6 ms·

Who decides what's illegitimate? Is it anything the police says like sitting down at the wrong place, wearing a mask not to be identified or just being part of

Who decides what's illegitimate? Is it anything the police says like sitting down at the wrong place, wearing a mask not to be identified or just being part of something considered illegitimate? It's uncommon even in totalitarian countries that the government won't have some justification for its behavior. If people in Quebec would have respected bill 78, maybe there wouldn't have been a change in government there.

anigbrowl 14y ago
The courts, that's why we have them. You might also like to recall that at least some of the occupy movements involved violent and wholly unecessary destruction of private property, eg Occupy Oakland. Sure, that was only a few fringe anarchists who had attached themselves to the ideologically pure movement, but that's little different from the 'few bad apples' excuse that is sometimes advanced to forestall criticism of police misbehavior.
- btilly 14y ago
  You are absolutely right about it being the responsibility of the courts. But when government, police and courts are all lined up against the people, then that which was formerly unthinkable - such as armed revolt - should become seriously considered options. When, and only when. In the case of Occupy Oakland, it is worth noting that the Oakland police were the first to escalate to violence. This is one of the central paradoxes of policing. It is the job of the police to see that the peace is kept. Surprisingly often, preemptive force is an ineffective means to that end. Incidentally the phrase "a few bad apples" originally meant the opposite of what it means now. Originally it was a recognition that a single bad apple would spoil the whole barrel, so if you found a few bad apples your default assumption was that the whole barrel was at risk. It, therefore, was an argument that if you find some bad apples, there is cause for increased scrutiny.
  - gojomo 14y ago
    ...the Oakland police were the first to escalate to violence... What was the first act of violence by the Oakland police against Occupy Oakland assemblies?
    - btilly 14y ago
      According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Occupy_Oakland http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Occupy_Oakland it was the use of tear gas and beanbag rounds on Oct 25. This resulted in Scott Olsen (ex-marine and Iraq veteran) suffering a skull fracture and needing to be hospitalized. That timeline gives Nov 2 as the first truly violent act by protestors, namely the setting of a police barricade on fire while the police were attacking the protestors with tear gas, etc. (I'm not counting the tearing up of deposit slips on Oct 22 as violent - and the protestors cleaned up the mess that they caused on that occasion.)
  - anigbrowl 14y ago
    But when government, police and courts are all lined up against the people, then that which was formerly unthinkable - such as armed revolt - should become seriously considered options. When, and only when. I've visited several totalitarian countries. We have a hell of a long way to go before I take such suggestions seriously in the context of the US. In the case of Occupy Oakland, it is worth noting that the Oakland police were the first to escalate to violence. I live in Oakland and paid careful attention to the Occupy protests. The local anarchists did not attack the police first, but they were perfectly happy to trash buildings from coffee shops to convenience stores in furtherance of their disbelief in the idea of private property. Earlier last year, similarly minded people were perfectly happy to protest the shooting by police of a wanted criminal who produced a gun while running away from a transit fare inspector by trashing a subway station in San Francisco and smashing the ticket and fare machines: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2P5LIrFDXc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2P5LIrFDXc The person who got shot was on the run from Washington state, where he had raped and killed his ex-girlfriend. When challenged by a fare inspector he ran from the bus, produced and brandished a gun, then tripped and shot himself in the neck. The resulting protests, though ostensibly about police brutality (non-existent in this case), were organized by the same people who oppose any kind of transit fare increase ever and are continually trying to gin up civil disobedience actions with slogans such as 'can't pay - won't pay.' I'm more familiar with their ideology than I want to be because they make a habit of plastering my neighborhood in Oakland with their 'revolutionary' agit-prop (using plaster makes them almost impossible to remove and creates an eyesore as the paper rots away over a period of a year or so). They also like to plaster and spray-paint their views on top of local community art projects like murals, on the theory that their revolutionary messages are 'more important.' Fuck these people. This isn't armed revolt against a just cause, it's malicious vandalism.
- mindcrime 14y ago
  The courts, that's why we have them. Meh... courts have no real intrinsic authority. All political power ultimately derives from the people, and their consent.
  - anigbrowl 14y ago
    ...whose sovereignty is what backs a constitution, which is what courts derive their authority from. Devoid of institutions, 'the people' are no more than a mob, which lacks anything more than a pretense of moral authority.
    - mindcrime 14y ago
      From the point of view of the minority, that's still all "the State" is: a mob. "majority rule" is just a euphemism for "tyranny of the majority" or "mob rule". And even a representative republic system still can't guarantee that the majority don't violate the rights of the minority. Let's say you were an innocent man, wrongly convicted of murder by a jury. Would you feel that the State truly was justified in imprisoning you for life or executing you? I mean, the "institution" of a court and judge and a jury decided to do it, so does that make it OK?
  - dredmorbius 14y ago
    That's the popular belief in this day and place. Previously, "the divine right of kings" was frequently invoked. Or simply the biggest brute in the squad.
btilly 14y ago
In the end, legitimacy is decided by the country as a whole. In a well-working country, laws, courts, and police are a reasonable proxy for that. Incidentally I had not read about bill 78. The anti-protest portions of the bill I am strongly against. But the tuition hikes that were being protested, well, I was paying more tuition 20 years ago in British Columbia, Canada than Quebec students would have paid. I have little sympathy with the student protests about tuition. Furthermore I am personally of the political belief that the culture of widespread entitlement in Quebec is among the reasons that it is much worse off economically than the rest of the country. Note, this is coming from someone who, while I was in Canada, was politically fairly far to the left. And Canada is fairly far to the left of the United States. This is not the time or place to debate it, but in the case of Quebec my opinions are shaped in part by the separatist movement there. I grew up with friends whose families left Quebec due to Bill 101, which is likely the most racist law passed anywhere in North America in my lifetime. Before objecting, go read it, and educate yourself on why the Bank of Montreal is now headquartered in Toronto, and what economic impacts that has had on Montreal. It didn't help that the value of my Canadian sourced scholarship dropped sharply due to the the widespread belief in Quebec during the early 90s that they had the right to take not only their marbles, but all of the marbles that they had been given while abandoning all of the debts that they had run up, on a straight majority vote. (One of those marbles being a lot of land with good hydroelectric power, built on land given under the condition that they take good care of the natives, with natives who voted 99.7% that if Quebec left Canada, they would leave Quebec.) Yes, I am sure that you see things differently and think that Quebec was entitled to do that. But explain to me why the natives were not entitled to leave Quebec, and find an argument that cannot be turned around and be seen by a third party as an argument that Quebec not be allowed to leave Canada.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- ced 14y ago
  French Quebecer here. I've been trying to learn more about why the perception from English Canada is the way it is and posts like yours help a lot. likely the most racist law passed anywhere in North America In what ways? Do you feel that it was specifically intended to kick out English Canadians? It didn't help that the value of my Canadian sourced scholarship dropped sharply due to I don't follow - how did that happen? built on land given under the condition that they take good care of the natives, with natives who voted 99.7% that if Quebec left Canada, they would leave Quebec Both of those facts are new to me. Do you have any source/link? Which territory and treaty are you referring to?

anigbrowl 14y ago

The courts, that's why we have them. You might also like to recall that at least some of the occupy movements involved violent and wholly unecessary destruction of private property, eg Occupy Oakland. Sure, that was only a few fringe anarchists who had attached themselves to the ideologically pure movement, but that's little different from the 'few bad apples' excuse that is sometimes advanced to forestall criticism of police misbehavior.

btilly 14y ago
You are absolutely right about it being the responsibility of the courts. But when government, police and courts are all lined up against the people, then that which was formerly unthinkable - such as armed revolt - should become seriously considered options. When, and only when. In the case of Occupy Oakland, it is worth noting that the Oakland police were the first to escalate to violence. This is one of the central paradoxes of policing. It is the job of the police to see that the peace is kept. Surprisingly often, preemptive force is an ineffective means to that end. Incidentally the phrase "a few bad apples" originally meant the opposite of what it means now. Originally it was a recognition that a single bad apple would spoil the whole barrel, so if you found a few bad apples your default assumption was that the whole barrel was at risk. It, therefore, was an argument that if you find some bad apples, there is cause for increased scrutiny.
- gojomo 14y ago
  ...the Oakland police were the first to escalate to violence... What was the first act of violence by the Oakland police against Occupy Oakland assemblies?
  - btilly 14y ago
    According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Occupy_Oakland http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Occupy_Oakland it was the use of tear gas and beanbag rounds on Oct 25. This resulted in Scott Olsen (ex-marine and Iraq veteran) suffering a skull fracture and needing to be hospitalized. That timeline gives Nov 2 as the first truly violent act by protestors, namely the setting of a police barricade on fire while the police were attacking the protestors with tear gas, etc. (I'm not counting the tearing up of deposit slips on Oct 22 as violent - and the protestors cleaned up the mess that they caused on that occasion.)
- anigbrowl 14y ago
  But when government, police and courts are all lined up against the people, then that which was formerly unthinkable - such as armed revolt - should become seriously considered options. When, and only when. I've visited several totalitarian countries. We have a hell of a long way to go before I take such suggestions seriously in the context of the US. In the case of Occupy Oakland, it is worth noting that the Oakland police were the first to escalate to violence. I live in Oakland and paid careful attention to the Occupy protests. The local anarchists did not attack the police first, but they were perfectly happy to trash buildings from coffee shops to convenience stores in furtherance of their disbelief in the idea of private property. Earlier last year, similarly minded people were perfectly happy to protest the shooting by police of a wanted criminal who produced a gun while running away from a transit fare inspector by trashing a subway station in San Francisco and smashing the ticket and fare machines: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2P5LIrFDXc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2P5LIrFDXc The person who got shot was on the run from Washington state, where he had raped and killed his ex-girlfriend. When challenged by a fare inspector he ran from the bus, produced and brandished a gun, then tripped and shot himself in the neck. The resulting protests, though ostensibly about police brutality (non-existent in this case), were organized by the same people who oppose any kind of transit fare increase ever and are continually trying to gin up civil disobedience actions with slogans such as 'can't pay - won't pay.' I'm more familiar with their ideology than I want to be because they make a habit of plastering my neighborhood in Oakland with their 'revolutionary' agit-prop (using plaster makes them almost impossible to remove and creates an eyesore as the paper rots away over a period of a year or so). They also like to plaster and spray-paint their views on top of local community art projects like murals, on the theory that their revolutionary messages are 'more important.' Fuck these people. This isn't armed revolt against a just cause, it's malicious vandalism.
mindcrime 14y ago
The courts, that's why we have them. Meh... courts have no real intrinsic authority. All political power ultimately derives from the people, and their consent.
- anigbrowl 14y ago
  ...whose sovereignty is what backs a constitution, which is what courts derive their authority from. Devoid of institutions, 'the people' are no more than a mob, which lacks anything more than a pretense of moral authority.
  - mindcrime 14y ago
    From the point of view of the minority, that's still all "the State" is: a mob. "majority rule" is just a euphemism for "tyranny of the majority" or "mob rule". And even a representative republic system still can't guarantee that the majority don't violate the rights of the minority. Let's say you were an innocent man, wrongly convicted of murder by a jury. Would you feel that the State truly was justified in imprisoning you for life or executing you? I mean, the "institution" of a court and judge and a jury decided to do it, so does that make it OK?
- dredmorbius 14y ago
  That's the popular belief in this day and place. Previously, "the divine right of kings" was frequently invoked. Or simply the biggest brute in the squad.

btilly 14y ago

In the end, legitimacy is decided by the country as a whole. In a well-working country, laws, courts, and police are a reasonable proxy for that. Incidentally I had not read about bill 78. The anti-protest portions of the bill I am strongly against. But the tuition hikes that were being protested, well, I was paying more tuition 20 years ago in British Columbia, Canada than Quebec students would have paid. I have little sympathy with the student protests about tuition. Furthermore I am personally of the political belief that the culture of widespread entitlement in Quebec is among the reasons that it is much worse off economically than the rest of the country. Note, this is coming from someone who, while I was in Canada, was politically fairly far to the left. And Canada is fairly far to the left of the United States. This is not the time or place to debate it, but in the case of Quebec my opinions are shaped in part by the separatist movement there. I grew up with friends whose families left Quebec due to Bill 101, which is likely the most racist law passed anywhere in North America in my lifetime. Before objecting, go read it, and educate yourself on why the Bank of Montreal is now headquartered in Toronto, and what economic impacts that has had on Montreal. It didn't help that the value of my Canadian sourced scholarship dropped sharply due to the the widespread belief in Quebec during the early 90s that they had the right to take not only their marbles, but all of the marbles that they had been given while abandoning all of the debts that they had run up, on a straight majority vote. (One of those marbles being a lot of land with good hydroelectric power, built on land given under the condition that they take good care of the natives, with natives who voted 99.7% that if Quebec left Canada, they would leave Quebec.) Yes, I am sure that you see things differently and think that Quebec was entitled to do that. But explain to me why the natives were not entitled to leave Quebec, and find an argument that cannot be turned around and be seen by a third party as an argument that Quebec not be allowed to leave Canada.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
ced 14y ago
French Quebecer here. I've been trying to learn more about why the perception from English Canada is the way it is and posts like yours help a lot. likely the most racist law passed anywhere in North America In what ways? Do you feel that it was specifically intended to kick out English Canadians? It didn't help that the value of my Canadian sourced scholarship dropped sharply due to I don't follow - how did that happen? built on land given under the condition that they take good care of the natives, with natives who voted 99.7% that if Quebec left Canada, they would leave Quebec Both of those facts are new to me. Do you have any source/link? Which territory and treaty are you referring to?