Defiant G20 protester jailed 10 months

Discussion in 'Civil Rights & Privacy' started by Lisa Simeone, Dec 31, 2011.

  1. Lisa Simeone

    Lisa Simeone Original Member

    Defiant G20 protester jailed 10 months

    She didn't actually do anything. She talked about doing something. Yes, this is in Canada. But ring any bells?

  2. Lisa Simeone

    Lisa Simeone Original Member

    Excerpts from Leah Henderson's public statement (bolding mine):
  3. Mike

    Mike Founding Member Coach

    One critical detail omitted is what sort of "mischief" she advised them to do? Did they potentially have the capability to accomplish that "mischief"? Did they pass the word on to other, the ones who were actually smashing windows?

    There was a bit of damage at the Battle of Seattle, too. Was that just "mischief"?

    We're missing the whole story here.

    And she IS PLEADING GUILTY. Screw the rhetoric. Remember Kathleen Soliah, who participated in the murder of a bank teller during an SLA robbery? She pled guilty but continued with the "poor me, I read to the blind" rants to the point that eventually the judge basically told her to STFU.

    And she wants people to send recipes? Maybe she'll publish her own recipe book. :D

    My BS meter goes off when I read mumbo jumbo like this, loud enough to further damage my already bad hearing.

    A "life-centered system" does sound kind of warm & fuzzy. :rolleyes:

    And sometimes a fruitcake, is just a fruitcake.

    The only place I'd want to be around a G8/G20 conference is far, far away.
  4. Lisa Simeone

    Lisa Simeone Original Member

    Of course there's going to be high-flying or fruitcake-sounding rhetoric, depending where you stand politically and what your level of tolerance for that kind of stuff is. I don't have to buy all the rhetoric to still believe that she got a bum rap. I can't get behind a law or a process that says someone is guilty for speech.

    And breaking windows -- which even the court acknowledged she didn't do anyway -- is way different from murder.

    With the passage of the NDAA, I guess if anyone ever overhears me say that I'm glad so-and-so got his comeuppance in a property-destroying incident, I, too, could be hauled off to jail.

    I'm surprised to hear you taking this tack, Mike, since you (and others) have said more than once at TUG that until the Occupy protesters get beyond non-violence, they won't accomplish anything. That sure sounds like "inciting" violence to me.
  5. Elizabeth Conley

    Elizabeth Conley Original Member

    I've read her remarks carefully, and they seem quite rational to me. Basically she's saying that she's been targeted for prosecution because her skill sets make her essential to organized resistance. She warns that other people with valuable skill sets who oppose the 1% may suffer the same fate.

    Such people will not have to commit violent acts or even civil disobedience in order to find themselves incarcerated.

    A few days ago I read that the DHS and FBI was monitoring twitter for key terms in tweets, which they would then use as an excuse to investigate the twitter user sending the message. In the comment section of the article I suggested an effective non-violent counter to this assault on our 1st amendment rights. It is possible that merely making such a suggestion could be considered "counseling to commit mischief." It would depend, I suppose, on what the definition of "mischief" is.

    Yes, it happened in Canada, not the U.S. Still, I think this sort of thing bears watching. Any of us could be next if our government takes a similar approach to quelling dissent.
    Lisa Simeone likes this.
  6. Mike

    Mike Founding Member Coach

    It's rational after the fact. The article didn't provide any actual detail as to who she was coaching and what she coached them to do.

    The simple fact of the matter is that she is PLEADING GUILTY. She won't confront her accusers in court (maybe because she is guilty?) but wants to get as much mileage as possible out of her "poor me" act.

    & don't forget this mumbo jumbo:

    :rolleyes: Defnitely fruitcake material.

    But back to the questions I posed at the very top of my post:

    Do you have any answers to these questions?
  7. Mike

    Mike Founding Member Coach

    It takes all of 60 seconds to get the bigger picture (first article I looked at):

    These people don't sound like peaceful, non-violent fruitcakes to me.
  8. Mike

    Mike Founding Member Coach

    I've said that a violent reaction to the violent abuse (e.g. the occupy raids & the Pike-the-Pig incident) are inevitable. Violence generally begets violence. It might seem that people are peaceful for a while, but elephants have a good memory -- eventually they will wake up & go on a rampage.

    If those in power don't reach out to those who feel alienated and work to find ways for them to express themselves, they are only going to feel more alienated. Eventually there will be a price to pay.

    It's not what I advocate. Rather it's how human nature works. We went through a rather vicious cycle of it in the 60's, and I see it coming back. Those in power are trying very hard to repress it as it starts, which is an even bigger mistake in an era when every cell phone is a video cam. The 60's might seem like a picnic after the next few years are over.
  9. Elizabeth Conley

    Elizabeth Conley Original Member

    I'm concerned. It seems like a slippery slope to me. Is a martial arts instructor guilty of "counseling to commit mischief" if his/her student successfully resists arrest? I doubt it. Martial Arts instructors teach people how to successfully avoid being grabbed and restrained and how to break free from restraint. That is not the same as telling people to resist arrest. The first is a tactic, the second is a strategy.

    This lady may have been guilty of teaching a few tactics, but did she set the strategy and/or command the demonstration? Instruction in tactics isn't "counseling to commit..." anything. It's simply sharing skill sets. The lady didn't advocate assaulting people, and we don't know what sort of caveats might have been attached to her suggestion that property be harmed. I can definitely understand why two groups in conflict want to deprive each other of those members capable of decimating useful skills. It's a strategy that's been deployed before.

    She claims she's being removed from her group for 10 months to prevent her from giving instruction in tactics. Is she right? I'm not sure. What I am sure of is that tactics aren't strategy, planning or command.

    As for the remark that you consider particularly loony - I do agree that it is "jargon" associated with her group and their belief system. It makes sense in the context of the deeper meanings they've constructed around some of the words, and less sense to those outside her group. That being said, it's not the craziest thing I've heard out of a cult or quasi-cult member by any means. (Ever talked to a Pentecostal?)
  10. Mike

    Mike Founding Member Coach

    Is there some part of this that isn't clear? Sounds as though she wasn't just spouting off -- they left a nice paper trail.

    Loony is loony. I used to roll around couch in uncontrollable laughter when our Mpls. neighborhood rag would print rants from our local Marxists -- dialect this, dialectic that.

    In my less productive years, I started out as a PoliSci major & did a couple years of graduate work in PoliSci. I've been around this stuff a lot more than you might imagine. There is intelligent policital thought, and there are attempts at policial thought that aren't intelligent. I can tell the difference.

    The article & Lisa's post implied that they are innocents being railroaded. They aren't. They counseled violence, violence happened, they got busted, they saw the freight train bearing down on them & entered guilty pleas. Now it's just a big "poor me" act that is so easy to see through.

    Maybe while they're in jail they can read up on Ghandi & Thoreau MLK & improve their tactics!!! There are ways to accomplish things without trashing cities.
  11. Elizabeth Conley

    Elizabeth Conley Original Member

    OK, I can tell we need to agree to disagree.

    I don't see this lady's case the same way you do, and that's fine. I don't see that we have to agree about this.
  12. Lisa Simeone

    Lisa Simeone Original Member

    I'm a firm believer in non-violence to effect social change. But when some (expletive deleted) or tyrant gets his property damaged, I might still raise a glass in the privacy of my own home. There -- now that I've said it publicly, I can be considered a "domestic terrorist." Maybe the NDAA will take care of scary people like me.
  13. Lisa Simeone

    Lisa Simeone Original Member

    This is the comment I was thinking of:
    Yes, I see where you indicate that sooner or later, people are going to get fed up and there will be civil unrest. That's human nature.

    But by saying "then there are the 'non-violent' sheep that just sit on the ground and take it," you are indicating you oppose "the tactics of Gandhi & Thoreau & MLK" that you later urge these G-20 protesters to adopt ("Maybe while they're in jail they can read up on Ghandi & Thoreau MLK & improve their tactics!!!") Sitting on the ground and taking it is precisely what Gandhi and Thoreau and MLK advocated. That's what non-violent resistance is. By calling them "sheep," it sounds like you don't approve.
  14. Frank

    Frank Original Member

    The tactics of Gandhi require that the putative authorities have a sense of shame. Or are sufficiently cowed by the people that pay their salaries who do.

    Gandhi versus the SS would have been suicide.

Share This Page