The “Right to Protest” is an instrument of oppression - Alcyonenews

Go to content

Main menu:

Posted June 17, 2022

The “Right to Protest” is an instrument of oppression

Newborns are loud protesters.  They have to be due to being born “un-lingual” or “Cry-phonic”, yet amply endowed with a functional nerve-system and a determination to express their feelings.  They make their dissatisfaction known to those who may affect satisfaction.  But would babies cry if they could speak?

Hollywood said there are rebels-without-cause, like James Dean and easy rider Peter Fonda, the latter being brother of Jane Fonda, herself a notorious rebel, she for good and valid causes.
Nine of the 10 aspirants to study at the Ecole Central Polytechnicque in Paris do not  get in.  The ratio is really much higher because countless potential candidates dare not try.  The entrance exams are fair, there are no protests by those who do not get in. Some “rights” have to be earned but the right to try must be inviolable.

The 1919 Winnipeg General Strike happened because the “protesters” were denied a Right.  The Right of accessing the resources and the tools of the society to contribute one’s effort for a fair share of the resulting wealth.  This was then, in 1919, deliberately misrepresented as being a freedom to work if “they” would offer you a job, that on their terms and wages.  This Right remains conveniently obfuscated, so that it can be “managed” for profit.  Getting to call it a “Right” and delineating its true meaning would be conducive to its viability.  We need to pursue that and damn Adam Smith and his Economists.

The Winnipeg protest was responded to with goons, Special Constables “they” (the “establishment”) called them.  “They” hired them after firing the police who refused to harm the strikers.  On June 26, 1919, hence known as Bloody Saturday, “they” unleashed the goons on the protesters.  They killed two and injured 34.

This ended the protest.  “They” let the goons go and brought in the Judges to finish the job.  The Judges made the event a paradigm for those who may give in to hunger and protest for bread.  The independent Judges of the impartial courts caged seven strike leaders in jail cells for between six months and two years.

In 2004, Judge John Bouck heroically sentenced a bevy of irreverent Raging Grannies who protested clearcutting the Carmanah.  He fined the Grannies $1,000 each and sheltered them for 45 to 60 days in jail, the number depending on the flower-count on their hats, I presume.  
The Winnipeg Strikers, the Carmanah Grannies and many others, were protesting more than they were jailed for.  Unconsciously as it might have been, they were battling the suppression of the fundamental human right to intellectual discourse.  They were fighting against been forced to “gladiate” in arenas, they were battling against being coerced to take up the sword instead of using their tongue.  They were storming the arenas, for these are anathema to civilization.

“They” official-ized the “right to protest” to hide the suppression of fair process, that which is an indisputable right of all people.  “They” invented Permits-to-Protest to make ever more easy to dissipate public ire before it reached “them” and which “they” would smash, should it become too bothersome.  This is reminiscent of Chief Joe Capilano’s astute observation that “white man makes law to do bad things as if they are good”.

The canonization of Protest tempts unscrupulous and mistaken people to protest thereby burdening the society by pursuing reprehensible causes.  This raises more public resentment for protest, thus aiding “them” to treat protesters harshly.  Protest abuse happens frequently, especially in times of inept and timid governments, who are not rare in our times.  By now, there is a lucrative protest industry forming rapidly to exploit the protest profit-opportunity.  This is in itself a cause for concern.

Embedding Protest in the roster of Human Rights is akin to the inanity of writing into law rules of war.  The latter bestows legitimacy to slaughtering humans for the glory of the war industry, the former legitimizes protest and and diverts from the need to eradicate its causes.  Simply said, they exploits the public angst against Protest to  safeguard itself against being challenged on the Field of Reason.

Before closing I should recognize the reality that protesters tend to go overboard.  This is hard to prevent, not unlike drug overdosing.  It is a phenomenon akin to power- corrupts, and is more familiar as “mob mentality”.
The solution is clear we must meaningfully supplant words for swords, we need to raze the arenas, we must bring and keep the discourse to the green level field of reason.  For us, for the World.  The odds are formidable which makes the task eminently noble and  befitting of Canada.


Bits & Bytes

What is “Profit”? ... Who knows, eh?

In 1948 as the Cold War was getting underway.  Paul Samuelson published his book “Economics”, which was translated in 40 languages and became the foundation of the “education” of Free World “System-Prophets”.

In a delightful passage of the book Samuelson relates having asked 14 of his graduate students to define “profit”, which was at the time promoted as being the locomotive of the economic system of the Free World.

They came up with 14 different answers, Samuelson reports.  He neither divulged the 14 answers, nor did he delineate the true meaning of “profit”.  He simply emulates religious prophets who demand unexamined faith.

Dr. Samuelson was awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics.

Back to content | Back to main menu