When people are dissatisfied with an outcome or ruling, usually of a political nature, they demonstrate. With the proper permits from the area that is of concern to make their point is not only a legal but also an impressive manner to make their voices heard. Without documentation, that is illegal assembly and the activists are subject to prosecution under the law. Kowtowing to those who do not follow this procedure is merely encouraging them not to follow the law, not only in this instance but other instances as well. Rules are made for a reason. The reasons are supposed to be for the public good and safety. The rules, at times, are not always valid, in which case they can work to change the laws governing them. While the rules exist, follow them and there will be no consequence; don’t and there are and should be consequences. It has become commonplace that demonstrations are often accompanied by violence and rioting. If this is done to emphasize a point this rationale should be rethought. 

The general thought pattern of those not demonstrating when they see violence is that the character of those demonstrating is less than honorable and certainly destructive. Whenever rioting occurs the ones who suffer most are the business owners and residents. From an outsider’s point of view it is difficult to attach a serious cause to those who use demonstrations to riot. Who is served by the theft and destruction of property? The only ones benefiting from the looting are the looters. Those observing the looting should have one conclusion, this is not done for the good of society but to merely enrich a few of the demonstrators. In order for the freedom of speech to be heard the question seems to be, to whom do you listen more closely, the individual  yelling in your ear merely to make noise or the one speaking softly and making valid points? You can only convince someone of your position if they are listening and even then most individuals dig their heels in to a view with which they do not agree. It is indeed difficult to change another’s mind under the most advantageous of circumstances much less adversarial situations. The question remains, how does change come about? At best it is difficult to accomplish. Thus far the only method that has worked in the past is true determination and hard work and an understanding of the opposition stance. Hostile confrontation results in more hostility, which confronting parties say they both wish to avoid. Everyone must use their mouths less and their ears more. If you don’t work in this fashion perhaps you need your ass kicked.

Leo Lampeter

retired looking to create action

Read More on Opinion
Volume 9, Issue 1, Posted 1:52 PM, 01.05.2017