When protest becomes dangerous

When one talks about protests, now, most attention goes to Minnesota, where protests have ramped up, grabbing national attention and, tragically, resulting in the death of one protestor. North Dakota is no stranger to protest, however.

Although it may be rarer than in some other places, our state has a history of resistance, when people are motivated to a cause or to resist what they deem objectionable. Those old enough will remember “Zip to Zap” during the Vietnam war era. Far more recent were protests which nearly avoided becoming riots in the aftermath of another Minnesota event which grabbed national headlines — George Floyd’s death.

The latter and others, in recent years, have raised the question as to whether these are homegrown events or the result of organized efforts by agitators from far beyond North Dakota’s borders. One may recall that many who arrived in downtown Fargo to protest in the George Floyd aftermath arrived by bus from points unknown. 

Among the area’s proudest moments was the collection of local folks who quietly showed up the next morning to clean up the few broken windows and other minor damage in downtown Fargo, demonstrating that the events of the day before did not represent who we are, as North Dakotans.

Several months ago, we wrote about the DAPL protest of several years ago and Greenpeace, which was later linked to its organization. The opening words of that piece apply today:

“The right to peacefully protest is guaranteed by the United States Constitution and enshrined in our nation’s history.  Some historic improvements in our society have been the result of such peaceful protests.  Yet, in recent years, we’ve seen peaceful protests turn violent.  Most agree that this is wrong.”

Recent events beg the question who is behind all of this? Is it, once again, a national organization pressing its view or a cause? Is some shadowy collective of those of a particular political perspective organizing this?

We don’t know, of course, but simple observations hint that a larger effort is behind much of this. During recent protests of the presence of ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement, a federal government agency) in various cities and states across the nation, professionally printed signs with identical messages (same message, same font, same type size, etc.) remarkably appeared overnight. Unless local Kinkos everywhere have a template and lots of quick drying ink, that appears orchestrated. Many at protests bear a striking resemblance to folks seen at other, recent protests. Out of state license plates are common.

Again, the right to protest enjoys a deep tradition and constitutional protection in our nation. Yet, concerns mount when protest turns to violence or obstruction.

In North Dakota’s DAPL protest, it was protestors blocking a federal highway, among other things. In Minneapolis and other cities, now it’s attempts to block federal law enforcement authorities from doing their jobs. That, sadly, led to one such protester losing her life.

Where is the line and who is crossing it? It’s fairly clear that when protestors destroy property, burn buildings, or assault others — less so when more modest, but equally disruptive actions arguably cross the constitutionally protected line.

All should mourn the loss of life, no matter whose life is lost. 

Many are quick to point the finger at ICE and allege overzealous actions.  In this case, of course, that’s for investigators, agencies, and, potentially, courts to sort out.

The point has also been made that Minnesota officials bear much of the blame for the recent incident because, if they’d simply cooperated with federal authorities attempting to enforce federal law, whether they agree with it or not (as is the practice in North Dakota), this type of thing would not be happening. Of course, there is little evidence of such introspection among those elected officials.

The bottom line is that such protests have turned ugly and dangerous. Perhaps the closing words we previously wrote about DAPL and Greenpeace are equally as applicable:

“It brings to mind an old adage about freedoms, such as the right to protest—‘Freedom is like the right to wave your arm.  You may wave it as fast and furiously as you’d like, until your arm connects with my chin; then you’ve exceeded your freedom and infringed upon mine.’”

Vigorous protest is a right, not to be infringed. Interfering with law enforcement officials and ignoring their orders, just like violent protest, goes too far.