I’ve been writing this blog for fifteen years. In that time, I’ve written something like 20,000 posts. I’ve written about a lot of topics, of course – but there’ve been some recurring themes.
Liberalism is bad for children and other living things. The right to keep and bear arms is key among the things that separates citizens from subjects. The less centralized authority is, the better. The justification for “elites” being “elite” fades rapidly over intellectual generations.
And the Star/Tribune editorial board is a bunch of out-of-touch upper-middle-class patricians with little comprehension of the political world since Walter Mondale left office.
And I’m unlikely to change that any time soon.
But like the proverbial blind squirrel, they get one right once in a while, in their piece giving grudging support – the same grudging support I give – to increasing the penalties for blocking freeways during protests:
Blocking a freeway or a train track goes beyond peaceful protest. Those are inherently aggressive acts, designed to trigger a confrontation with law enforcement. They pose an immediate hazard to the protesters and motorists, as well as law enforcement.
The Legislature must be mindful of the right to peaceful protest, and of the danger in ignoring the concerns of those who feel aggrieved. But protesters must recognize they do not have a right to jeopardize the safety of others.
They’re pretty close, here. Earlier in the piece, they say:
Any law that seeks to restrict the right to protest must strike a careful balance that preserves public safety, without trammeling on the right to speak against perceived injustice.
As Walter Hudson points out, there is no “balance” between freedom and criminal behavior.
If this particular reform doesn’t pass, though, I’d like to propose a further, different reform. Currently, the “right” to block freeways is entirely contingent on a group’s level of favor with Betsy Hodges’ and Chris Coleman’s administrations. Both need to stay cuddled up to the far left – so Black Lives Matter has carte blanche.
So I say go ahead – let people protest on the freeways. But require a permit, same as any other protest that impacts the public – not to censor the event, but to allow people notice. And require them to be issued to everyone.
So if the pro-lifers think they’d draw attention to their cause by protesting on the main arterials leading into Kenwood, Crocus Hill, Nicollet Island and Edina, keeping the DFL’s grandées from getting from their non-profits to their feminist drum circle meetings, they’d be able to do it, too. They can check their Urban Liberal Privilege!
It’s a plan B.