www.dailysignal.com
When Does Protest Become Crime—Or Terrorism?
Last August, two women stalked an Immigration Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent near Los Angeles and then streamed themselves at his house, yelling to locals that their neighbor was an agent. Last month, they were convicted and face time in federal prison. Ironically, they wore masks and glasses to hide their identity, while invading the privacy of the federal agent.
When does protest start to break the law—or even become terrorism?
I’ll define terrorism as using violence to achieve political aims. Most criminals are not terrorists. So, who is? Let’s start with some easy ones.
The Irish Republican Army, Italy’s Red Brigades, and the Palestinian Liberation Organization all murdered and bombed military and civilian targets in pursuit of political goals. At the risk of over-simplifying, these were: ending British rule, establishing a Marxist-Leninist state, and creating a Palestinian state, respectively.
The goals of 1960s radical youth groups such as the Weather Underground in the U.S. and the Baader-Meinhof gang in Germany were more vague; the overthrow of what they saw as the capitalist, imperialist, fascist countries they lived in; maybe world revolution. But still, terrorism.
Today, the Left intentionally makes things appear fuzzier. The 2020 demonstrations, looting, and violence in the wake of the death of George Floyd were not terrorism. We saw plenty of violence, and it was clearly political, but there was not a unified, clearly articulated goal. There was no list of things which the government of Portland, or Minneapolis, or even the federal government could have conceded that would have ended the whole thing and sent everyone home. It was inchoate rage against a vague, “oppressive” system with no specific or achievable policy proposals.
Now let’s look at the recent organized demonstrations against immigration enforcement.
In much of the country, ICE is going about its business of enforcing federal law. They are arresting aliens with no right to be here, many of whom have serious criminal charges or convictions. The most crucial assistance ICE needs is for local jurisdictions to honor their “detainers.” This means handing over criminal suspects or convicts, once their criminal process is complete, to ICE for immigration process.
In some major jurisdictions that refuse to do this, we see street violence: Los Angeles, Portland, and most of all Minneapolis. There, a dangerous combination of dilatory politicians and trained obstructionists has resulted in two deaths and much injury.
In Minneapolis, agitators have been well funded, organized, and trained to move beyond mere speech and into highly coordinated obstruction to impede immigration enforcement.
Holding up signs and speaking is not violence. However, activists have gone way beyond that. They get in the physical space of agents, block operations, set up illegal road blocks, harass officials and private citizens, throw dangerous objects, and intimidate agents through releasing their personal information. Though they demand federal agents be unmasked to reveal their identities, the obstructionists themselves are often fully concealed—like the LA ladies.
Much of the conduct we have seen in Minneapolis is not “free speech” protected by the First Amendment. The protesters are not attempting to change anyone’s mind through discourse when they bang on pots at 3 in the morning. They are trying to change policy through physical means. Unfortunately, instead of clamping down on violent and illegal conduct and drawing a clear line as to what is acceptable, local politicians have vilified federal agents and encouraged dangerous activity by civilians.
Activists follow ICE agents in their vehicles claiming to be “legal observers,” but they also cross into deliberate obstruction, which puts them at risk. It’s also a felony under federal law: anyone who “forcibly assaults, resists, opposes, impedes, intimidates, or interferes with” a federal agent can be charged and sentenced to up to 8 years—20 if they hurt an officer.
What about real or self-appointed journalists?
On January 18, a group of people including ex-CNN personality Don Lemon entered a Minneapolis church, uninvited, during a service. At an agreed point, they broke into protests chants. They reportedly impeded church members from worshipping, moving freely, or exiting the building. Protest leaders berated the pastor and some church members. They did not leave after being clearly told they were not welcome.
The agitators were not there to worship, or to debate parishioners on agreed terms. The point was to intimidate, shame, or bully church attendees into agreeing with the protesters’ position.
Churches are private property. Yes, many churches welcome strangers, to join them in worship and perhaps join their communities. Other religions follow similar traditions—if you observe their rules, you are welcome to enter their religious sites. But that welcome can be revoked.
No one’s right to speak freely trumps another person’s right to private property or to worship God. If it did, then any person could enter another’s house, office, or property and stage a protest without limits. That would be absurd—and dangerous.
Though he was obnoxious and unwelcome, Lemon was not violent. He is potentially liable for trespass, which is a local offence. But in woke Minneapolis, the likelihood of prosecutors charging him for that is very low. That’s a bad sign for the Republic.
Prosecutors should not choose whom to prosecute based on their own politics, yet increasingly they do. Judges should rule based on the law and how it applies to given facts, not legislate from the bench. Yet, increasingly they do the latter.
The Minneapolis church invaders are potentially liable for federal crimes under the Federal Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act and even the Ku Klux Klan Act. The Department of Justice seems intent on prosecuting them and they should. The right of people to be secure in their homes and private spaces is one both political parties must support.
A federal court will decide if Lemon and others broke the law by attempting to coerce political action through force. While the punishment need not be severe if this is their first offence, we need to lay down a national marker at the limits of acceptable behavior when we disagree with others politically.
We cannot allow individuals to force others to accept their views. This is not China—or Iran.
The post When Does Protest Become Crime—Or Terrorism? appeared first on The Daily Signal.
New Posts (Home)
ChatBox
Popular Posts 
Game Zone
Top PodCasts
