- Home
- Find a Therapist
- Topic Streams
- Get Help
Mental Health
Addiction
ADHD
Anxiety
Asperger's
Autism
Bipolar Disorder
Depression
Eating Disorders
Insomnia
OCDPersonality
Passive Aggression
Personality
ShynessPersonal Growth
Happiness
Goal Setting
Positive PsychologyRelationships
Low Sexual Desire
Relationships
SexEmotion Management
Anger
Procrastination
StressFamily Life
Adolescents
Child Development
Elder Care
Parenting
SiblingsRecently Diagnosed?
Diagnosis Dictionary
- Magazine
- Tests
- Psych Basics
- Experts
Pepper spray used against students, a Methodist minister, and other nonviolent protesters raises questions about how we come to accept violence as a norm. Read More
Nonviolence? I hardly think so...
Upon seeing the news coverage of the OWS protests and then seeing independent reporting on what actually occured shows the dichotomy of the mainstream media and what actually needs to be reported. Saying that these protests are non-violent overlooks the dozens of examples of violent behavior of these anarchists, communist and socialist sympathizers, and professional protestors.
There must be a decided upon definition of what "non-violent" actually means. It means totally different things to totally different people. "Occupying" public or private property and squatting for months is violent. The word "occupy" denotes violence. Defecating on police cars, vandalizing stores, forcefully entering businesses and banks, blocking traffic and public transportation...all violent. Non-violence does not mean that you can do everything short of physical aggression.
The bottom line is about responsibility. The media (and you Dr. Joyce) has blamed the police officers for spraying the "non-violent" protestors with pepper spray and lay NO blame on the protestors themselves. Take responsibility for your own action and then come see me. Sitting and blocking traffic is not a non-violent action, and refusing a policeman's order to move? Anyone knows what the consequences of that are...and they payed for it.
You are describing a police state, not a democracy
"Anyone knows what the consequences of that are..."
Nonviolent protesters engaged in civil disobedience expect to be arrested. In a democracy, using a chemical agent in a manner not approved, on subjects for whom it is not prescribed, simply to punish them, is torture.
Democracies don't torture. Police states do.
The specific incidents where pepper spray has been used have raised outrage because in none of the cases have those sprayed been doing more than sitting or standing peacefully, making no threats against the police. In the UC Davis case that I am commenting on most specifically, the students were in a ring on a walkway on campus-- with grass all around where anyone who wanted could pass.
But even if they had blocked a road, the correct democratic policing response would be arrest, not brutalization.
Cite one actual example of violence in these incidents-- the girls directly pepper sprayed in NYC were also sitting quietly on the ground; the Methodist minister was relying on the robes of his office to protect him.
Even the police who have tried to justify these actions have been forced to claim that simply sitting limp and similar actions are "threatening".
Policing, Pepper Spray, and What "Nonviolent" Means
We should all be appalled at the use of a lethal weapon used this so randomly. Today it's students protesting, tomorrow --who knows?
Those of us who vividly remmeeber the Viet Nam protests and the police violence against those protestors must feel that this is a replay of those days.
There is no rationale that can make using a lethal weapon on non-violent protestors acceptable.
Professor Joyce wrote a cogent, document argument aginst these egregious actions.
Post new comment