Rioting is Always Wrong

I submit that rioting is always wrong. Let me explain.

First, I will define what I mean by rioting. Rioting is a non-peaceful demonstration or protest that invariably includes one or more of the following: destruction of private and public property, attacks on first responders and their equipment, assaults on innocent bystanders and looting.

Rioting is never justified in a free and democratic society governed by the rule of law, regardless of the cause.

Rioting, as defined, includes the commission of criminal offences. Freedom of speech and freedom of association are no defence for committing a criminal offence. Criminal offences are legislatively defined through a democratic process. Frustration over a perceived wrong is no free pass to commit criminal offences. Persons committing criminal offences should be charged and prosecuted according to due process without regard to the cause at issue. Law enforcement cannot legitimately, in a state governed by the rule of law, decide, based on their sympathy or lack of sympathy for a cause, whether to enforce or not enforce criminal offences.

Further, rioting breaches various civil rights including property rights. Rioters should be subject to civil actions for damages and other relief.

Rioting breaches both criminal laws and civil rights. It is legally wrong.

It is also morally wrong. No moral code, in a society governed by the rule of law, can be invoked that justifies riotous conduct.

Rioting must be distinguished from peaceful protests and demonstrations. The point of a protest or demonstration is to focus public attention on some perceived wrong or injustice. Peaceful demonstrations are integral to democratic debate. An issue is brought forward, debated and either is accepted or rejected, in whole or in part, through the legislative process. Some people may disagree with the result. The solution is not to have a violent temper-tantrum.

Demonstrations often include statements made orally or in written slogans. This is an exercise of free speech and is protected unless and until the speech crosses into speech that breaches criminal or civil laws. Speech that incites rioting is criminal in several respects. Speech that is defamatory my be the subject of defamation proceedings by those defamed.

Riots must be distinguished from acts of rebellion where a populace is subject to a repressive regime with no legal or political avenue of recourse. Rebellion will rarely, if ever, be justified in a free and democratic society governed by the rule of law. In such a society or state, there are political avenues for change - though they may be slow and tedious. Further, the rule of law, which includes entrenched legal and political rights, allow redress through the judicial system.

There are arguable limits even to peaceful demonstrations. Can demonstrations obstruct public thoroughfares causing delays, inconvenience and lost commerce? What about demonstrations by striking workers in a labour dispute? What about demonstrations by opponents to the use of fossil fuels? Where to draw the line here is tricky. I expect hypocrisy may abound in this area. Labour demonstrating for higher wages may object to truckers demonstrating against mandatory vaccinations. The same truckers may object to Stop Oil demonstrators blocking them from delivering goods in diesel powered semi-trailers. In other words, support or opposition to a given demonstration may be issue dependent. If you like the cause, you are OK with the demonstration but if you dislike the cause, you oppose the demonstration. This highlights a major difference between riots and demonstrations - few people would, for example, support looting, regardless of the cause.

Let's apply this thinking to recent events in the news. First, what is to be considered regarding the 'Support for Palestinians' demonstrations. Although there are some inconsistent reports, it appears that mostly these demonstrations have been physically peaceful. That is, there has not been widespread, property damage, assaults and/or looting. If I am wrong on this point, and the line has been crossed into rioting, my comments above stand. However, let's analyse the issue assuming the protests have not been physically violent. To the extent that the message is to the effect 'the Palestinians have been wronged by Israeli government policy and acton', there really is no issue. This is a political opinion or view. It is free speech. It should be protected regardless of whether one agrees with the statement or not. If the message is to the effect 'Jews are evil and should be wiped off of the face of the earth', the message is an incitement to hatred and violence. This speech is unlawful even if made during an otherwise peaceful demonstration. Those uttering such speech should be legally charged.

What about speech that is somewhere in-between? This is a grey area. 'Palestine be Free, from the River to the Sea'. If this means 'eradicate the Jews and Israel', it is an incitement to hatred and violence. It is wrong. If it means that Palestinians should have a political voice and/or homeland somewhere between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, it is political speech and is protected. What is this statement intended to mean and to do? What is the standard for deciding what to do about ambiguous speech?

Whatever the standard is, it must be consistently applied. Those that say 'All Lives Matter' cannot be judged to be racists by those that insist that 'Palestine be Free, from the River to the Sea' is not anti-semitic. Both of these statements are ambiguous and, without more, cannot be called hate speech.

Demonstrating in favour of Hamas is a tricky issue. Hamas has been declared to be a terrorist organization by many states in the world, including Canada. But Hamas is also the government of Gaza. Can support for Hamas be considered other than support for a terrorist organization? Is support for a terrorist organization automatically hate speech?

Another recent event in the news is the rioting in Dublin. This was unquestionably rioting as I have defined it above. Ireland is a free and democratic society governed by rule of law. To the extent the rioting was a protest of immigration policy, regardless of what one thinks about Ireland's immigration policy, rioting was wrong.