Public Comment

The argument made for violently preventing pro-Trump activists from holding a rally is that we must prevent fascism from organizing here in Berkeley or anywhere else. But attempting to shut down speech in this way is manifestly counter-productive. Right wing forces celebrate all the positive attention they receive from protests like the one they organized on Saturday, heralding themselves as “defenders of free speech” bravely standing up to the violent left. This message helps the far right gain sympathy and turn public attention away from progressive ideas and causes. 

The way to confront and resist right-wing speech is not by violently attacking those who voice it, but by advocating on behalf of free speech, social justice, and non-violence. As FSM veteran Paul Coopersmith writes, “We must not be remiss in confronting those on the far right, whose visions of how things ought to be lie so beyond the pale. But neither should we stoop to their level.” We can win over many Trump supporters with a progressive agenda that includes good jobs, good schools, restoration of the nation’s decaying infrastructure, and medical care for all.  

As a participant in Saturday’s events, it struck me (and other witnesses with whom I spoke) that the police officers on the scene, although they made a few arrests, mostly stood by as the violence was happening. When a large crowd gathered at the corner of Center and Milvia, and pro-Trump demonstrators and anti-Trump activists (chanting “Poke a Nazi in the eye”) were physically attacking one another, the police simply stood idly by, one-half block away. 

When a police officer was asked why he and his colleagues were not taking action to prevent the violence, he replied that it was deemed advisable to stay out of the fracas, “We get blamed if we intervene -- people say we are being repressive.”  

A related reason given for police inaction is that if the police place themselves in between the two sides, then they will be targeted by the anti-Trump demonstrators and the violence will escalate. But by standing aside, the police in effect give permission to the instigators of violence to easily and directly attack those whom they disagree with. The response, when a self-styled “anti-fascist” individual throws an object or a punch at a police officer in this situation, should be to arrest that individual. 

The above reasoning for police inaction reminds me of the response to “Black lives matter!” protests in Ferguson and elsewhere: police say that “Well, if you don’t want us to intervene forcefully when the law is broken, then we won’t, and you’ll just have to live with the consequences!” This rationalization, offered by police departments across the country, has now come to Berkeley. 

Our local police abetted the violence. Police policy could have been to separate the anti-Trump protestors from the pro-Trump protestors, which they could have done using barriers and by inserting themselves physically in between the two groups. They in fact did that successfully in Civic Center Park, across from City Hall, during the first hour or so of the protest. But then the two groups walked out into the street. Instead of following them, the police remained behind, allowing the violent activists dressed in black to assault pro-Trump people, who responded violently. Photos and video taken of the event show many instances of violence, with not a policeman or policewoman in sight. 

The brawling and ensuing injuries and bloodshed could have been avoided had the police acted diligently. Those city officials and police responsible for planning and organizing the police presence at the April 15 protest, and also at the similarly violent protest that took place in Berkeley on March 4, acted irresponsibly and should be held accountable.