Double Standard For Tea Party vs OWS ?
When it comes to the Tea Party and OWS, I have been both sympathetic with the goals of both groups and critical of some elements of the movements.
But it does sound like a double standard is in play.
Obviously we need to wait and find out the facts, but if the Tea Party is required to pay fees and provide porta potties, insurance, etc to stage a protest and OWS is allowed to do so for free, that is wrong.
Doesn’t matter if you love OWS and loathe the Tea Party, equal treatment is equal treatment. If the rules require permits, facilities, etc then everyone should have to provide it. If not then nobody should be charged.
I’m sure some will disagree but assuming the story is true (and it has been pretty widely reported then I will be interested to see how you justify charging one and not the other (other than of course the TP is evil).
20 Responses to “Double Standard For Tea Party vs OWS ?”
I disagree.
The Tea party is a staged event. A theatrical ensemble of clownish public entertainers with a few demonstrators mixed in, but corralled and led to do and say things scripted. The Tea Party is a business endeavor. They have copy rights.
Whereas the OWS is a true demonstration of civil disobedience. A true demonstration does not pay to demonstrate nor pay for permits and parade ordinances. Otherwise it would not be civil disobedience, it would be obedient entertainment, a song and dance gig like the Tea party. A public spectacle at best.
No one takes obedient civil disobedience seriously. Not even the obedient. The is no point to obedient disobedience. It’s only fellowship like a bridge club cupcake sale for runaway puppies.
The point of civil disobedience, is to change government before the guillotine is required.
Besides, when was the last time the Tea party had demonstrations world-wide or even nation wide for that matter? The Tea Party is not a legitimate representative of oppressed people. They can afford costumes, then they can pay fees.
I think the answer is in the article you linked to Patrick. For one thing, this is one protest out of many, not sure I would draw too many far reaching conclusions from it. Also there is this comment from one of the Richmond protesters:
“We don’t have the money to pay to the city, and that’s one of the reasons we’re here because we don’t have that kind of money.”
I suspect the TP folks may have been better heeled, and I’m not just talking about their “benefactors”. Besides, I see the OWS folks engaging in something more akin to civil disobedience (as has been mentioned). It’s a pity the police presence wasn’t a bit more civil as well.
LOL I guess Martin Luther King and the Vietnam protests were also wrong because they trampled lawns and didn’t pay cities for the right to assemble and protest, Stinky hippies and “darkies”…
You want to talk about double standards?
Here ‘s one for you
What search trends tell us about Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party
The two parties are indeed different since one embraces civil disobedience and the other does not. Of course part of committing civil disobedience is a willingness to accept the consequences.
If the OWS commits civil disobedience and there are no consequences, I could see where the Tea Party would feel there’s a double standard. The only way to know for sure would be for the Tea Party to be disobedient themselves and see if they are also given a pass.
I think DaGoat makes a good point. While both groups are protesting they are using different methods. The TP are demonstrating and showing by numbers and unity their “power” as voters. The OWS are committing civil disobedience to bring attention to their complaints. My big issue with the OWS is that whining and crying about being arrested when doing so. The props one would get for being willing to go to jail for a cause fades when you aren’t really willing.
I think the more accurate way to describe it as organized. Regardless of the sound bites that are so often regurgitated about the Tea Party they are obviously many small independent groups and not some front for evil conservative interests. The GOP has tried to co-op the TP support and has succeeded to some degree but pretending the beliefs were not real and the support was not valid is just being willfully ignorant. Even if you disagree with everything they stand for you should be honest with yourself about your “opponent”.
As far as the origin of OWS, everyone does know that it started by Ad-busters , a anti-capitalist advocacy group in Canada right? That from the start funds and services were provided for the protesters by monied groups on the left? I don’t think that makes the protesters beliefs any less but if support hadn’t been provided the protests may never have reached the stage where they could be self supporting. Hypocrisy is never attractive.
A thought on the search trend data. So far the searches have been slightly more on OWS than TP. Falconer sees that to mean the OWS is bigger and should have more press. The age of the TP crowd may play into that being older and less tech friendly.
couldn’t edit that last comment about the searches being only slightly more. I would have removed the word slightly and also mentioned that the disorganized nature of the OWS causes difficulty with press so I the idea of complaining about the low news coverage while making it harder to provide coverage is a bit off.
I would be interested in knowing if Scott Olsen’s health insurance pays for his medical bills after being shot in the head by an Oakland cop for demonstrating civil disobedience.
I’m sure the VA won’t pay for it.
Has the Tea Party ever faced riot police shooting at them?
EEllis,
A) Ad-Busters is not anti-capitalist, it’s anti-corporate, not the same thing.
B) TP was 90% pure media creation, from Rick Santelli on CNBC kicking it off by bitching about having to pay his neighbor’s mortgage to FOX news being the organizing megaphone that hyped the ten idiots bitching about keeping government out of their medicare.
The Tea Party is a Staged Event, organized or not. Can’t even be called a protest either. It’s just theater, arranged and orchestrated. Quite laughable as anything one might remotely consider representative of oppressed people standing up against their oppressors. It’s a joke.
When the TPers were disrupting congressional town hall meetings, were they hauled away by the police?
The fact that hardly any congress people now have town hall meetings (because of the above?) is more damaging to our political system than trampled grass.
And no, the Civil Rights movement probably didn’t have money for port-a-potties, either.
The people going to jail shouldn’t be whining now – that’s what civil disobedience is all about. They will all be bragging about it in another 20 years.
Huh.. It is a bit curious that a lot of OWS protestors are being paid and given food provisions, yet there’s no money to pay for permits and portapotties?
I agree with the other commenters though, that it’s really more a choice of presenting the movement as civil disobedience, not as a lawful demonstration. Also have to agree that one the one instance cited in the linked article is just an anecdote and as such, doesn’t prove much at all.
These protestors skipped civil disobedience and jumped to Hamas style terrorism. How do we know this, BreitBrats site tells us so.
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/39351_The_Next_Right_Wing_Freak-Out
http://biggovernment.com/jpollak/2011/10/27/learning-from-hamas-how-occupy-is-using-human-shields-veterans-the-young-the-old-the-disabled/
These Commies will probably poison Cheetos to attack the truthsayers at BreitBrats.
I don’t have a strong opinion about the goals of the protests themselves (some of it warranted, some of it is the “same old” anti-globalization, and one side of the duopoly seems way to unthreatened by it). However, most of the controversy about Oakland has little to do with “free speech”. The protestors in Oakland have always been free to protest, the city just doesn’t feel obligated to provide them with free camping space to attend (taking that space away from all the other residents who want to use it).
Sorry I should have said anti-consumerist which is how they describe themselves. The fact is the origin of OWS was 100% directly attributable to Adbusters. They told people when and where to show up and started the ball rolling. If there is even close to that same direction please inform me. So far we have that someone was complaining on Fox created the TP. Now I’m not trying to say that the origin of OWS makes it any less real or indicative of how some people feel.
Apples (true populist, like the mainstream, Tea Party) versus oranges (extremist fringist “Occupy”).
Tea party is an extreme minority, they do not equate to OWS. Without the media there would be no Tea Party, but there would still be plenty OWS!
The U.S. Government should provide free-of-charge, port-a-potties w/service, canteen trucks for food and emergency personnel on close standby whenever an OWS event begins. The Red Cross should attend with coffee, doughnuts, and blankets. It’s the least they can do to support politically active Americans and to combat political lethargy in a nation where political lethargy is most destructive.
Might even be a good idea to have National Guard troops nearby to combat out of control police departments too.
I’m beginning to think you’re pulling our leg, Allen.
Allen, you forgot the entertainers (entertainment) that also “should” be provided. No doubt you could think of other things, too, perhaps a U.S. Government stipend (giving them Medicare, too, of course).
If only the 1970s hijackers were treated that way. (though we have seen the likes of Arafat treated nicely in the U.N. General Assembly)