BLM must condemn acts of violence against police

Or they need to take responsibility 

There is no middle ground. You can be a political group, social movement etc but when members who associate with you group commit acts of terror and violence that cut deeply into the fabric of civli society, you need to either condemn them, or assume some of the responsibility. 

I don’t blame Muslims when an extremist commits an attack like then one in Nice. A religion that has some 1.6 billion members, or about a quarter of the worlds population is bound to have some extremist members. However whenever these attacks of occur, regardless of how connected or not a muslim group may be most groups will express their condemnation of the attack. I’ve seen condemnation from international muslim groups, local mosques in North America, and individuals world over. None of them claim to be associated with extremists, most aren’t even geographically close. Why do they feel the need to do this?

Because regardless of the poor logic behind stereotypes, this action helps show the differences between the vast majority of muslims who would not commit an extremist attack - and the small minority of radicalized individuals who tolerate violence. This is an important move as non muslims often hold stereotypes about the religion and often associate it with extremist violence though there are no ties. 

I have written strongly about my dislike for BLM in the past, however I do it because I do not believe the movement is without merit, I simply disagree with how it conducts itself. I’ve used strong words and comparisons to make a point. Never have I said that Canada should ban BLM, or should condemn them carte blanche. With that being said, after the most recent murders of police in Baton Rouge by an individual who has claimed association with BLM and associated groups I searched out a response from BLM condemning the despicable action. 

I could find no such statement. Not on their official twitter, and not visibly enough I could find it on other platforms.

(The disturbing top response from google for "BLM baton rouge response"

(Another top response indicative of an organization
that refuses to separate itself from violent extremists) 

This is troubling because both of the recent police shooters have self associated themselves with the group in some way. This is where my Muslim analogy comes into play. I’m not saying in any way that BLM is behind these murders. What I am saying is those who committed these attacks claim they are in some way connected to BLM, or at the very least BLM’s fight. I firmly resect the right for groups to protest, and whether I agree or not is irrelevant. The caveat to this is as a protest group or movement, you have some social responsibly to control your organizations discourse around an event. When people who have committed atrocities claim they are part of the same movement or social issue your group is, you need to be clear about your separation, or you need to accept that by not condemning truly violent despicable actions, you take some of the responsibility for them. 

So this is a call to Black Lives Matter. Please start condemning the actions of violent criminals who associate themselves with your cause. There’s really no excuse for not doing so, unless you agree with their actions. 

Black Lives Matters, are terrorists

Hijacking events, threatening violence, and taking action against non-combatant targets

When Black Lives Matter (BLM) first hit the scene, I was cautiously optimistic. However, this feeling did not last long. After watching members hijack a Sanders rally, reading about how members were insisting on segregated “safe spaces” for black students on college campuses and finally when BLM members stormed a university republican students speech forcing the event to end I became fed up. I already wrote an article that mentioned BLM and this incident, It was in the context of Canadian badass Kevin Vickers’ response to a protestor in Ireland.

Though I have already mentioned the group more than I would care too, I have decided to dedicate an entire piece to my thoughts on BLM. This is because of last week's action by the Toronto chapter of the group, who shut down the Toronto pride parade and forced organizers to sign a list of demands, before allowing the parade to continue.

One of my biggest issues with the group, is how they gain their support. Most of the time pressure groups form in one of two ways. From the top down, or from the grassroots. The AARP used to be an insurance company for seniors before it realized there was more money harassing politicians than selling insurance and became the ubiquitous lobbying group that controls the senior vote. The NRA was founded in the late 1800’s by grassroots gun lovers who wanted to teach safety and become better shots. The group didn’t start lobbying till the 70’s when it realized its members rights were at stake. You may not like their stance on guns, but they formed from the grassroots, gained support, then started lobbying for their members rights. Both of these groups often face criticism for their views (less so the AARP), which is fair as they have inserted themselves into politics. They spent years building up a loyal following, of (literally) card carrying members. This core membership is more concerned with the overall ideology of the group than minor flashes in the pan, and often survives the groups controversy. Regardless of how they got there, and whether or not you agree with them, they sure as hell earned every bit of support they have. 

BLM has come up with another way of doing things. Instead of taking a large organization with many members and converting it to a political vessel, or slowing building up membership from the grassroots and uniting a group of people, instead of the traditional methods of political activism they came up with:

Cause-hijacking. As I mentioned earlier, one of the first times this came to my attention was a Bernie Sanders speech in Seattle. In that instance BLM members simply walked up to the podium and grabbed the mic until they got their demands. In this case a simple moment of silence and acknowledgement from Mr. Sanders. They have now moved up and on and instead of simply asking for a brief bit of respect or consideration, they demand their way, or that the event they decide to hijack must end.

This is without a doubt a new form of terrorism. The reason I have stayed away from that word so far is that it usually involves violence which, to be fair, BLM has toed right on the line. While their actions are very angry, and even aggressive (see my BLM / Kevin Vickers article) they are not by definition violent. The definition of terrorism I learned near a decade ago in High School poli-sci was “violence directed as non-combatant targets designed to create fear, in order to influence political opinion”. There is little doubt that BLM has used intimidation, and fear in their tactics. Organizers from Toronto pride have come out said the reason they signed the demands made by BLM was to continue the parade, and that they will not necessarily honour the demands. They were scared the parade would end, and while under this duress complied with BLM’s demands. While this is not violence per se, it is certainly not a peaceful protest either. 

I think that if a group blockades, or otherwise impedes an event, then essentially demands ransom to allow it to continue, this meets the standards for “political violence”. As the Pride parade had given BLM a float, as well as the fact that until BLM held up the parade Pride Toronto had no idea what BLM was up to, and that pride is nowadays a celebration/parade in support of acceptance (not the anti police event it started as) I believe that participants in the parade, and those watching it, did not intend to start a political debate, therefore they meet the definition of “political non-combatants”. Influencing political opinion barely needs and explanation, but as this is a city wide public event, and the group demanded civil servants be excluded, as well as demanding an increase in their representation it is clear their motives are political, as it is also clear they are forcing, rather than requesting, their objectives in contrast to our entire democratic system. 

For these reasons I believe it is start time people treated BLM as the group they really are. They are not a pressure group, they are not a grassroots movement, they are political terrorists, and they are putting democracy at risk. 

Kevin Vickers - Canadian Badass

How one man dealt with two very different, but altogether similar events...

This article will probably be about as much of a fluff piece as I hope to ever write. Sometimes though, I do feel the need to pour out some unadulterated praise on an individual, and today is one of those days. 

Kevin Vickers whose name deservedly may ring a bell for events I will go into later in this post, has made the news again. During a ceremony meant to commemorate the Irish soldiers aligned with Britain during the 1916 republican uprising in Ireland, a protester started shouting about the insult this ceremony caused him. Although this piece is fluff I will make a political digression briefly. 

As someone of very direct Irish descent, the events of 1916 are very familiar to me. In short, groups of Irishmen across the country, unable to tolerate the cruel conditions Ireland faced under British colonial rule, rose up in a series of coordinated actions across the country. The most famous of these being the storming and capture of the post office in Dublin. This is where the first Irish free state was declared. Suffering a fairly embarrassing loss the British responded with very heavy handed tactics burning much of the city, and destroying much of the rest with artillery fire. In the fighting that ensued both sides suffered egregious causalities. The British with far superior troops many of who were Irishmen themselves, eventually won out however, captured the main collaborators of the rebellion, and promptly executed them. The military rule under the cruel Blank and Tans (named for the appearance of their improvised uniforms) is still a tragic part of Irish history, many still consider a salient issue some hundred years later. 

(The Protestant side of a very "peaceful" wall)

With all this being said, and my obvious disdain and anger over the treatment “my people”, the progress that has been made in the last few decades is massive and far more important. There are no longer Letter bombings in London like my parents grew up with, there hasn’t been a subway attack since about the time my brother left the UK. The IRA is largely a memory, or at least any group with a name that has the capacity the IRA of The Troubles had. The reason for all of this progress, is each side recognizing the pain and suffering of the other. This is why memorializing the soldiers loyal to the Crown who died in 1916 is just as important as recognizing those who fought for Irish freedom. It moves both sides forward, and might be a step in taking down the “Peace Lines” or massive walls reminiscent of the Gaza strip that still loom over parts of Northern Ireland (a move currently planned for 2023). 

This is why it makes me boil with anger when I see someone who thinks they are making a difference by standing up and shouting loudly at a solemn memorial that is genuinely moving the issue forward. The loudest voices, at least in my experience, are rarely the ones speaking rationally. This is a great example of an narcissistic nobody who decides they want all eyes on them, because they have the answers.

Enter Kevin Vickers, who without hesitation, broke rank the second this baseless “protestor” started ranting, grabbing him firmly and thoroughly removing him from the area.  A man who is not even in his own country (though to be fair as ambassador he does have diplomatic immunity), unarmed, and furthermore looking a little worse for wear than last time he was in the news, beat on duty Irish police officers to bring the man down. Good craic as they say. Seriously for a moment, I have to praise Mr.Vickers, and for his quick response in shutting down this protestor, and here’s why:

 In recent years it has become increasingly acceptable for protesters to hijack other political forums for their own gain. This has the tendency to give movements that otherwise would have to work long and hard to convince people to be active their causes, a jumpstart as it were in popularity. It also tends to cause more copycat hijackings. 

("Peaceful" BLM Protestors)

Case in point the Black Lives Matter movement. I’m not going to weigh in on their overall points because I don’t really feel I add an important narrative there. However I will speak out about their - and anyone else who uses the tactic of hijacking other legitimate political events in a politico-terroristic way. One of the first times this caught my attention was the BLM protestors who took over a Bernie Sanders rally in Seattle. This really should have been the pinnacle in showing the irony of the movement vs it’s tactics, as Mr.Sanders was pretty active it some legitimate grassroots civil uprising. Unlike Bernie and Mr.King, the BLM protestors instead of organizing a mass march to derail his speech, stormed the podium and took the mic.

(Rational politcal debate
 from a BLM member)

(More of the same)

Fast forward to a few days ago at DePaul University and BLM protesters storm a talk by Dangerous Faggot (not being homophobic, that’s his chosen moniker) Milo Yiannopoulos. This time shutting down an event organized by campus republicans by chanting Bernie sanders name among other tactics which went as far as threatening to attack the speakers. Quite a fast change of heart it seems. The tactics used by the BLM group are those of those of the irrational “loud voices” I mentioned earlier. Rather than develop a grassroots following, or legitimize their discourse, they choose instead to get their own faces in front of the media, by hijacking the events of others, who have put in the time and work. It works, because the media is already at these events, and people who are not directly involved with the issue find it easy to join the cause when they see the events online and in the media. This does not make for a legitimate political movement, you can scream as much as you want, act violently and attract attention in the name of activism but this is still aggressive, violent action, and is equivalent, in my opinion to political terrorism.

Unfortunately for the campus republicans, and the speakers themselves who shelled out money for rather lack lustre private security (after the campus accused them of creating a danger, there wasn’t someone with the gusto of Kevin Vickers to shut down the political hijacking. 

Some may say being i’m hyperbolic when I say this is political terrorism. Well, the very reason people like Mr. Vickers take this sort of thing seriously, has to do with how Mr. Vickers first gained international fame.

A single minded individual, with ties to a wider movement, frustrated with their governments actions, stormed a political venue to gain international attention in front  of the media they knew would be there. The problem was this was a man connected with ISIS and he was so frustrated he brought a rifle with him and ended the life of several much better men. This was an act of political terrorism and I don’t think it is remotely on par with the actions of BLM protestors. I hasten to even draw the comparison for fear I might insult the memory of those who lost loved ones, but I also think it needs to be done. 

It takes one person to cause such a tragedy, and when you have a movement that justifies such violent irrational tactics, and becomes widespread to quickly, it will inevitably create outliers, who take the violence one step further. We have come very close (feel free to point out examples if it has happened) to seeing BLM protestors become violent, and I don’t think its s stretch to say that within any movement justifying such aggressive, violent tactics there will develop outliers who wish to take it further. 

This is why we need more people willing to act quickly, and shut down these acts of political terrorism. Because every time they work, it encourages more to try their chance. Political discourse, and proper decorum should rule politics. Separating those who wish to argue rationally, from those who want to yell loudly is key for democracy to function. Letting political hijackings occur isn't ok, and its a pretty slippery slope from there, to the sort of horrific action that can be caused by one person who takes it to far. 

In any case, what today has taught me is that in cases of extreme, and minor political terrorism, Canada (and now Ireland too) can count on Kevin Vickers to do the right thing.