protesting the double standard

a boston senator wants protesters to pay the law enforcement costs of demonstrations.

''These antiwar protesters are so hypocritical,'' said Lees. ''They stand out there with their signs that say don't spend our money on war. They should add a line that says don't spend our money on war, but spend it on arresting me.''

did the senator ever stop to think that the police go to great excesses when approaching the issue of these demonstrations? this is after all a non-violent peace movement.

interestingly, the police seem to care little for pro-war demonstrators, who are themselves avowing violence, nor for anti-abortion activists who seem to rally all the time with no police intervention despite their long history of extremist violence.

our friend isabel called me early in the morning last week to tell me she was driving to work and a huge contingent of pro-life people were rallying in front of a clinic (much like we rallied in front of carlyle's affiliate this monday) and that there were no police present at all, for the full duration of time that she was stuck in traffic due to the rubbernecking caused by the protest.

why are anti-war demonstrators considered so violent that we need 10,000 police to monitor our protests, and people who bomb clincs and kill doctors are free to rally without interference? it seems like a grave double-standard and one that needs to be addressed.

in other news, several protesters were arrested disrupting a session of the u.s. senate this week, chanting anti-war slogans during a vote on a military spending bill. go them!