You’re inciting violence – (society’s new defense mechanism)

What’s the best way to put an immediate end to the outbreak of violence, rioting and radical protest, with the potential of physical altercations? Simple! Just tell the innocent bystander, “You’re inciting violence.”

It recently happened in London, when a man wearing a Star of David necklace was told by police that he was inciting violence. Consequently, he was arrested although having done nothing other than being guilty of appearing Jewish.

A few nights ago, a large crowd of attendees, who were making their way to a TP USA event at UC Berkeley, were met by large, angry mobs of Antifa members who made every attempt to prevent them from assembling. 

Rather than disperse and condemn the unruly, vulgar protesters, they, instead, reacted by accusing these attendees as those who were inciting violence.

It's the coward’s way out, because instead of confronting the enraged individuals, who are willing to resort to violent actions, it’s so much easier to point the finger at calm, innocent people as the cause of the fracas. After all, if they were not there, no conflict would be taking place, right? Police would not have to stave off anarchistic crowds.

So, it’s come down to that. The inability or lack of backbone to control subversive agitators, who live for conflict and have no qualms threatening police, is being met with blaming innocent people who are simply going about their business with no malice towards anyone.

It is truly a shocking turnaround, where the accommodation is being made for those who employ terrorist tactics. Perhaps, it’s an effort to appease them or to keep the peace, but either way, it smacks of fear and spinelessness on the part of the authorities.

Regrettably, it ends up infringing on the basic human rights of individuals to either wear religious symbols or attend certain gatherings, both of which are protected under law. Why should anyone be prevented from hearing perspectives which champion freedom and righteous values? If that speech is too intimidating to someone, there is no obligation to listen.

But the convenient excuse, being used by campus authorities, is their inability to guarantee safety and security. It is so effective, that it has become the go-to reason for canceling an event. It was attempted, in the past, on several occasions when prominent speakers, such as Ben Shapiro, Douglas Murray, Charlie Kirk and others who were told that their event was causing great unrest by massive protests.

In 2024, anti-Israel students were successful in getting King’s College to cancel a scheduled event where an Israeli-British philosophy teacher, along with a political activist, were to address an audience hosted by the university’s Israel Society. 

Consequently, a letter was delivered to the dean, “demanding the university boycott Israel and acknowledge the ‘genocide’ in Palestine. The letter included the veiled threat that they would ‘escalate their actions’ if the university did not respond to their demands.”

The “you’re inciting violence” claim not only challenges the right to free speech, when involving campus events or other gatherings, but when it involves the way a person looks, due to their ethnicity, religious symbols or the way they dress, a troubling message is being sent.

Because, in essence, the onus is being placed upon the object of a group’s anger rather than their inappropriate reaction which refuses to be controlled. It is the reason that radical Muslims, who reside in Western countries, are treated with kid gloves. Law enforcement authorities know all too well that these migrants have the potential to create havoc in their streets.

Consequently, nothing is said when they march with their Islamic flags or shout death threats to Jews and their homeland. The police officers, tasked with the unpleasant job of keeping the peace and preserving a modicum of order, are probably more focused on making sure that no injuries occur and that they safely return home to their own families.

But the problem is that by allowing these protesters to angrily march, spew hatred and threaten the lives of others, empowers them to keep going one step further, and that is what happened at the latest TP USA gathering.

A fight broke out when a protester, going by the name “Jihad,” yanked the cross off of another man who had been standing outside wearing a “Freedom” t-shirt. When he tried to chase “Jihad,” to get back his necklace, a fight broke out, resulting in police grabbing both men while only one of them had instigated the altercation.  

Although the true perpetrator was eventually arrested, the media reported the incident as if both sides had become unruly. But, of course, that viewpoint serves the narrative that neither side is guiltless, putting everything on a level playing field. 

Attributing blame on innocent people, who have no interest in inflaming sentiments or expressing hatred, is an act of surrender to a frightening group which corporately can wield power and control, even over authorities who feel intimidated by both their size and boldness.

But there is a price to pay for giving in to them and making them feel as if their sensitivities are the only ones at play. Because once they succeed in making headway, just as a child whose temper tantrum gets them what they want, they, too, will not hesitate to employ the same tactics next time, perhaps, even more forcefully.

The truth is that we, as a society, have lost the courage to honestly call out right from wrong, decency from dishonor and even peaceful protesting from complete anarchy. We know it when we see it, but having the fortitude and bravery to say it out loud has escaped us. That’s probably, because we know that there will be a cost to it.

But the opposite is also true. Allowing the mob to dictate what limits they can push and how they can cancel whatever they oppose by means of the fear they impose on the public, including law enforcement, also has its cost.

It means that we no longer have the constitution to stand up for what is right and have capitulated, to the point that we are cowardly enough to turn to the non-troublemakers and saddle them with the responsibility for the bad behavior of others. 

Sadly, society is at a place where we must ask ourselves if we are willing to have our valor stolen from us by grown-up tantrum throwers, because if we are, they have won!