Counter-Protesters or Counter-Demonstrators

Counter-Protesters or Counter-Demonstrators

by Susan Basko, esq.

see also: Masks and Bandannas at Protests

Counter-Protesters, also called Counter-Demonstrators, are people who show up at a protest or demonstration to voice an opinion contrary to the main protest.  The overall rules are that the counter demonstrations are allowed, if they can be accommodated so they do not interfere with the original protest and so both groups are kept safe and separated.  How this plays out is largely dependent on what local police choose to do.

 (April 21, 2018: Nazis marched in the small town of Newnan, Georgia. Counter-protesters showed up and were peaceful, but strong.  (See the videos  below) Militarized police pointed live guns at the protesters and tackled some of them to the ground, supposedly because the counter-protesters were wearing bandannas.  In this instance, the response to peaceful counter-protesters was to meet them with excessive violence by militarized police. This, of course, violates the international laws and guidelines you can read below.   There would be no reason to point guns at the protesters or to throw any of them onto the ground.)

The spectre of counter-demonstrators showing up has become much more intense in the past couple of years. In states that allow open carrying of guns, there have been demonstrations that are for gun control, at which gun enthusiasts show up openly carry their guns. This can be terrifying for protesters, especially in the wake of mass shootings.

One main point is that no type of violence is ever legal at any protest, on any side.  There really is no good reason for protesters, on any side, to show up with flag poles, sticks, cans of anything ignitable, or any other thing that can be used as a weapon.  States might want to step up their games and outlaw open carry at any street gathering.  A few people carrying guns on the street can chill the right to free speech and freedom of assembly for the mass of people who feel unsafe in that situation. 

Another thing done, often by a lone counter-protester, is to show up with a megaphone and barrage the protesters with the shouted ideas of the counter-protesters.  Most towns and cities have noise ordinances, and in many cases, the use of a megaphone without a permit is illegal.  If this is happening at your protest, speak with local police and ask them to handle it.  At the recent March for Our Lives marches against school shootings, in one city, such a counterprotester shouting into a megaphone was seen surrounded by a circle of armed police.  They let him shout his pro-gun diatribe at the marchers, but made sure he and the marchers were kept separated from one another.  Sometimes people see police "protecting" a counterprotester in this way -- and that is what the international rules say is supposed to happen.  If possible, both sides are allowed to protest, and both sides are to be kept safe and separate from harming one another. 

 Let's look at excepts from international guidelines: https://www.osce.org/odihr/226981 

"Counterdemonstration:
An assembly that is convened to express
disagreement with the views expressed
at another assembly, and takes place at, or
almost at, the same time and place as the
primary assembly  (page 120, Glossary of Terms)

"The role of police in facilitating assemblies is paramount. Being the most visible
manifestation of government authority, the police demonstrate a state’s
commitment to upholding the rule of law and protecting fundamental human
rights and freedoms. The police must facilitate all peaceful assemblies,
including spontaneous and simultaneous assemblies and counter-demonstrations,
and protect participants in assemblies, allowing them to express their
views freely within sight and sound of the intended audience. This handbook
promotes a change of police mentality in approaching the policing of assemblies,
from looking at assemblies as potentially dangerous events to recognizing
assemblies as manifestations of an important human right that the police
must respect and protect. The majority of assemblies are, in fact, peaceful
and do not present particular public order challenges. However, it is crucial
for police to be well prepared and trained to prevent any conflicts related to
assemblies, as well as to de-escalate tensions should they arise." (page 7, Forward)

"Counter-Demonstration: This is a particular form of simultaneous assembly
in which participants wish to express their opposition to the views expressed
at another assembly. Emphasis should be placed on the state’s duty to protect
and facilitate each event where a counter-demonstration occurs. The state should
make available adequate policing resources to facilitate such simultaneous
assemblies, to the extent possible, within sight and sound of one another.
However, it should be noted that the right to counter-demonstrate does
not extend to inhibiting the right of others to assemble. There may be
Part I. Chapter 1. The Right to Freedom of Peaceful Assembly 17
circumstances where the authorities may legitimately restrict the right of
counter-demonstrators to protest within sight and sound of the assembly they
are protesting against in order to protect the other assembly."  (pages 16-17)

"If an assembly is confronted by a counter demonstration that seeks to restrict
the rights of people to peacefully assemble, then the counter demonstration
is no longer protected by international human rights law." (page 21)

"The fact that an assembly is likely to face a violent counter-protest, or even to be directly attacked by dissenting people, should not, as a matter of principle, lead to the prohibition of the peaceful assembly. In that case, it is the responsibility of the police to protect the peaceful assembly against the attacks or the violence of counter-protesters." (page 21)

"The starting point for police should always be the proactive policing of order
rather than the reactive policing of disorder. The relevant police commander
will need to continuously monitor the situation to assess the dynamics of
the assembly, onlookers and, where necessary, counter-demonstrators, so that
they can best manage the situation to ensure that peaceful order is maintained.
This may mean that the police need to be flexible in relation to any
legal restrictions placed on an assembly and to minor infractions of the law.
An approach that is too rigid to both may increase tension and provoke more
hostile or aggressive responses from participants. Even in situations where
some voices promote confrontation or violence the police should be able to
counter such influences if they remain aware of the differentiation among
participants, draw upon their knowledge of the range of groups and individuals
who are present, maintain a positive relationship with people and act with
discretion and tolerance." (page 24)

"In some contexts the police may need to use force to protect those participating
in an assembly if they are faced by hostile or aggressive counter demonstrations.
In such contexts, the police should seek to differentiate between the
aggressors and the targets of the aggression, and remember that they have a
responsibility to protect the rights of those exercising their right to peaceful
assembly." (page 31)

"Commanders should outline the specific risk (e.g., the risks associated with
the presence of a much larger number of participants than anticipated or the
risks associated with the presence of counter-demonstrators) and how they
can be dealt with. Contingencies should be put in place for emergency situations
and worse-case scenarios (e.g., sudden bad weather conditions)." (page 39)

"In assessing potential risks and hazards, the strategic commander should
always be mindful of a variety of possible different scenarios that may
unfold in the run up to and during the assembly. Scenarios may be
impacted by factors such as the number of people who may attend; their
political affiliations; the purpose of the assembly, including whether they
relate to other events taking place at the same time (e.g., visits of heads of
state, summits); the presence of counter demonstrations; the presence of
other activities in the vicinity; the location of the assembly and the route,
if it involves a march; and the time of day, weather conditions and other
potentially relevant factors." (page 55)

"Information must be gathered about the following areas:
• Why is the assembly taking place? Who is the assembly for or against?
Could the presence of police inflame the demonstrators or onlookers? Is
the focus of the assembly likely to trigger a (violent?) response from other
parts of the society?
• Who will be taking part in the assembly? Previous history? Age and gender
profile? Known intelligence on intentions? Who are the local community?
Who are the transient (passer-by) community? Will there be
counterdemonstrators or hostile members of the audience?
• What are the intentions of the participants (note that intentions among
participants and groups within the assembly may differ)? Is there intelligence
about secondary intentions? Some sub-groups attending an
assembly may have the intention of mounting a secondary protest or
demonstration.
• Where is the assembly due to take place? Are there any significant locations
that may be targeted by the event or some of the participants or
counterdemonstrators? What traffic concerns are there? Intended route?
• When will assembly take place? What time of day and year? What are the
weather conditions? Travel implications (availability of public transport at
time of dispersal)?
• How are individuals going to arrive at the assembly? How are they
intending to leave? Are there suitable exit routes and transport from the
assembly point? Is it going to be a static event or a march? Will there be
structures built, such as stages for speakers or loudspeakers?" (page 60)

ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS:  If you want your protest to be legal, it must be non-violent.  You should plan it with that goal in mind, including prohibiting your own participants from bringing items that can be used as weapons -- either by them or against them.  If you are planning a protest that needs a permit, dialogue with the police or city permit officials regarding the potential for counter protesters.  If you are the one planning a counter protest, find out if you need a permit for your gathering.  Tensions between two groups can lead to deadly consequences, as has been seen at recent protests.  If you are planning a protest that does not need a permit, but you expect there might be trouble with counter demonstrators either being violent or disrupting by, for example, showing up with a bullhorn or megaphone and trying to drown our or overcome your protest, talk in advance with the local police.

Below is a video of a demonstration - counter-demonstration that became very violent when the two groups clashed.  This is an example of what is not supposed to happen.

Punch a Nazi?? 10 Reasons Why Not

Punch a Nazi?? 10 Reasons Why Not

by Susan Basko, esq.

See also: Counter-Protests and Counter-Demonstrators

There's a recent fad topic about Punching a Nazi.  This topic started when a man was speaking with a journalist at a protest and another man, wearing a dark hoodie, ran up and punched the man in the face.  The internet gossip line soon identified the man who was punched, labeled him a "Nazi," and said the person who punched him did it as some form of protest against his ideas.  The words "antifa" and "diversity of tactics" got tossed around.  An alleged partial quote from the man, taken out of context and with no sourcing, was offered as validation or justification that he "deserved" to be punched.

I am here to tell you this is all nonsensical and not to be involved with punching anyone, no matter what you think of their ideas.  

Here are 10 Reasons Why You Should Not "Punch a Nazi":

1) A protest or any public event is a delicate balance where it can easily become violent and dangerous.  If you are constructive, you want to keep any public gathering safe for all.  If you are there causing trouble, the vast majority of other participants are wise enough to not want you there.  They see you as a troublemaker and a thug, not as a noble hero or dashing masked man.  

2) We are adults.  We realize that people have viewpoints that differ from ours.  We don't run through the streets punching people for having different viewpoints.  Do you want to be punched for having your viewpoints?

3) The people or groups who are advocating violence against those who hold different opinions call themselves "antifascists."  They are so hyped up in their own nonsense that they don't see the irony of this. The people wearing masks and punching people for holding different views are actually fascists.  When they run through the streets attacking people, they instill fear and silence people.  That sort of violence + fear  + silencing =  what fascism is all about.

4) The argument of the pro-punchers is that if a person holds a view that they find repugnant, that this justifies physically attacking the person.  It is beyond my ken how anyone could have lived such an isolated, parochial life that they do not realize that everyone holds different views, and that a great many people hold views that others find repugnant or even shocking.  In a pluralistic society, people get to hold such views, but are not allowed to physically harm or attack others.  If the person you call a "Nazi" has made a direct threat to harm you immediately and is armed and ready to do so, then you get out of the way and call the police.  If you are running up to people on the street and punching them, then you are the one that is antisocial and a criminal.

5) A big part of growing up is realizing that many others do not agree with us, but that we can live and let live.  We do not need to control everyone's thoughts.  We don't get to hit them because they have ideas with which we disagree.  Even if we think their ideas are appalling or repugnant, we don't get to physically attack them.  They have the right to hold their views and to walk on the streets unassailed.

6) It is a crime to punch someone, whether or not you disagree with their ideas.  It is a crime to advocate violence, such as urging others to attack people on the street.

7) If you punch or attack a person, you are legally responsible for everything that happens to them.  If the person has a heart attack or stroke, you are legally responsible.  If the person gets a blood clot and dies, you are responsible.  In a recent non-protest street incident in Chicago, a man punched another man in the head.  The man who was punched fell into the street and was run over by a taxi and died.  The man who punched the man is possibly being charged with murder.  When you engage in a criminal attack upon another person, you are responsible for the whole chain of events that follows.  You cannot accurately predict what that chain of events might be.  Your motive in harming the person is usually considered enough motive for whatever ensues.

8) Normal civilized adults do not run around the streets punching people.  Do you know who stands on street corners attacking people they think disagree with them? The Taliban.  In the U.S., we respect the right of every person to walk on the street and not be attacked.    

9) If you start justifying or engaging in violence against people because you disagree with their ideas, it is a very short, very slippery slope to where you may allow yourself to become a full-fledged criminal, or in your eyes - a martyr.  Examples of people who have attacked others based on their beliefs include: Dylann Roof, who killed 9 Black people in a Christian Church because he thought it would start a race war; Timothy McVeigh, who exploded a federal building, killing 168 and injuring 600, because he disagreed with the actions of the ATF at an incident at Waco, Texas;  the many acts of murder, arson, kidnappings, and bombings against abortion providers engaged in by people who find abortion immoral or repugnant;  and many other such incidents.  The logic behind these incidents is the same as the logic behind "Punch a Nazi": the untrue notion that you can control the flow of ideas by attacking or terrorizing those who hold those ideas.  

10) Engaging in the "Punch a Nazi" nonsense means you are frittering away your time and energy on this negative, anti-social activity, when you could be engaged in productive, intelligent change.  Worse still, if you get arrested and tossed in jail for punching someone on the street or for advocating such violence, you will have managed to make yourself socially neutralized.  And that is just plain stupid.