel.
It’s an expression of divided loyalty and conduct like this on the part of attorneys destroys faith in the legal system, on the part of people who never had much faith in the system to begin with. It’s poisonous, it’s treacherous, and it’s just plain wrong for an attorney to do this kind of thing. Better that he says nothing at all rather than this.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.