Despite the public discourse, Michael McCormack’s recent comments — in which he likened Black Lives Matter (BLM) protests to the Capitol Hill riots — were not unwarranted.
It’s one of the latest instances in a dangerous culture emerging in Australia, where we subject someone to trial by media because they’ve spoken outside the country’s pseudo collective consciousness.
I support black lives but condemn both the BLM movement and riots at Capitol Hill. It would be hypocritical not to because it means you are accepting violence as a political means, and no “holier than thou” rhetoric can avoid that.
This argument is not about whether one supports black rights, it’s about denouncing rabid political acts. And after rightly doing so, McCormack, then acting PM, was wrongly vilified as a racist by mainstream media which has turned this into a debate on identity politics.
Condoning the BLM movement underscores the violence truly associated with it. Last year, chaos erupted in 2000 cities and towns across the world, leading to up to $2 billion in insured damages in the United States and $500 million in property damage in the Minneapolis–Saint Paul twin cities alone. This is not okay. If we were to accept this, it means we accept violence as a political method.
One of the common defences of this is the line that 93% of BLM protests were peaceful. However, this number is derived from over 10,000 protests, meaning more than 500 were violent — a number way too big.
The counterargument is understandable: by condemning the BLM movement you’re disregarding what it represents. Superficially speaking, this is a fair statement.
However, it becomes unfounded when one digs a little deeper and sees BLM is much more than just a race riot sparked by the death of George Floyd.
The movement formed following a 2013 acquittal of a neighbourhood watch volunteer, George Zimmerman, who killed African-American Trayvon Martin. At surface level, their motives may appear justified but the group was founded by confessed Marxists who seek to radicalise with their ideology. After recently losing public support and donors, they erased these views from their website.
It’s these ultra-leftist elements that attract fellow extremist from this side of politics; the most notable being Antifa — an anti-racist movement with a history of stoking violence. Functioning as a nursery for the radical-left, no wonder BLM protests have been associated with violence, anarchy and looting for the past several years.
Considering this, it would be unfair to expect someone to endorse this movement. It’s a highly complicated issue left-wing commentators have oversimplified into a question of “whether you’re racist or not” — worryingly, this allows dangerous ideologues to fester behind a veil of righteousness. Like a lot of people, I support black rights emphatically but not the other components affiliated with the BLM movement.
Many commentators have said the difference is the Capitol Hill riots were an attempt at a coup, but after close examination, it becomes difficult to classify it as such. These imbeciles looked like they were heading home from a cosplay convention and got lost.
They were clearly surprised to get as far as they did and had no actual plans of seizing power — what revolutionaries stop to take selfies? It’s convenient for the left to embellish the sophistication of what took place at Capitol Hill because it white-ants the politics of their opponents.
It’s important the right questions the cultural pressure to deplore the Capitol Hill riots while excusing BLM. That said, they mustn’t lose sight and become apologists for right-wing extremists. Two wrongs don’t make a right, and far too many right-wing commentators have adopted the position “why can they get away with it and not us?”
The right must be resolute in their condemnation of the Capitol Hill riots. Because make no mistake, many of the people who stormed Capitol Hill are malevolent white-supremacists. Anarchy would break loose if these people were to become more organised and build on each other’s fanaticism, not to mention if they met their ideological foes. And right-wing apologists cannot let this become a symptom of the Capitol Hill riots.
Now, let’s directly compare the BLM protests and Capitol Hill. Both involved riots, one protested the legitimacy of the democratic process, the other the legitimacy of law and order. One was born out of the far-right, the other the far-left. One went for months and spread across 60 countries, causing unprecedented destruction; the other took hours and did not tear down cities.
Both used violence. Both should be condemned.
Thomas Bee is a journalism graduate who ended up working in corporate affairs. He picks freelance writing jobs as a side-hustle and hopes to continue to pursue his passion for commentating on politics.
Confessed Marxists who seek to radicalise – have we got a 21st century BA Santamaria in training here? Jolly of Crikey to give Mr Bee a couple of column inches in the interest of “balance” but claptrap is a waste of space, right or left. And the Deputy PM doesn’t need pale shadows of working journos leaping to his defence as he doesn’t give a toss what anybody thinks of him so long as his pension is assured…ah grow up and read some history Mr Bee. No relation to the wonderful Samantha I reckon…
Did you ever read their original webpage/manifesto and ambitions? I’m of the liberal left and it caused my eyebrows to be raised.
This article is mostly nonsense. It buys into the misdirection and false equivalence of McCormack in an only slightly more sophisticated way. To be honest it reads like a first year essay by a young Liberal.
BLM protests were avowedly non-violent and within the Western democratic tradition. Where violence broke out it was an aberration. A strength of the movement and testament to its democratic grassroots, was that any attempts to hijack it to violence were mostly defeated, as were attempts to meet and provoke it with armed and other violence. This non violence included most of the Marxists (oh my god, shock horror, there are Marxists here) among the protesters. One has to ask, in what part of Howard and Abbot’s relaxed 1950s Australia does Bee dwell in.
By contrast the rabble at the Capitol were avowedly in favour of violence, were armed in many cases and their sentiments were absolutely anti -democratic norms. It’s pretty clear most of them wouldn’t even know what they are. They appeared to be gullible, full of false ideas and so worked up in emotion that violence seemed a justified solution.
There is nothing to compare here. By all means condemn violence in any protests but you don’t use what was going on at BLM to excuse or favourably measure the Trump incited riot in manner or aims. That’s precisely the sort of false equivalence arguments Communist and Fascist regimes use to justify their own actions.
You only do this if, like McCormack, you are either dog whistling to reactionaries and racists or you are just stupid, ignorant or both..
I’d rather read more of your analysis than stuff by Mr Bee.
Exactly AP7.
And Kennedy’s ride through Dallas was mainly uneventful.
Thomas Bee … picks freelance writing jobs as a side-hustle and hopes to continue to pursue his passion for commentating on politics.
Fine – but please let him do so somewhere else.
Why on earth do so many Crikey subscribers object to the publication of any opinion pieces they disagree with?
Yeah, like sky after dark. This piece is also more proof that journalism degrees are Mickey Mouse at best.
🙂 I went straight to the description before deciding whether to read the article…
“… confessed Marxists” (and black no doubt?) – oh well, in that case? …..
When is Keane getting back.
These one-sided, myopic ex-Murdoch “Editor’s Choice Conservative Opinion” fillers are piling up as too predictable – they can be had from “Rupert’s Mews” if wanted, and we know where that is.
Crikey was an option to such one-sided spiel – a balance to Murdoch’s excesses.
Crikey lowers its standards by publishing this drivel from Thomas Bee. If this and the Leslie Cannold garbage are the quality of article you will be publishing in future, I will be seriously questioning whether to renew my subscription.