The Shotgun Blog
« A Summer Wine For Stampede? Check Out "The Show" | Main | Blogger profile: Andrew Lawton »
Friday, July 09, 2010
On consistency
There's a bunch of conservatives who hold this narrative that protests, especially ones that invariably end up blocking thoroughfares due to the sheer number of people participating, are tantamount to the violation of the rights of others. Or in some cases, tantamount to terrorism.
Now, I'm a pretty radical capitalist as they go. Regular readers can attest to this. So you can imagine I don't have much time for angry left-wing protesters -- most of the time. But I certainly have room for their rights.
I don't view the trouble imposed by a protest at Yonge and Dundas Square in Toronto, which might amount to me having to detour around it to get where I'm going to have fundamentally violated my right to "freedom of movement".
Let's see David Harris over at the National Post apply this argument:
Toronto’s civic leaders and police management set the stage for the summit riots by advertising their self-paralyzing tendencies. Remember 2009, when the city signalled its willingness to be victimized by masses of Tamil Tigers’ terrorist supporters who flouted the law by blocking public thoroughfares? Ordinary citizens saw their constitutional right to free movement impinged, and had to get out of the way.
Okay, first of all: there is no "constitutional right to free movement".
Considering he's a lawyer, I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he's referring to the right "not to be arbitrarily detailed". But the latter does not imply the former. If it did, I'd probably be taking every locked door, fence, police DUI checkpoint, walls, various inanimate objects placed in my desired path of movement to court. So we can assume that he's not exactly a constitutional lawyer.
Excusing this silliness, we need to step back for a second and consider the problem of competing or intersecting rights.
It so happens that no right exists in isolation, and they can and do come into apparent conflict with each other. Resolving these conflicts can be difficult to parse and the relative merit of valuing one right over the other is often a contentious issue, depending on where you fall in the political spectrum.
David Harris is a former CSIS guy, and has devoted his life to security. So it's not surprising to me that his concept of rights is viewed through the lens of collective security. But the framers of the Charter did not intend for the rights of individuals to be secondary to the rights of all to be "safe from harm". In fact, the Charter, like the US Bill of Rights takes a decisively different tact by placing real tangible limits on the power of the state to police.
In 2007, the Supreme Court of Canada upheld this principle, by striking down key provisions of the 2001 Anti-Terrorism Act, which was hastily rushed through parliament after the terrorist attacks against New York City and Washington DC.
The provision, in particular, that caught the court's ire was the security certificate program. Which was in essence a legal tool for the government to use against someone deemed to be a national security threat, that enabled the government to effectively suspend the persons legal rights, particularly the right to have the legality of their detention judged by way of habeas corpus, to have a public hearing, and to be tried within a reasonable amount of time.
The basic premise of the security certificates were such that, the security of the nation was of paramount importance, and that they may not have enough evidence to convict certain suspected terrorists. Therefore, it's better to be safe than sorry, and keep them detained indefinitely without trial.
Naturally, our highest court didn't buy it, and struck down those provisions of the act, giving the government one year to bring it's policies into constitutional compliance. This upheld again, the basic constitutional and philosophical premise that security of the nation does not, in fact, supersede people's individual rights. They remain paramount, and fundamental to our constitutional order.
In the wake of the September 11th terrorist attacks, many on the right put forward the premise that we could no longer value individual rights as paramount, because the terrorists were using our freedoms against us. Benjamin Franklin's oft quoted position on the matter -- "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" -- sums up the libertarian response to this.
Harris' is putting forward this argument -- in different form -- when he suggests that it should be impermissible for supporters of the Tamil Tiger's to demonstrate or express support for them. That we are weak for allowing it, etc.
This is a typical meme among conservatives. That demonstrators carrying Hamas, Hezbollah, Tamil Tiger, paraphernalia, should be arrested and charged with supporting a "banned terrorist organization", etc. But this is silly when you consider many of these same people advanced the position that they would defend the right of neo-Nazi's to express their views out of principle.
Apparently, the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei and it's paraphernalia is simply expression, and a Hamas flag is not. But I prefer to be self-consistent and claim they both are.
In any case, providing moral support through various forms of expression is not the same thing as providing material support.
The fact that some conservatives who railed against the HRC and supported Marc Lemire in principle, will turn around and equate the two, shows that they weren't standing up for rights at all. But rather, a political position wrapped up in a story about rights; fascist ideologies held by white people = acceptable expression, fascist ideologies held by Muslim people = unacceptable expression.
You can't have it both ways. You're either standing up for free expression. Or you're not.
And if you're wondering about what the Anti-terrorism Act actually says: you cannot directly or indirectly finance, or directly or indirectly provide property for use in an terrorist act or terrorist organization.
Nothing in the act bans using your words or making signs to say you love Osama. So the meme about the police "not enforcing the law" at certain protests where these symbols are present is objectively wrong.
Further, Mr. Harris paints a picture about a society which is engaged in civilizational suicide by allowing such dissent. Except there is nothing new about Canadian citizens supporting enemies of Canada. There were Nazi sympathizers in World War II, there were Soviet Union sympathizers in the Cold War, there were supporters of the North in the Korean War. And the same logic applies.
By all means, go to pro-Hamas protests, take pictures of them, tar and feather these people on blogs and YouTube and go and counter-protest them. That's your right as much as it is theirs to wave their silly flags. But at least be consistent about it.
Posted by Mike Brock on July 9, 2010 | Permalink
Comments
Another awesome post by Brock! Keep em' coming!
Posted by: jason | 2010-07-09 12:59:46 PM
Asking partisans of any political stripe to be consistent is probably asking a little too much.
Posted by: stageleft | 2010-07-09 1:09:18 PM
Can I be honest with you Mike? You have a point. But what sort of makes me angry with you is the fact you seem hellbent on tearing the right apart...
What happened to Libertarians and Conservatives working together against our common Liberal enemy?
Instead you seem intent on focusing on all the differences between Libertarians and Conservatives which are far and few between.
"Some people just like to watch the world burn" -- Alfred, from the Dark Knight
Posted by: Andrew Fizpatrick | 2010-07-09 1:39:41 PM
No Andrew, what you're saying is that libertarians should be deferential to the conservative viewpoint when there exists an ideological divide. Let's be honest on that point.
To be fair, libertarians have largely been doing this -- in practice, if not in words -- for the last thirty-some-odd years.
At some point, I need to dignify my own worldview.
Posted by: Mike Brock | 2010-07-09 1:44:48 PM
Okay, first of all: there is no "constitutional right to free movement".
Posted by Mike Brock on July 9, 2010
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Section Six.
Posted by: The Stig | 2010-07-09 1:48:53 PM
Andrew: I'm not sure the "alliance" between conservatives and libertarians has been a good one. In practice, the alliance has asked libertarians to just accept all conservative positions.
On economic issues, we agree, so neither side is required to compromise.
On social issues, we disagree (at least with social conservatives), but libertarians have been expected or asked to compromise for the sake of the alliance.
Well, compromise is a two-way street. Give me an issue where conservatives have "compromised" on in favour of the libertarian position, and I'll change my tune.
Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2010-07-09 1:51:56 PM
Oops, I just basically said what Mike said, but in slightly different words.
Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2010-07-09 1:52:46 PM
Stig,
Section 6 deals with the right to enter, leave, take residence in Canada, and move freely across provincial boundaries.
It is not a generalized right to move freely, unimpeded.
Posted by: Mike Brock | 2010-07-09 1:53:22 PM
The Stig: Here's the text of section 6. Mike was right:
6. (1) Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada.
(2) Every citizen of Canada and every person who has the status of a permanent resident of Canada has the right
a) to move to and take up residence in any province; and
b) to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province.
(3) The rights specified in subsection (2) are subject to
a) any laws or practices of general application in force in a province other than those that discriminate among persons primarily on the basis of province of present or previous residence; and
b) any laws providing for reasonable residency requirements as a qualification for the receipt of publicly provided social services.
(4) Subsections (2) and (3) do not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration in a province of conditions of individuals in that province who are socially or economically disadvantaged if the rate of employment in that province is below the rate of employment in Canada.
Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2010-07-09 1:55:23 PM
One slight difference, Mike, is that in the previous cases you mention, the primary actors on the international stage were nation-states, which were at least predictable and bound by certain geopolitical realities.
The terrorism supported by these groups is a entirely different animal; the threat can come from anywhere, and doesn't wear military colours. That, coupled with its very specific recruiting of the outcasts, the misfits, the angry, and the outright criminal, makes it a far more insidious threat. Modern interpretations of these historical principles must bear these changed realities in mind.
Neo-Nazis, by the way, are usually not violent terrorists, but relatively harmless racist nut bags. I would not arrest someone for supporting the Ku Klux Klan today. But I would have arrested someone for supporting it in the 1950s and earlier, when it was a bona fide terror organization.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-07-09 2:03:54 PM
...and move freely across provincial boundaries.
Posted by: Mike Brock | 2010-07-09 1:53:22 PM
And the right to move across a provincial border means I must have mobility in the province I'm in to be able to leave.
Posted by: The Stig | 2010-07-09 2:10:30 PM
The Stig,
Do you have a right to demand that a tree in a public park be uprooted so you don't have to course correct when you approach it?
Can you demand that the police at DUI stop, desist in blocking the flow of traffic so can you travel freely?
If a road is temporarily closed for construction, or for some other purpose, can you be demand it be re-opened and cleared for your pleasure?
Do you have a right to demand that Santa Clause get off the road when they close Main Street for the Santa Clause parade? And what about all the people crowding the sidewalks, preventing you from easily getting by?
Seems like you should call a lawyer.
Posted by: Mike Brock | 2010-07-09 2:15:19 PM
Section 6 deals with the right to enter, leave, take residence in Canada, and move freely across provincial boundaries. It is not a generalized right to move freely, unimpeded.
Sections 2 and 7 arguably confer such a right, subject to reasonable limits as per Section 1. Furthermore, Section 180 of the Criminal Code makes it an indictable offence to "obstruct the public in the exercise or enjoyment of any right that is common to all the subjects of Her Majesty in Canada." In other words, blocking traffic and numerous other forms of public nuisance are technically a federal crime, punishable by up to two years in jail.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-07-09 2:15:37 PM
Shane,
As far as I know, you have no general right to not encounter an obstruction on a thoroughfare.
While there are certain statutory restrictions on blocking traffic, the enforcement of those restrictions is limited . As you have already agreed in a previous post, the law as stands, has been interpreted to value the right of expression and free assembly above the right to have the public roads clear for traffic.
Posted by: Mike Brock | 2010-07-09 2:23:44 PM
Do you have a right to demand that a tree in a public park be uprooted so you don't have to course correct when you approach it?
Bad analogy, Mike. The tree is not in the middle of a recognized thoroughfare designed specifically for the conveyance of traffic; any such route would have been built around it. You therefore shouldn't find it in your way unless you're already off the road.
Can you demand that the police at DUI stop desist in blocking the flow of traffic so can you travel freely?
They're not blocking traffic; they're checking traffic, for a perfectly legal reason in the pursuit of an established social good. Blocking traffic for political purposes is not legal.
If a road is temporarily closed for construction, or for some other purpose, can you be demand it be re-opened and cleared for your pleasure?
Since the road is likely impassable while under repair, what purpose would that serve?
Do you have a right to demand that the Santa Clause get off the road when they close Main Street for the Santa Clause parade? And what about all the people crowding the sidewalks, preventing you from easily getting by?
A permitted and registered cultural event organized in advance, complete with traffic control, posted detours, and other precautions. When last I checked, chanting protesters provided none of this.
People do not have the right to block the flow of traffic without lawful excuse. The examples you provide above constitute lawful excuse. Having an opinion does not.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-07-09 2:23:51 PM
While there are certain statutory restrictions on blocking traffic, the enforcement of those restrictions is limited. As you have already agreed in a previous post, the law as stands, has been interpreted to value the right of expression and free assembly above the right to have the public roads clear for traffic.
After what happened in Toronto, Mike, I expect the courts, and especially the court of public opinion, to take a much less indulgent approach towards that sort of thing. A system similar to the American one, requiring permits for all rallies and swift and stiff punishments for those who disobey, would be a good compromise.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-07-09 2:26:59 PM
People do not have the right to block the flow of traffic without lawful excuse. The examples you provide above constitute lawful excuse. Having an opinion does not.
And the right of protest, as an extension of the right to peaceful assembly, has been generally recognized as a lawful excuse. In both the US and Canada. You can look it up.
Posted by: Mike Brock | 2010-07-09 2:28:20 PM
Seems like you should call a lawyer.
Posted by: Mike Brock | 2010-07-09 2:15:19 PM
Are you a lawyer?
The Stig: Here's the text of section 6. Mike was right:
Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2010-07-09 1:55:23 PM
Are you a lawyer?
Posted by: The Stig | 2010-07-09 2:33:25 PM
And the right of protest, as an extension of the right to peaceful assembly, has been generally recognized as a lawful excuse. In both the US and Canada. You can look it up.
"Been generally recognized" sounds awfully iffy to me, Mike, and as I have mentioned before, this is primarily because the current generation of judges grew up during the protest-minded 1960s. If something is illegal, but not enforced, the police and courts can crack down at any time without having to change a thing or make a single excuse. Thus protesting is not a "right" in any sense of the word, but merely a tolerated annoyance.
I expect it will become less tolerated as memories of the Sixties fade. Already numerous American cities now require permits for rallies, and do not tolerate the blocking of traffic. If Toronto continues to be a target for selfish activists who think their having a cause entitles them to bring the city to a halt, look for similar laws here.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-07-09 2:45:00 PM
As I said to Mike on Twitter, consistency is overrated :-)
He writes:
"But this is silly when you consider many of these same people advanced the position that they would defend the right of neo-Nazi's to express their views out of principle."
If that's the only reason "this" is "silly" than I have to respectfully disagree.
Those "neo-Nazis" are a) usually not "neo-Nazis" assuming such creatures even exist outside the fevered imaginations of people who need them to exist in order to frighten older liberal Jews into giving them money.
When I read the text of these "neo-Nazi" website that the HRCs have bravely shut down (helpfully, the Canadian govt celebrates these victories by REPRINTING THE OFFENDING TEXTS ON A .GOV WEBSITE!)
what I read are a bunch of angry white working class guys like the ones I spent the first 20 years of my life around.
They are complaining and making crude jokes about immigrants, and making observations that (shock!) occasionally contain a grain of truth.
Particularly, these posters voice the opinion that... Tamils and Muslims etc shouldn't march down the street flying foreign flags and "bringing their old wars over here"!
You can see where I'm going with this.
Why do these fellows get harrassed by agents of the state while admittedly different agents of the state use my tax dollars to PROVE THEIR POINT with impunity?
"Neo-Nazis" are not trying to kill me. And I could likely kill a few back before dying if they were. When was the last time a Neo-Nazi even beat somebody up outside of a Law & Order episode?
Certain Muslims in Canada on the other hand? Other terrorist group sympathizers? Maybe not a clear and present danger but closer to being one that some spotty white guy in a basement.
During WW2, I expect the US govt spent way more time watching Japanese and German groups than, say, the Sons of the Confederacy or even the Klan.
All I'm saying is: consistency isn't as important as priorities and perspective. The authorities make a great show about going after ALL THE WRONG PEOPLE. That's my beef.
It is like Geert Wilders' widely misunderstood view that the Koran should be banned. He is trying to make a point: why is Mein Kampf banned and not this book? Why are we fighting yesterday's war and not today's?
Again, in this instance I believe that "consistency" for the sake of abstract principle is actually detrimental to real life security.
Posted by: Kathy Shaidle | 2010-07-10 6:33:22 AM
Lest anyone think I'm just riding my favorite hobby horse yet again, that the HRCs in particular and the Canadian Establishment in general is engaged in low level class warfare by targeting working class whites, I'd like to add that in many instances, the content of the "offensive" statements punished by the HRCs bear a marked resemblance to portions of the letters of Philip Larkin.
That the grandees at the HRC and elsewhere don't recognize this is simply further proof that despite my own lowly origins and relatively meager education, they are quite simply not smart enough to tell me how to live.
Posted by: Kathy Shaidle | 2010-07-10 7:27:40 AM
Kathy,
I am not insensitive to the reality of hypocrisy on these issues within the Canadian establishment. But my point is, that reverse-hypocrisy is equally foolish.
You're not going to get any argument out of me on the dangers that fundamentalist Islam presents. But I'm also not going to back down on my defence of liberty.
To quote the motto of New Hampshire, I choose to "live free or die". Which is to say, that I recognize implicitly, that living in a society where everyone has equal rights, that some -- Islamic terrorists for instance -- will manage to slip through the cracks and successfully carry out terrorist attacks that will result in the innocent loss of life. It's a risk we all share.
It's a risk that the founding father's of the United States understood. But they decided it was better to live free, than to live in an authoritarian security state, because when you live free, life is more fulfilling.
The truth is, I think the anti-Islam movement within conservative circles is actually counter productive. It doesn't have the effect of de-legitimizing Islam. In fact, it suffers from a whiplash effect, in which some people turn off to the criticism and come to opposite conclusions.
I think a general malaise has set in, in Canada and the US in particular about this issue. And while this isn't meant to discount the reality that threats exist, the number one thing we can do as people who value our freedom and wish to resist things like Sharia courts, and the "Islamification" of our society, is to stand up for these principles of liberty.
Because a society that values liberty is a society that will not tolerate authoritarianism form where ever it emerges.
This is my point. And I'd rather die on liberty's hill than on some exception to the rule.
Posted by: Mike Brock | 2010-07-10 1:18:15 PM
Mike I agree with your sentiments 100%.
And indeed it IS better to live in a society where you might stand a 1-in-a-million chance of getting shot, or killed by a drunk driver, than it is to have gun control and live under a Bully Breathalyzer State.
But in all seriousness: the 'live free or die' credo is related to 'don't tread on me', which, as politically incorrect as it will be to some, means: pack heat and cops will leave you alone.
Right now we are a passive, polite, effete unarmed society. Any cops equipped with petty power, a gun, taser and body armour will feel entitled, if not invited, to use same and/or abuse you.
If a large proportion of citizenry armed themselves with hand guns and an informed insistence on our natural, human, Magna Carta and Charter rights, 80% of police brutality and harassment goes away. So does the enforceability of, and by extension, the Bully/Nanny/Therapeutic State laws themselves.
Posted by: JC | 2010-07-10 2:21:05 PM
An armed and rights-enlightened population, also, as studies show, would mean less REAL crime.
And therefor less "need" -- real or imagined -- for state cops.
So more cops go away, and we get one step closer to private security and investigations. Which a lot of urban communities already employ, today. You know, the guys who will actually respond to the break-in of your garage, and try to find its contents. And frequently succeed.
Posted by: JC | 2010-07-10 2:24:46 PM
Has anyone else noticed that the pro-police people want to give the police the benefit of the doubt, but not the people arrested?
This rhetoric that they want to wait until the courts rule, before they make any judgements against the police.
Yes. The presumption of innocence for police, but not for the people they arrest. To hell with consistency!
Posted by: Mike Brock | 2010-07-10 3:25:54 PM
Mike, have you noticed that, as a general thing, the police are more trustworthy than anarchists and even political activists? I certainly have, and to judge by the fact that there are protesters marching in the streets over the G20 arrests when a sizable majority of Canadians support the police in this matter, I'm not the only one.
Furthermore, those people who were detained (not arrested) and later released are no longer under investigation, so the presumption of innocence does not apply. Since the police, on the other hand, presumably now are under investigation, the presumption of innocence applies, just as it does to those the police did arrest and are now awaiting trial.
But if you want to talk about a lack of presumption of innocence, why don't you look at the protesters themselves? They're there because they think the dignitaries are going to craft policy that will somehow screw them. They don't even wait to hear what's been decided. They just show up in force, beating their chests, blocking traffic, breaking windows, bellowing discredited political and economic philosophies through megaphones.
The trouble with activists is they treat people like crap, but don't think people should be allowed to do the same to them in return. They break the laws to make their points, but think the same law should shield them from those who are supposed to enforced the law. Like you said, Mike: To hell with consistency.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-07-10 5:03:51 PM
There's an old saying: the more you yap, the less they listen.
Posted by: set you free | 2010-07-10 5:55:52 PM
Mike, you cannot pigeonhole people, but you still try to do it. I agree that conservatives are not consistent but neither are libertarians, socialists, communists or any group. In fact no single person is truly consistent unless they are in a mental institution. As long as you expect groups or individuals to be consistent you will be disappointed. You certainly leave the impression of wanting to impose your point of view on this topic which seems to be that which you accuse those with a different point of view of doing. Think about it.
As a general principle I agree that the more laws we have, the less free we are. Other than possibly English Common Law all laws seek to restrict freedom and control people and are based on a negative approach. Usually when we attempt to legislate something out of existence we end up getting more of the same.
Posted by: Alain | 2010-07-10 7:33:53 PM
A post on "consistency" from someone who can't even keep his own "Help! I'm being oppressed!" story straight?
Now I've seen everything.
Posted by: Kate | 2010-07-10 8:23:19 PM
Oh, hey Kate!
You know what? You're right. A guy who mixed up his recollection of "fuck" versus "shit" in conversation has no business making arguments about consistency.
We all know that the validity and truth value of arguments subsequent to such an inconsistency is cancelled.
Posted by: Mike Brock | 2010-07-10 8:57:13 PM
So what you're saying, Mike, is that inconsistency is no big deal after all.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-07-10 9:13:03 PM
You accused others of professional misconduct. That's pretty serious stuff.
Yet, you couldn't keep your own story straight in two postings made mere minutes apart. It seems you're not the most reliable accuser, eh?
Then there's the problem of the continuing misrepresentation of your own actions that day.
You weren't an innocent citizen who just happened to be in the neighborhood.
You were running about the downtown, posting (hostile) updates on police movements to Twitter. That's the part you always out of your story, eh?
Again, why would that be?
When you were finally confronted, your buttons were already primed for the pushing, weren't they?
Except the details turned out to be a trifle pedestrian. No time in detention, no punch in the gut, nobody ran off with your leg.
What to do... what to do?
So you beefed up the quote a little. Make that cop a little louder, a little more threatening....then airbrush your own contribution out of the story, and voila!
Your own little attention-seeking libertarian wet dream come true.
Posted by: Kate | 2010-07-10 9:44:08 PM
Kate McMillan: carrying the banner for jesuitical casuistry out of the neo-fascist aggro-con wankosphere and into....oblivion.
Posted by: JC | 2010-07-11 1:50:29 AM
You were running about the downtown, posting (hostile) updates on police movements to Twitter. That's the part you always out of your story, eh?
Alright, Kate. I'm going to admit you've managed to piss me off. Take whatever sick pleasure you will from that.
However, there's two main reasons why this astounding observation of yours is bullshit.
One is the fact that I live downtown. The second is that I work downtown. Hard to believe I know.
But here's another: on Monday I went to work -- I know, how provocative of me, given the circumstances.
There was absolutely nothing about me Twittering that proves I was out being a "hostile observer". This is your projection.
I Twitter a lot of things Kate. And seeing a bus of police unload in riot gear on my walk home, seemed worthy of it -- I know, how dare I?
It was hard to avoid police at all for four days. There were about 10 police on every corner of the downtown core, including right outside my condo. And the only time I ever bothered to go out to "observe" was Saturday. And my account of that is posted.
I know you have difficulties with conceptualizing urban densities and distance scales. But you know, I don't even own a car. I walk pretty much everywhere. I live in such close proximity to everything I need in my life that I rarely even take the subway. Hard to believe.
So I walk through the afflicted area almos every fucking day of my life. And I have every right to Twitter the shit I see on my way home from work. And quite plainly, Kate: if I was looking for "action", I would not be heading in an Easterly direction on King. I would have been heading Northerly towards the protest that evening -- over 1km north of my position.
The fact I was not going there is backed up by one of those Tweets.
While I'm sure you're self-impressed with you power of reading people's true intentions and detective skills, I can assure you that this time you're way off base.
Now why don't you leave me alone? Since I'm respecting your request to do the same.
Posted by: Mike Brock | 2010-07-11 8:53:55 AM
Stalking is hard to deal with. My son is being stalked by an ex-girlfriend right now, and my car ended up getting vandalized. I was stalked a few years ago by a crazy woman. There's a reflex action to lash out, and get even, but it only gives them ammunition to use against you. Just let it go. Crazy women soon lose interest in sensible men.
Not that I consider you a sensible man, but you should be able to hold it together long enough to lose the stalker.
Posted by: dp | 2010-07-11 9:43:46 AM
I should think stalking would be easy to deal with, dp. If the police cannot or will not trace her actions against you, why would they be able to trace yours against her? The trick is to keep it clean--clean, generic, and untraceable. Above all, avoid violence to her person or leaving a signature.
Instead of cutting her brake lines or wiring a block of C4 to her ignition, put sugar in her gas tank, scatter nails in her driveway, or let the air out of her tires without slashing them. Instead of firing rifle shots through her windows, use a high-powered slingshot with common-or-garden pebbles. Uproot the plants in her garden, leave roadkill on her porch, or put glue in her door locks (make sure you get her car, too). If she has an accessible mailbox, write "DECEASED - RETURN TO SENDER" on all the envelopes and dump them in the Post. If you're reasonably stealthy and mechanically savvy, open up her electrical meter and dial up the consumption by a factor of ten.
With the exception of the last, those are all things that kids do for kicks, and the cops know it. To get the cops to believe otherwise, she'll have to convince them that you are stalking her. Eventually she'll either do something serious enough that will justify you having her arrested, or she'll get the message that it's just not worth all the trouble.
P.S. Remember all of this is for entertainment value only and is purely hypothetical. ;-)
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-07-11 12:23:19 PM
Yes, very entertaining. Just thinking about it helps calm the urge to pepper spray her elderly parents.
Posted by: dp | 2010-07-11 12:30:28 PM
Concerning the 'alliance' earlier: It doesn't make sense to lump all cons together as one. By definition they have no uniting moral or philosophical foundation, which is why their movement is such an intellectual @&!*heap. They are a scattershot in terms of use to us. We can and must work with some of the high-quality cons who, for all their flaws, actually care about freedom like Steyn and Coren while ignoring/slagging neanderthals like McMillan. You see Fitzpatrick, this shouldn't be about tearing apart the libertarian-con alliance, it should be about libertarians tearing apart the conservatives into good and bad bits.
Oh, and this idea of an alliance with lefties is terrible. Some may be useful for ending the war on drugs. I have seen very very few that want to end the war on guns or the HRCs/Section 13. Forget about it.
Posted by: Cytotoxic | 2010-07-11 12:55:44 PM
What is the main difference in the ‘I'm oppressed' mindset between the G20 and the usual pro-dope threads here?
Not much, other than to re-enforce the victim status.
n every aspect of life, there are frustrations. How a person handles those frustration determines whether they ultimately become a success or a failure.
I see plenty of examples here of failing strategies.
Wanna see the oppressor? Look in the mirror.
Posted by: set you free | 2010-07-11 2:32:22 PM
Mike:
Engaging McMillan is beneath you. At least wait til she makes an argument to do so. By responding to her bilious hair-splitting, you only lend her credibility.
Calling B.S. on Lawton's hubristic self-promotion is fair game, and good fun. He invited it. If he can't take the heat, he ought not to be in the talk game -- even the fantasy version he seems to participate in.
I am STILL waiting for Lawton to produce proof of these 500K claims.
Posted by: JC | 2010-07-11 3:35:16 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.