Peaceful Protests Met With Force
“If you wear contacts, take them out. I would rather be blind for one night than blind the rest of my life.”
Those were the first words I heard when I walk into the crowd at the Black Lives Matter demonstration on Wednesday evening June 3rd in Asheville, NC.
Earlier that day the news broke (and has since made national headlines) of Asheville police dismantling the medics’ station, knifing unused bottles of water and destroying their tent and medical supplies at the same demonstrations just the night before.
So hearing the young volunteer explain to the crowd around her that tear gas is actually a powder and hearing her suggest that if it were to get under a contact lens could cause blindness or at the very least a prolonged severe eye pain, put me on edge and stirred the very frustration and anger I could hear in the voices of the people chanting:
“What was his name?” “George Floyd!” “What did he say?!” “I CAN’T BREATH!”
The ban on chemical agents in warfare has a long and storied history. Signed in 1925, the Geneva Protocol prohibits the used of “asphyxiating, poisonous, or other gases,” and in 1966 the United Nations Assembly passed a resolution that called for all participating nations to adhere to the protocol. At the Chemical Weapons Convention in 1993, the U.N. expanded this ban, prohibiting the use of “riot control agents as a method of warfare.” This includes the various types of tear gases currently being used.
That tear gas is deemed illegal by the international community for use in warfare and NOT prohibited domestically doesn’t even hone in on the truth of what’s happening here in the US.
While these chemical agents are permitted and intended for use as “riot control”, as was and is the case here in Asheville, NC it was the use of these agents that incited unrest in the first place.
Get Ronnie Cruz’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
The argument can be made that if the citizens had simply adhered to designated curfew time, then the authorities would not have had to use this level of force to disperse the crowds.
But that then begs the question, why enact a curfew on a peaceful demonstration? Why employ such an unrestrained display of force on citizens that cry for justice and equality?
The answer becomes evident and the contrast stark when the police response to the George Floyd demonstrations are placed side by side with the the police response to the armed protestors in Michigan.
One, an armed militia that helds the Michigan State Capitol hostage — crying out against a stay at home order meant to keep them safe — are met with little to no force.
The other, peaceful protests, sit ins, demonstrations demanding justice and equality — for an understanding that BLACK LIVES MATTER — without provocation are met with shields and tear gas.
Such is the imbalance. That is the state of our nation. And we are long over due for a reckoning.
Sources
[1] McKenzie Sadeghi. (Jun 6, 2020). Fact check: It’s true tear gas is a chemical weapon banned in war https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/06/06/fact-check-its-true-tear-gas-chemical-weapon-banned-war/3156448001/
[2] Wikipedia. Geneva Protocol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Protocol
[3] Barry R. Schneider. Chemical Weapons Convention https://www.britannica.com/event/Chemical-Weapons-Convention
[4] Michael Crowley. Dec 2, 2009. Dangerous Ambiguities: Regulation of incapacitate and riot control agents under the Chemical Weapons Convention https://www.opcw.org/sites/default/files/documents/CSP/C-14/open-forum/Dangerous-Ambiguities-Regulation-of-Riot-Control-Agents-and-Incapacitants-under-the-Chemical-Weapons-Convention_Rev.1.pdf
