Our View: Reactionaries

AT ISSUE: Salem, Oregon, anti-terror bill meets opposition; principles universal

A bill that would define violent protesters as terrorists and subject them to possible life imprisonment faced strong opposition during a legislative hearing in Salem, Oregon, the Oregonian reported Tuesday.

While a bill from Oregon isn't exactly of prime concern to readers in Muncie, Ind., the principles behind this one are universally applicable.

Anti-war activists criticized Senate Bill 742, which they said contains broad language and gives police expanded power to investigate people based on ethnicity.

"We are living in the McCarthy era all over again," said Patty Caldwell, an anti-war activist. "Then, you were called a communist. Now, you're called a terrorist sympathizer."

The bill's wording leads some to believe that it could apply to minor acts of vandalism or misbehavior during a demonstration. The bill applies to acts of violence committed while someone is disrupting commerce, transportation, schools or universities.

Anyone convicted of terrorism would get an automatic life sentence with a 25-year minimum before being considered for parole.

"This bill chips away at the very freedom we profess to enjoy in the face of terrorism," said Sen. Charlie Ringo, D-Beaverton. "I would not want our servicemen in the Middle East and elsewhere to return and find that the freedoms they are risking their lives for overseas have been damaged while entrusted to the care of the Oregon Senate."

While this bill (and source article) appears to be biased against the anti-war movement, the broad language of the bill would logically include the pro-war movement, which has been just as marred by violent outbursts during demonstrations.

Considering minor acts of vandalism and civil disobedience to be tantamount to acts of terror is a reactionary way of dealing with demonstrations. When protests turn violent, the offenders should be treated under the same laws that apply to all citizens.

The Daily News does not condone violence or vandalism during demonstrations; however, the wording of this bill and future bills must consider the extreme prejudice that faces demonstrators.

In the process of exercising their right to freedom of speech and assembly, protesters should not reach the point of violence. But as we are perpetually reminded, we do not live in a perfect world.

Lawmakers should understand these things before pushing reactionary legislation.


Comments