Categories
crime and punishment international affairs Regulating Protest

Crackdowns For Lockdowns

Politicians and bureaucrats like some protests, fear others. 

You can tell a lot about a protest movement and its actual agenda by how a government reacts. You can tell a lot about a government by how it instructs police to respond to different protests.

So we should probably take a careful look at anti-lockdown protests around the world, especially in Europe.

And how police are handling them.

Very violently.

Nils Melzer, Professor of International Law at the University of Glasgow and the current United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, has “requested more information on an incident in which a female anti-lockdown protester in Berlin was grabbed by the throat and brutally thrown to the ground by riot police,” reports Paul Joseph Watson of Summit News

The response to Melzer’s request was “overwhelming, with over a hundred reports of violence flooding in,” Watson summarizes, citing a report in Berliner Zeitung.

While examples of police brutality are viewable on Twitter, YouTube, and other social media, reportage in America seems muted, perhaps thanks to our lockstep pro-lockdown corporate media.

“Something fundamental is going wrong,” Melzer says. “In all regions of the world, the authorities are apparently increasingly viewing their own people as an enemy.”

There is no mystery. Lockdowns, mask mandates, and mandatory vaccinations amount to quite a holistic assault on personal liberty.

While protests that demand more power for the state, or that would increase the security of the ruling faction, get treated with kid gloves, protests directed against state power, or against a sitting regime — and especially against such a power grab — get cracked down upon.

It’s stands to reason, but not justice.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
crime and punishment national politics & policies too much government

Present for Police

From the people who brought you “Defund the Police,” prepare yourself for . . . “Throw Billions at the Police!”

“The Capitol Police on Monday announced a multi-pronged plan to expand its operations,” journalist Glenn Greenwald informs, highlighting that “the force intends for the first time to create a permanent presence outside of the Capitol.”

Instead of police defending the national Capitol, the U.S. Capitol Police (USCP) goes national.

“The Department is also in the process of opening Regional Field Offices in California and Florida,” announced the USCP news release, “with additional regions in the near future to investigate threats to Members of Congress.”

Plus, USCP declared it is “moving forward along a new path towards an intelligence based protective agency.” After being unprepared to defend capitol doors from a mob back in January, the force now morphs into yet another “intelligence” agency.

Does that make it the 18th such agency? 19th? Umpteenth?

USCP’s spread throughout the country is made possible by $2 billion in additional funding passed two months ago by the very narrowest of House margins, 213 to 212.

But what about 2020’s Democratic push to “defund the police”?

Three Democratic members of “The Squad” did vote with all Republicans against this expansion of the Capitol Police. Yet, three other Squad members — Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), Jamaal Bowman (D-NY), and Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) — simply voted “present.”

Had even one said “no,” super-sizing the budget and role of the Capitol Police would have failed.

“No more policing, incarceration, and militarization,” Rep. Tlaib tweeted last year. But she was “present” for $2 billion more.

“Defunding police means defunding police,” Ocasio-Cortez once declared. “It does not mean budget tricks or funny math.”

What about funny voting?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


PDF for printing

secret agent photo

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
crime and punishment general freedom

Freedom for the Stars?

Bill Cosby is out of prison, but Britney Spears is still captive.

Once the titan of comedy, Cosby has just been released from prison because a judge threw out his three-year-old conviction on due process grounds. It may be the case that the ruling is correct, while the substance of the original judgment — Mr. Cosby’s guilt for aggravated indecent assault — remains sound. Sometimes the guilty go free.

The “Princess of Pop,” on the other hand, has not been released from her confinement.

After a series of hit singles and albums, and a wild phase in the mid-2000s, Ms. Spears was placed under a conservatorship. Though worth tens of millions, she was given a $2000 per week allowance, forbidden to marry or take out her birth control device, and forced to work under the direction of her father and managers. 

She may be the world’s richest slave.

Conservatorships are designed to protect the health, welfare and rights of incompetent people. Ms. Spears has every appearance of being ultra-competent musically, but is undoubtedly deficient in other areas. As are we all. After her father suffered a severe illness a few years ago, she had a breakdown. But reports now say she has been trying to end her decade-plus conservatorship for even longer.

Some of her public statements indicate that she has been gaslit and traumatized by people she loved. “I’ve lied and told the whole world I’m okay and I’m happy,” she has testified in court.

“I’m scared of people. I don’t trust people with what I’ve been through. . . .”

Without pretending to understand the legal mess, I side with Britney: “It’s not okay to force me to do anything I don’t want to do.”

Exactly. Slavery is not okay.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
crime and punishment

Pardon All the Non-Criminals

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis is pardoning mask and social-distancing scofflaws.

He says the pandemic mitigation rules amount to overreach. “These things with health should be advisory, they should not be punitive.”

I agree. But could he (and other governors) do more to help non-criminals?

At Reason.com, Billy Binion argues that there’s lots of over-criminalization that DeSantis could tackle. Consider the drug war. If you’re arrested in Florida for possessing up to 20 grams of pot, you “face a $1,000 fine and up to a year in prison”; more than 25 grams, three to 15 years in the hoosegow.

DeSantis rejects the idea of legalizing recreational cannabis, so his “overreach” critique of public health law is limited.

Severely

Yet it is not as if the states don’t take numerous punitive actions against persons guilty only of naivety, carelessness, or being in the wrong place at the wrong time:

  • Depending on the state, it can be a bad idea to drive down the road with guns you legally own in your car trunk.
  • Collecting signatures for an initiative petition has sometimes been treated as a prison-worthy offense.
  • It can be a lousy idea to carry your life savings in the form of cash if there is any chance an official might notice and confiscate it

That latter problem, of civil asset forfeiture, would be tricky to fix at the back end, since if you’re not arrested for having the money, you can’t exactly be pardoned. But surely chief executives could take other actions to right such obvious wrongs.

Any state governor (or president) could do worse than spend, say, half of his or her time issuing pardons and finding other ways to help people caught by unjust government snares.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
crime and punishment media and media people

Make Journalism Illegal?

Journalist Tom Lemons may be jailed up to twenty years for investigating the Dawn Center, a shelter for victims of domestic violence in Hernando County, Florida.

Lemons talked to former employees and to women who sought help there. He learned about theft of donations, filthy conditions, and a chronically lawless atmosphere.

Now he is on trial for what he says are trumped-up charges designed to stop him from telling the tale. Lemons details his tribulations in his book Victim Shopping 101: The truth doesn’t always set you free.

The alleged cover-up may not be limited to the county sheriff’s office and county politicians. The Florida legislature has passed a law making it illegal to identify women’s shelters.

According to a recent press release by State Senator Ileana Garcia, “Senate Bill 70 makes it a first degree misdemeanor, or a felony upon a second or subsequent conviction [to maliciously disclose] any descriptive information or image that may identify the location of a certified domestic violence center.”

So . . . arrest the Internet?

As Lemons tells PJ Media’s Megan Fox, the shelter “promotes their services and fundraising events all the time on social media.” The point of the law, he believes, is only to stop him from distributing his documentary about the shelter, Behind the Gate, which the statute would outlaw.

Lemons’ April 28 interview is on YouTube

Fox urges Florida Governor Ron DeSantis to do something to counter this travesty of justice. Vetoing SB 70 would be a start.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
Accountability crime and punishment

Bodycam vs. Phonecam

When an LA County Sheriff’s deputy pulled over a woman driving a Mercedes, she went on a tear that quickly become infamous. “You’re always gonna be a Mexican,” she scolded the cop, “you’ll never be white, you know that, right?”

Undoubtedly, this racist taunt from a black female motorist, confirmed by Fox News to be an area teacher, was in the name of anti-racism. Wokely, assuming that to be Latino and a cop must mean he “wants to be white.”

She claims that she became afraid of the deputy, who she kept calling a “murderer,” so she started recording him. Indeed, he pulled her over because she had been using her cell phone to record . . . while driving! After the stop, she continued to record him, which she (correctly) said she had every right to do. He persevered and gave her a ticket for having used her phone while driving.

He had a bodycam on, which his department does not require. The video he sent Fox journalist Bill Melugin no doubt got in front of The Narrative.

The woman, a serial complainer about police, did indeed file a complaint about his behavior.

Folks who earnestly worry about police abuse — and not, like this woman, who did so in a paranoiac and ideological and racist manner — might consider getting something for road altercations themselves: one for the dash, but also one on their very own person. And something that is not a phone! At least when driving.

Has the utility of the “cop cam” ever been better demonstrated?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


PDF for printing

Photo by Yannick Gingras

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts