While I Hate to Say it, President Trump Was Right; There is a Lot of Blame for the Charlottesville Violence to Go Around

Brace yourself.  What I am writing here is certainly unpopular.  It goes against the narrative that has been adopted by the mainstream press.  It defends people who have a hateful message.  What is worse, I am about to defend the actions of a president whom I despise, and whom I have constantly criticized.

 

My grandfather volunteered to join the army and fight the Nazis.  Nazi symbols are disgusting to me.  People who affirmatively quote Adolf Hitler to support their beliefs are vile.

 

I was born and raised in the North; Philadelphia to be exact.  I was rightfully taught that the Civil War was fought over slavery.  I consider secession of the Confederate States to have been am act of treason, and the Confederate battle flag a symbol of treason.

 

Racism is evil.  Judging a person based on the color of his or her skin or on his or her heritage is ignorant, closed-minded and hateful.

 

But we have a Constitution that protects free expression.  It is one of our most valued rights as Americans.  And it is meant to protect expression that is hateful and offensive to others.  I may despise what you have to say, but it is not my right to forcefully control what you say or how you think.  And it is not the job of our Government to control your thought or expression.

 

It would be an understatement to say that yesterday was a sad day in Charlottesville, Virginia.  What was meant to be a protest against the removal of a statue of Confederate General, and native Virginian, Robert E. Lee, turned into violent conflict which cost the life of one woman.  And while I agree that the First Amendment protects expression, but not violence, the narrative that has developed out of yesterday I find as disturbing as the messages of racism and hate that many came to Charlottesville to express.  Because the protestors expressed an unpopular and hateful message, they appear to have become an easy target upon which to pin the entire responsibility for the violence that occurred.  But as I look deeper into what happened, God help me, I agree with President Trump that was an “egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence, on many sides.”

 

The overwhelmingly popular thing among the press and among politicians is to blame the “white supremacists,” “white nationalists,” and “Nazis” who came to Charlottesville to protest the planned removal of the statue of General Lee.  The protest had been planned for months.  The city initially granted a permit to hold the protest at Emancipation Park, where the statue currently stands.  To be sure, the protest attracted some of the worst of American society.  There is no denying that the protestors were racists, and carried with them symbols of hate such as the Southern Cross and the Nazi flag.

 

But the planned protest also attracted people who oppose the message of racism.  The city also approved a permit for those who opposed the message of the protestors to hold counter-protests at different parks in Charlottesville.  Some of the counter-protestors were well-intentioned.  They wanted to spread a message of peace and acceptance.  Some were religious leaders, who rightfully taught that Christ’s message was not about hate, and held payer sessions.  But it cannot be denied that some of the counter-protestors clearly came to Charlottesville looking for a fight.  Some came with the intention of breaking up the protest, and shouting down the protestors.

 

Once Charlottesville approved the permits for the counter-protestors, city officials recognized the potential for violence, and modified the permit for the protest planned for Emancipation Park.  The city attempted to have those who protested the removal of General Lee’s statue do so at a different park, miles away.

 

This is where the ACLU stepped in.  In support of the protestors, the ACLU went to federal court arguing that the Government has no right to regulate speech based on content.  The judge agreed, noting that Charlottesville only evoked the permit, and attempted to move the protest to a different location after it had approved the permits for the counter-protests.  That is, by approving the permits for the counter-protests, Charlottesville itself increased the risk of violence, and was using its own actions to suppress the message of the protestors.  Essentially, there is no right of veto given to dissenters.

 

As expected, violence broke out.  People were injured.  A man careened a car down a crowded street filled with other cars and a counter-protestors.  One woman was killed by the driver, caught as she was trying to cross the street. 

 

The accepted response has been to pin the blame for all of the violence on those who came to protest the removal of the statue.  They are the ones with the messages of hate.  They are the ones who sported the Nazi flags, wore camouflage, carried scary looking rifles, and supported white supremacy.  They were aggressive for engaging in this protest, and they must be condemned for it.

 

And thus, when the President referred to hatred, violence and bigotry on many sides, he was condemned for not placing blame entirely on the “neo-Nazis” and “white nationalists.”

 

The problem is that accepted narrative ignores the intentions of many of those who came to Charlottesville for the counter-protests.  Many of the counter-protestors deemed that the speech of the protestors was not worthy of being expressed freely.  Many came with the intent of thwarting fee speech, and to do so violently if necessary.  They came with the invitation of many city residents, who did not want a message of hate to be expressed in their city.  They came with their own hate and bigotry.

 

And those counter-protestors who aimed to suppress free expression were aided.  They were aided by businesses, such as Airbnb and Uber, who cancelled contracts and reservations made by those who intended to protest the removal of the statue of General Lee.  They were aided by the press, who mostly have an agenda to denounce racism and bigotry, and therefore crafted their coverage to make the protestors appear to be the sole bad guys.  They were aided by the state and local governments in Virginia, who allowed a situation that risked violence to exist, and then sat by until that violence descended on the city before acting, again adding credence to the narrative that the “white nationalists” and “Nazis” were solely responsible for violence.

 

Let’s consider some of the reporting of yesterday’s events.  Almost universally, prior to the use of the car as a battering ram, news articles described the protestors and their cause, using words like “white nationalist,” “Nazis,” and “white supremacists,” but then described the eruption of violence in the passive voice.  That is, press reports used terms like “the rally quickly exploded,” and “violence erupted.”  In describing the actions of those in attendance, press reports said things such as “people were seen throwing objects.”

 

The use of the passive voice is key.  The passive voice allows a writer to state that an action has occurred, but without identifying who did the action.  “A rock was thrown,” but who threw the rock?

 

But, by mentioning the protest groups first, and emphasizing their hateful agenda, the news articles were giving the impression that it was the “white nationalists” or “Nazis” who instigated the violence without outright stating it.  Indeed, the press was quick to point out how protestors were openly carrying firearms, an act that is legal in Virginia.  But of course openly carrying a firearm must indicate a tendency toward violence.  Thus, the images and reporting gave the impression that it was the protestors who meant to instigate the violence

 

Who did instigate the violence?  I was in Dover, Delaware and not Charlottesville, so I cannot rightly say.

 

What I can say is that I got more information from monitoring the Virginia ACLU’s Twitter feed than I did from the press.   What I was able to derive from the ACLU was that the protestors were outnumbered by counter-protestors, that the counter-protestors included so-called “antifa” groups, which is short for anti-fascists, that some of the antifa protestors themselves wore intimidating black outfits and sported shields, helmets and weapons, that the counter-protestors taunted the protestors as they made their way toward Emancipation Park, that both protestors and counter-protestors threw objects at each other such as rocks and water bottles, and that the police, who were present in force and in riot gear, were given orders not to intervene even when fist fights erupted and injuries ensued.

 

Press reports were quick to note the slogans of the protestors, such as “blood and soil.”  And of course, the use of the word “blood” gives the impression of a group ready to use violence.  But blood can also refer to heritage, such as “the blood of my ancestors.”  And it was only by chance that I found reported  in the UK Daily Mail that some counter-protestors yelled slogans such as “we’re here, we’re gay, we fight the KKK.”  Certainly, “fight” has many connotations, such as a peaceful struggle.  But “fight” can also refer to violent conflict.  And again, it was only from the Virginia ACLU Twitter feed that I learned that some counter-protestors yelled things such as “punch a Nazi in the face,” and “f*** you” to protestors, obvious statements meant to instigate and incite violence.

 

The fact that these counter-protestors’ slogans and statement were buried by the mainstream US press indicates a bias in reporting; that the US press on the scene had an agenda of denouncing the “white supremacists” and “Nazis,” and highlighted slogans from the protestors that gave an impression of a violent intent, while downplaying the slogans from counter-protestors that also gave an impression of a violent intent.

 

Another example of the shoddy reporting of yesterday’s events concerns the declaration of the police that the event was an “unlawful assembly.”  Media outlets all reported that an “unlawful assembly” had been declared.  But no media outlet took of the step of engaging in in-depth analysis to research and explain what an “unlawful assembly” is.

 

To find the answer, all one had to do was to look in the Virginia criminal code.  An “unlawful assembly” occurs when three or more people assemble with the common intent to advance some purpose (which can be lawful or unlawful) with the commission of acts of force or violence, or acts likely to jeopardize the public safety, peace or order.  But the criminal code only defines what an “unlawful assembly” is, and states that those who participate are guilty of a class 1 misdemeanor.  The law does not give the government the right and authority to declare an event an “unlawful assembly.”  To the contrary, it is a criminal charge that must be brought and proven beyond a reasonable doubt to a court of law.  Police do have the right to warn people to disperse.  And those remaining after such a warning run the risk of being found guilty of a class 3 misdemeanor if the event is found, by a court of law, to have been an “unlawful assembly.”

 

The manner by which the declaration of an “unlawful assembly” was reported, therefore, was misleading.  It is not the case that the police can unilaterally revoke a lawfully obtained permit for a demonstration by making a declaration of an “unlawful assembly.”  This was the initial impression I was given by the media reports.  The most that the police can do is to give people a warning to disperse from an event, and give notice that the police considered the event an “unlawful assembly,” giving warning that the police intended to charge people who remained with a misdemeanor under Virginia law.  But it would be a criminal charge that would still have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in front of a Virginia court.  A police declaration of an “unlawful assembly” may be a consideration in court, but not conclusory.

 

Nonetheless, the warning applied equally to all in attendance, not just to the “white nationalist” protestors.  This would mean that the counter-protestors, such as the antifa groups, ran an equal risk of being arrested and charged with a crime for not dispersing. 

 

But again, this was not reported by the press during the event, thereby giving an impression that something those gun-toting racist Nazis did sparked the declaration.

 

Whether we want to believe it or not, the fix was in.  The press did not like the message of the protestors.  The press, therefore, shaped the story to give the impression that the protestors were the bad guys, and that the protestors instigated the violence without outright stating who threw the first punch.

 

And yes, the protestors’ message was hateful.  The idea of racial superiority is hateful.  Toting Nazi flags and the Confederate battle flag, wearing t-shirts with quotes from Adolf Hitler, and even just the appearance of known klansman David Duke, all of it is hateful and aggressive.  All of it is offensive.  All of it is unpopular, and rightfully so, to the vast majority of Americans.  And this is why almost universally politicians and community leaders condemned the protests in Charlotte.  But can you say that the hateful message itself is solely responsible for the violence?  Or were there people, a sizeable number too, who took it upon themselves to protest the protestors, and do so in their own aggressive manner?  Were there people who took it upon themselves to enforce their version of correct thinking, and who descended upon the tiny town of Charlottesville with the intent of intimidating the intimidators?  Could it be that the responsibility for the violence falls not just on the shoulders of the protestors with the hateful message, but also on the counter-protestors who came looking for a fight?  The counter-protestors who themselves had hatred and bigotry in their hearts.  But of course, it is hatred and bigotry that is acceptable, because it was aimed at those evil “Nazis” and “white supremacists.”

 

But that is not the popular thing to say.  The vast majority of Americans want to show their opposition to racism, and rightfully so.  Indeed, we as Americans, myself included, want to stamp out racism and build a society based on equality and respect for all, no matter skin color or heritage.  So, the popular thing, in denouncing the white supremacists and their agenda is to call them terrorists, and label the events in Charlottesville as a terrorist act.

 

But was it?  What is the poof?  Well, a supposed white supremacist raced a car down a city street, filled with counter-protestors and other cars, injuring 19 people and killing one.  The driver has been caught, and is now facing several criminal charges, including murder.  The act was vile.  The diver is inhuman, and deserves to have the full force of the law thrown against him.

 

But was it terrorism?  Terrorism implies an organized effort of a group of people to commit such a heinous act so as to instill fear.  The act was certainly heinous.  But there is no indication was it was pre-planned.  Indeed, some press reports are indicating that a counter-protestor threw a rock at the driver moments before the driver careened down the crowded street, either with the intent to serious hurt or kill someone, or totally indifferent to the possibility that his act of anger would hurt or kill someone.  There is no indication that it was pre-planned, or that anyone else in the group of protestors incited him to do it.

 

It was committed by a man who was twenty.  Those of us who live in Virginia and have children about ready to become driving age are taught that the parts of the brain that control judgment and impulses do not fully develop until the age of twenty-five.  This is not to excuse his behavior.  But it is meant to point out that the most abhorrent act of violence was committed by an immature jerk, who may have been provoked, and who chose to give in to the immediate anger, knowing full well the probable consequences to the innocent lives in his path.  It is certainly a crime.  The circumstances should certainly influence the eventual punishment from a court of law.  But calling it terrorism is simply an attempt to use the acts of one out of control jerk with anger issues to imply criminality on a group because that group’s message is hateful and unpopular.

 

So, for the sake of our democracy, and out of defense of one of the rights we hold so dear, I dissent.  At this point, I refuse to buy the popular narrative that it was only the “white supremacists,” “white nationalists” and “Nazis” who were responsible for the violence.  There were counter-protestors who came looking for a fight.  Government action allowed the situation to exist, and then allowed the situation to fester beyond control.  I abhor the message of racism and bigotry.  But there is a lot of blame for yesterday to go around.  I refuse to place that blame solely on one group simply because I find that group’s message offensive and distasteful.

 

William J. Kovatch, Jr.