The pursuit of political liberty is difficult; the pursuit of liberty is made doubly difficult when the representatives of the battle are irresponsible. The currently processing case of Catherine Bleish is an excellent example of irresponsible behavior that is a) presented as being representative of liberty and liberty activists and b) defended by foolish, unthinkingly loyal activists. Such behavior harms the cause of liberty.

Miss Bleish is from my hometown, Kansas City, and is now based in my home State, Texas. She recently participated in an activism activity supporting the decriminalization of marijuana — a cause I, too, support. A man participating in the protest was arrested by undercover police officers. The activists, including Bleish, expressed verbally their opposition to the arrest. Ultimately, Bleish was also arrested… for disorderly conduct. She is requesting that concerned individuals call the police department involved and “demand” that the charges be dropped. She argues that her behavior was not disorderly. She argues that all activist-participants were behaving nonviolently.

I disagree.

Thankfully, Bleish was recording with her handheld camera. Also thankfully, the recording survived the process. The video is embedded below. My impressions of the situation are taken entirely from her blog and her video. I have deliberately not read any external arguments on the subject. I’ll announce my bias right now: I began watching her video prepared to be angered at inappropriate police behavior and was excited to see a young liberty activist in my home area. I found Bleish and her story via Facebook mutual friends. I entered the story predisposed to support her. I watched her evidence and wholeheartedly disagree with her story and her behavior.

What happened in that video? Here is a basic outline:

• Man arrested for behavior that occurred prior to start of recording (therefore unknown circumstances to me).
• Crowd and Bleish kept reasonable space while verbally protesting.
• Police escorted arrested man to their vehicle.
• Bleish and some crowd members followed very closely.
• Arrested man was placed in the vehicle. Crowd is very vocal, and some activists used rude words to express themselves.
• Bleish partially entered the police vehicle with at least her hand, arm, and camera, and probably her head and one shoulder.
• Bleish remained very physically close to the vehicle and the officer to whom it belonged, temporarily blocking the officer’s access to his vehicle.
• Bleish repeatedly made extremely personal comments to the officer, including: “Do you have children? They’re gonna smoke pot someday. You’ve probably smoked pot before.” Her volume increased and she began yelling at the officer within his personal space: “Do you have children? Do you have children? Do you have children? […] Your children will smoke pot someday! Do you want them in a cage?” Sections of these phrases were repeated, and Bleish’s tone increased in volume and strength.
• After having partially entered his vehicle, the officer exited the vehicle and walked past Bleish in order to communicate with the small group of activists blocking the vehicle from driving forward.
• The activists refused to move. The officer restrained one of them.
• Bleish physically stood over the restrained activist and the police officer while the officer handcuffed the activist.
• The group of activists surrounded the officer and the restrained activist.
• The officer and the restrained activist moved behind the car and away from the large group.
• Bleish followed them. She got so extraordinarily into the officer’s personal space that at one point the camera almost made contact with the officer’s cap. She was within inches of him for an extended period of time while yelling at him and making personal remarks about his potential behavior with his children.
• Another officer demands that Bleish and the others leave the officers’ personal space. Bleish refuses and she and the group continue to verbally harass the officers.
• Bleish was restrained.

Bleish and others declared at several points in the process that their activities were completely non-violent, but that is not true. Their invasion of individuals’ personal space while screaming personal verbal attacks and accusations is a form of violent activity. They were using their bodies to limit the activities of the police officers. That is textbook disorderly conduct and interference with police activity. It just is.

I have experienced another person using his body to restrain my movement; I have experienced it when physical conduct was made and when no physical conduct existed. Both types of situations were a form of violence. Neither type of situation was peaceful. That is what Bleish did: she initiated force by using her body to limit another person’s spacial freedom. In this case, that person(s) was a police officer. A police officer must be allowed to preserve his or her personal space because a police officer, by nature of the position, is under constant additional threat. Any individual’s personal space deserves respect because that space is a part of one’s physical and psychological self. Bleish violated that principle.

What should Bleish have done instead?

• Granted the officers and their vehicle the same degree of space she would expect the officers to grant her.
• She was right to get the arrested man’s name ; she was not justified in entering another person’s vehicle to get that name.
• She should have politely asked to communicate with one of the officers in order to get information regarding their destination and ask permission to ask the arrested man’s name (had she not been able to hear his name from a polite distance).
• Refrained from all personal remarks. The officer was doing his job — whether one disagrees with that job or not, his behavior was professional and polite during all points of Bleish’s recording. She owed the same degree of polite professionalism to him.
• She was right to record the entire process.
• Had she not engaged in inappropriate behavior leading to her arrest, she should have followed the police vehicle in a non-threatening manner in order to be at the station to offer assistance to the arrested man when the time came.
• She should have observed the behavior of the arrested man. He was relatively calm, he was genuinely non-violent, and he appeared slightly embarrassed by her behavior (although he appeared grateful for the chance to state his name).

Bottom-line: people pull these stupid stunts. They are thoughtless. They are emotional. They are raw. They are irresponsible. They are done in the name of liberty! This is not mature civil protest or civil disobedience and this is not reasoned revolution. This is hypocritical idiocy that hurts the cause of liberty. Shame on you, Miss Bleish.

I recognize the emotions that get riled up in these situations. I’ve been shoved into an unmarked military-police vehicle by non-uniformed officers in a country that does not have reasonable protections and/or respect for personal and civil liberties. One feels anger, frustration, and helplessness. One is conscious of being abused. At one point I let my vocal tone and my body language express these feelings, and at other times I was mature and self-restrained. I know.

I know that the United States citizens on U.S. soil still have the best status of liberty of all the people in the world. I know that we are desperately close to losing that status, and I know that we must cherish, nurture, and defend that status. The preservation and reestablishment of our liberties requires that we behave in such a way that demonstrates that we respect ourselves and others. Bleish and her companions failed in that respect. Their motivations and extraordinarily heightened emotions provide contexts for their behavior. Our response as a community of activists should be three-fold. We should recognize that their behavior was absolutely inappropriate. We should train and strengthen ourselves to respond better should we find ourselves in similarly difficult circumstances. We should find a balance between helping Bleish, et al., refind their footing and not allowing such cases to cast an ugly shadow across the shining light of Liberty.

Excellent news from Ireland today… election results indicate that the referendum in the Republic of Ireland to approve or disapprove the Lisbon Treaty has resulted in a “no” vote: Ireland has rejected the treaty.

Various articles both today and leading up to the referendum have included warnings that a “no” vote would “[trigger] a political crisis” which would lead to “much infighting and bickering across Europe”. Lobbyists for the Lisbon Treaty attempted to invoke poetic guilt by claiming that a denial of the treaty would transform Ireland “from grateful recipient to begrudger”. The question remains: what justification exists for Ireland to be a mere “grateful recipient”?

The Lisbon Treaty is said to “streamline” the EU and its Constitution. Ireland is the only nation of the twenty-seven which has held a referendum. All 27 nations must approve the treaty for it to be approved, unless exemption is provided by the EU for a specific nation. The Lisbon Treaty is in the best interest for the EU as a centralized body. The burden of persuasion, therefore, is placed on the EU. Ireland has neither compulsion nor duty to approve the treaty.

Two significant elements exist which serve as giant, blinking mauve-alert signals that the Lisbon Treaty is not ready for Irish approval: the content of the treaty and the rhetoric used by its supporters.

Some basic points of the Lisbon Treaty which are not in the best interest of Ireland:

• Ireland would have significantly less representation in the EU.
• The EU would be able to tax without an Irish referendum.
• Ireland would lose the ability to decide its internal civil rights and liberties.

The National Platform EU Research and Information Centre has a good, short list of the risks to Irish sovereignty contained in the Lisbon Treaty.

An opinion piece from the Belfast Telegraph is an excellent example of the rhetoric used to pressure Ireland into passing the treaty. Curiously, the rhetoric of the Lisbon Treaty supporters parallels that used by teenagers committing date rape.

Lisbon Treaty Advocate:
“The treaty was born from nearly a decade of wrangling, compromise, negotiation and diplomacy across an entire continent.“
Date Rapist:
“Think about all the trouble I went through for this! Gas for the car, movie tickets… I even bought you popcorn!”

Lisbon Treaty Advocate:
“Renegotiation is not a sensible option, and it is hard to see what strategy would remain post a referendum-defeat. “
Date Rapist:
“You’re not gonna make me go through all of that again, are you? What else could I do for you?”

Lisbon Treaty Advocate:
“Something would surely arise from the ashes, but the implications would be profound. “
Date Rapist:
“It’s biology, baby. Think about my health!”

Lisbon Treaty Advocate:
“Rejection would place the Irish in a unique position — a nation transformed from grateful recipient to begrudger in the blink of an eye.“
Date Rapist:
“You ungrateful kid. You were happy to go to the movie, but you don’t wanna give me something back?”

C’mon. I’m being mild about this. The columnist in the Belfast Telegraph even went so far as to say the following: “Certainly, there are many EU concepts that are fuzzy and imperfect — democracy, national sovereignty and accountability chief among them. However, Ireland’s voters should resist the temptation to poke big Europe in the eye today. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater is not the way forward.” How, precisely, would Ireland have been able to move forward and demand superior terms if they signed away their sovereignty and representation? By asking pretty-please? No. If Europe wants to bully the Irish, they’d best expect a poke in the eye. In business negotiations, one would not expect the smaller party sacrifice its only bargaining chip in order to maintain unity. Europe can argue that this isn’t about business, it’s about friendship and relationships… but friendly relationships don’t generally involve one party telling to other to sit down, shut up, and prepare to foot however much of the restaurant bill as everyone else at the table decides.

The Irish have been sufficiently wise and bold to vote no and say that this treaty is unacceptable. The rest of the world needs to stand up and applaud the Republic of Ireland for choosing to protect their liberties and their sovereignty. Ireland does not need the EU; they certainly did not need the Lisbon Treaty.

Political Chalk on Campus. From last weekend… I’m going in today to fill it back in.

—-

When you set out to do something, you don’t do it halfway, do you?

Posted by Kristin @ 09/26/2004 02:46 PM CST

This makes sense, though. If I update it each week, I just have to fill in the blanks… today took two hours, compared to last week’s four. Also! I don’t have to compete for concrete. Although! People wrote over my Abigail Adams quote with “WHERE ARE THE WMDs?!”

As if Abigail Adams cared what Saddam was packing. Hmph.

Posted by Lor @ 09/26/2004 03:33 PM CST

Notes for future expansion. Letters to editors / local opinion pieces:

1) NRA lobby influence is being blamed for lapse of AWBan, and often tones are used that imply that this violates democratic principles. Rather, lobby influence within a republic/democratic system exemplify these principles and are absolutely valid. The danger is in a small faction outweighing the overall majority — this is not the case. Limited polls supporting the AWBan cannot compare to extreme rates of NRA membership and active citizenship.

2) Pres. Bush is being blamed for lapse of AWBan, with the implication of him being willfully lax in his duties. Other Bush-Problems aside, this is a foolish approach. This implies that the President has the Constitutional and realistic power to sway the entirety of Congress and Party to counter a significant portion of their voter base. This gives the office of the President far too much illegitimate power.

3) Objections to an article in the Southwest Standard (campus paper) from last week, written by Joe House:

a) AWBan was not a successful legislation. Weapons were still available via black market and numerous loopholes.

b) Backup your statements. One poll is not enough. Source of poll?

c) Drop in violent crime is not due to only this legislation. Other factors: Concealed Carry Acts. Texas example.

d) Petty shots re:lobbies and influence… this is a cross-aisle phenomenon, and a frankly legitimate (if often disturbing) one.

e) The Ban was too sweeping and ineffective (merge with first point?). Bayonet on collected rifle, difference in legalities re: Chinese production and Russian production.

f) Defense IS a valid argument anti-AWBan. Article’s argument is fallaction. “Bad guys” already have access to these weapons. Lawful citizens should have lawful access. 2nd amendment application.

g) Be specific when referencing laws. Respect your audience with sources and specifics.

h) Kids died from automatic weapons DURING the Ban, making your sentimental ploy petty. Columbine example.

i) 2nd amendment of the U.S. Constitution is MORE than “just one more campaign contribution.”

—

Ah, the power of your pen! It reminds me of days in the Learning Center spent lamenting over the sad sad state of the campus paper.

Did I ever tell you about the time I wrote an angry letter over an article published in the UMKC newsletter?

Posted by Kristin @ 09/14/2004 04:08 PM CST

hmm. I don’t think so.

and, now I just need to connect the thoughts into paragraphs. If I have time after a) procrastinating and b) tomorrow’s homework, I’ll do it tonight.

Posted by Lor @ 09/14/2004 06:51 PM CST