Calling Out the Cowards

[major_clanger]

I'm sure most people will have heard about Canadian sf author Peter Watts being beaten and arrested by US border guards whilst trying to return to Canada. nwhyte has posted extensive links with details, including Peter's first-person account and update.

Even with my natural caution of "let's get as full a story as possible" I am appalled at this. I've dealt with Peter online and whilst he is not the sort of person to suffer fools gladly there is no way that, as papersky put it, 'failing to cringe sufficiently' invites violent assault and what sounds like malicious arrest.

But if I am dismayed at what has happened to Peter then I am aghast at some of the comments in the various fora where this is being discussed. It seems that there are an awful lot of people out there - even in the readership of communities like BoingBoing - who are ready and willing to adopt a supinely compliant role in the face of abuses of authority. Some would have you believe that as a citizen you have to accept any order given to you by someone in uniform, and that a good beating is a perfectly natural response to any hesitation to do so. Furthermore, plenty of people who don't know Peter from Adam seem all too willing to attack his honesty and motives on no more basis that an apparent instinct to side with jackboot authoritarianism.

And you know what? Pretty much without exception everyone doing this is posting anonymously or under a pseudonym. There's a term for this: utter moral cowardice.

I accept that there are powerful arguments why online anonymity can be important. If you are discussing abuse, or sensitive personal matters, or whistleblowing, or complaining about someone with the power to hurt you, then yes, anonymity is a valuable shield. But it is a shield, not a sword. To use the anonymity of the Internet as a wall to hide behind whilst making baseless, scurrilous and utterly unwarranted accusations demonstrates nothing more than abject lack of any sort of moral courage or integrity. If you want to say something nasty about someone who is in no position whatsoever to have any comeback on you, then damn well say it under your own name.

Of course, these people won't, because they're weak and cowardly. But I think that if you run a public blog then it's fair to set a policy about commenting: anonymity is inappropriate if you are attacking the integrity of someone who has no means nor motive for reprisals against you, and such comments, if anonymous or pseudonymous, are fair game for disemvowelling or removal.

(To clarify: if someone has a well-established reputation, even under a name unconnected with their own, then they are not really anonymous in the sense that I am talking about because they have a reputation that they can lose through being childish or abusive. I am talking about the drive-by commentors who have no such credibility to invest.)

EDIT I would hope it would be evident from the above that I won't stand for comments that are abusive or casually dismissive of others posting here. If you disagree with someone, explain why.

Comments

[redbird]

Agreed, on all counts.

With one addendum: if someone actually believes that it isn't safe to say "the government must have been right," in a forum like that, where many others have already said so, they haven't thought through their ideas about what the government might do to them and why.

[autopope.livejournal.com]

Yep.

I'm loath to mention the arrest on my main blog because I know I'll end up on troll patrol for the next week (and I'm off to visit my elderly parents tomorrow, making it doubly inconvenient to do so). But the phenomenon is familiar: anonymous cowards using pseudonymity as a shield while they wank themselves furious over authoritarian fantasies.

[lil-shepherd.livejournal.com]

Do you mind if I link to this post, Simon? I think it is something more people ought to see.

[major-clanger.livejournal.com]

Please do.

Of course, I reserve the right to firmly apply the moderation policy I have just described.

[annafdd.livejournal.com]

Simon, I think the reason they post anonymously is because there is only one - maybe two - of them, and they want to look more like a crowd.

But for the rest, yes. Indeed. YES.

I suspect that things might be legally different in the US. People there do seem to think that they are legally obliged to obey to the orders of police and other law enforcement types. Either this is true, or there is a much higher incidence of police abuse in the US.

Land of the free, indeed. :-(

Of course, everybody knows that, on a sad practical level, mouthing off to police officers is not a good idea. What amazes me is the number of people who appear to think it's ILLEGAL.

[lindentreeisle.livejournal.com]

I suspect that things might be legally different in the US. People there do seem to think that they are legally obliged to obey to the orders of police and other law enforcement types. Either this is true, or there is a much higher incidence of police abuse in the US.

You are legally obliged to obey the orders of police and other law enforcement, assuming the orders are lawful. (Maybe I'm not getting quite what you're saying- I can't imagine that in Canada you can ignore any order the police give you?)

The problem is, uniforms are basically taught that the definition of 'lawful order' is 'an order given by a uniform.' You have the right to resist an unlawful arrest or refuse an unlawful order, but when you go disagree with a uniform over what 'lawful' means, you are going to lose. Even a well-trained (by US standards) officer is likely to interpret any refusal to do what he wants as resisting and respond with force. And god help you if you get a jackboot who interprets even a verbal questioning of an order as resisting. Even if you were in fact correct to resist the officer (if that's what you were doing), the first time you'll get a chance to assort it is when you're in court, once the officer has worked you over and charged you with 'resisting arrest.' If any of the officers gets a scratch or a bump while 'subduing' you, why that's 'assaulting an officer.' And what if there's no underlying charge, no reason why the officer should have been arresting you in the first place? Simple- that's 'obstruction.'

It sounds like the officers here chose to interpret Mr. Watts getting out of his car and asking a question as a threat and respond with physical force. Piss-poor policing strikes again. If these officers are anything like most law enforcement in the US, they're probably taught that anything other than instant, unquestioning compliance is a prelude to danger and should be stomped on without hesitation.

It was very decent of them...

[zornhau.livejournal.com]

...not to identify him as an A-rab terrorist in disguise, drug him, put him in an adult nappy and ship him - via Hethrow - to some 3rd-world hellhole where he could be properly questioned with the application of cattleprods to his private parts.

[tanngrisnir.livejournal.com]

Yes, very well said.

I must confess I have avoided looking at the comments precisely because I knew this sort of thing would happen and I'd end up furious at these despicable cowards.

[mishalak.livejournal.com]

I work with the police on a regular basis. What I have learned from this is that they are a group of people like any other. They are neither more moral or less moral than people tend to be in the general population. This is both terrifying and reassuring because I know how bad people can be at times and how good they usually are.

In my experience of working with criminals is they also exhibit a full range of human reaction to being caught. Some will come right out and admit it and others will also act outraged and say their rights are being trampled etc, etc, etc. Unlike with my job the police authorities like boarder guards are in the unenviable position being expected to deal with merely suspicious situations. Unlike with me if they let a suspicious situation go it could potentially turn into a career ending event if it was either some sort of test or if it was an actual bad guy who then does something 'exciting'.

I have very little contact with innocent people accused of a crime since for me that would be a potential career ending event. I do, sometimes, see it when other employees or customers think they see something and take action. While limited I have never heard from such actually innocent individuals about their rights being violated or questioning what I am doing. Those questions invariably come from people who have stolen items from the store. Thus, I think a person must consider how loud complaints of profiling, rights being violated, etc look to someone like a police officer. It looks like either a troublesome libertarian type or (more likely) a criminal who's trying to wiggle out of the trap.

This is why I, now, never question the actions of the police at the time. I'll take down names and numbers, gather my own evidence, but while they are in action I never, never, never try to intimidate an officer into backing down by being a roadside lawyer or questioning their actions. If it comes to that it can happen in a court of law after a complaint.

My opinion is that an innocent person should not question the actions of the authorities, but also not volunteer anything and politely, but firmly insist on their rights if asked for permission to search or volunteer information when they have not seen a crime committed.

[nancylebov.livejournal.com]

If someone's rights are being violated, is there a clear difference between saying that it's happening vs. insisting on their rights?

[del-c.livejournal.com]

My opinion is that an innocent person should not question the actions of the authorities,

You misunderstand what this case is about. It isn't about an innocent person questioning the actions of the authorities, it's about border guards beating an innocent person.

It's as if someone responded to the case of a driver who hit a kid running for an ice cream van and drove away, with a recipe for home made ice cream. At best, it's a bad misreading of the narrative; at worst, it's an example of what feminists are complaining about when they see "how not to be raped" advice. Could you offer some advice about what border guards should do, instead of advice about what innocent people should do?

[watervole.livejournal.com]

I see what you're saying about the profile of the two groups being very similar. It's hard to tell them apart and there is the risk of the guilty escaping, as well as the innocent getting hurt.

I always try to be polite to police, simply because I judge them to be friends/parents/consumers themselves. If you treat people that way (ie. as normal human beings rather than as enemies), they are far more likely to respond in kind. (and I've had police be helpful to me in the past, so I've no bad experiences to get in the way.)

[a-d-medievalist.livejournal.com]

Simon, this is a really good post. I hope you don't mind my commenting. I am also infuriated by the people who assume Watts must have done something to deserve this -- because no one deserves such things. They are inexcusable.

But I'm not entirely sure that the people who are arguing that Watts should have complied are also arguing for blanket compliance to any order from a person in uniform. Some might be, and they are idiots. But it's one of the duties of the Border Patrol and TSA to stop and search, and random searches have become far more common since 2001. I can see a lot of reasons to object to that, but they are better directed to the policy, and not to the people carrying it out.

On the anonymity thing? Thank you.

[antonia-tiger.livejournal.com]

Two things that occur to me, partly prompted by various comments else-net.

1: Different countries have different expectations of the details of what you are expected to do when in a car and stopped by law enforcement. Do you get out of the car, or stay in it. Comments I've seen, UK practice is to ask the driver to get out of the car, US practice is for the driver to stay in the car.

What of Canada?

But border control agencies should be aware of these cultural differences, and be trained to be aware of them.

2: The USA has two very different land borders, and the Mexican border seems considerably more violent--I was reading reports of violence in the 1980s, smuggling of people and of drugs. For most of the last century the Canadian border has been almost wide open. Has the tightening up, the paranoia, brought Mexican Border thinking to the north?

My own experiences of border crossing are old and ancient, but I recall the attitude of the British officials to be more worrying than that of the Dutch. No problems, maybe just the difference which comes from being an island, and the traveller not being somebody who could walk to the next country as easily as he could walk to the next village. But that doesn't explain the USA.

[matociquala.livejournal.com]

Hear, hear.

Whither America?

[(Anonymous)]

It is a terrible, terrible thing that in this country -- touted as the land of the free -- we should have to warn people to always obey people in uniform. That's not how it's supposed to work. In fact, we should pretty much *always* be able to question people in uniform. That's kind of what the Bill of Rights is all about. While I understand the practicality of that advice, it infuriates me to know that it is true if you really want to avoid a beating.

We've been giving away our rights in dribs and drabs for decades now. First, we agreed to warrantless, invasive searches every time we board an airplane. These days we're one step away from a requirement that we strip naked. (I've been patted down twice in the past three times I've flown, not because I set off any alarm or looked suspicious -- I'm 53, female, white, overweight and gray-haired, practically (though I'm loathe to admit it) grandmotherly.) Then we started agreeing to be searched every time we attend a public event, like a concert ("Open every compartment in your purse, madam, and we'll pass it around the metal detector for you"). There has been no protest, because, the theory goes, you get something in return for your agreement to give up your rights -- you get to fly in a plane, or attend the concert. That's pure sophistry.

I don't have any answers, and I'm certainly not saying the advice is wrong if you wish to retain all your teeth. But it makes me intensely angry that this goes on, regularly. I hope Dr. Watts files a civil suit and wins a few million bucks. If I lived anywhere close to him or the scene of this crime -- by which I mean the beating and attendant events, not Dr. Watts's conduct -- I'd volunteer to do it pro bono. I hope there are lawyers in the area who will take this on and pursue it with a vengeance.

Terry Weyna
http://www.readingtheleaves.com

Re: Whither America?

[major-clanger.livejournal.com]

I can't offer to help - I'm in the wrong continent and manage to be doubly unqualified in terms of the legal aspects (knowing neither Canadian nor the appropriate US state or federal law). I have sent a contribution so that somewhere nearer and more appropriately qualified can help instead.

[flick.livejournal.com]

Even with my natural caution of "let's get as full a story as possible" I am appalled at this.[...] Of course, these people won't, because they're weak and cowardly.

But! You don't have a *clue* what the real story is. No one does, at least online as yet.

If this wasn't someone you knew, would you jump in and wholeheartedly support what he claims happened? Of course you wouldn't: you're better trained than that.

The two or three reports that have been passed around may well be accurate, but you don't know that. You don't *know* what happened. How can you make any comment about this whilst only knowing the view of one, involved and understandably pissed off person?

All I know about the US border guards is that they are reported to act strangely in a certain number of cases, the reporting of which may or may not be skewed: I see very few online posts and articles saying what a nice experience the author had, in common with the rates of positive reviews for any good or service.

All I know about Peter Watts is that he wrote a book I quite liked. Maybe you, personally, know him, his politics and his political views much better than that, but if you don't I have to ask why you would automagically consider him to be innocent (of whatever it is he's been charged with. Hey, not saying I agree with it...).

[annafdd.livejournal.com]

He's been charged with assault. Not assault and battery, just assault. As countless people have explained to us, "talking" to a US LEO can be assault. If physical action is taken, then it's battery. He's not been charge with that AFAIK. An article in a local (US) newspaper says he has "chocked" one of the guards, but, apart from the fact that I have charcter witnesses I trust about his personality, he is not being charged with that.

So on the part of Peter Watts we have: "He was rude/threatening/uncooperative/you name it".

On the part of the border guards, we have "he was beaten up, pepper sprayed, left in a cell overnight, his car and coat were confiscated (why?), and he was left on foot on the Canadian border."

Even discounting the beating, the rest is pretty easy to ascertain, and seems to be corroborated.

So hell yeah, from this facts I could tell, not that he is "innocent", because if what he was guilty of is "getting out of the car and asking a question twice", then by his own admission he was guilty, but that he was subjected to a brutal abuse of power that is inexcusable and outrageous.

[major-clanger.livejournal.com]

Well, to take your last question first, I assume that everyone is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. It goes with my job :-)

But I think what you meant is "why do you presume that PW's account is more likely to be true than some of the other scenarios put forward."

Well, to begin with PW was there and the people saying "I'll bet this is what happened" weren't. As such, his account is evidence and their accounts are supposition.

Now, the border police were there. But the report they give in the paper has PW trying to enter Michigan, not leave it - and unless PW has managed to create an entire backstory for his last week, this is flat-out wrong. Such a simple error immediately flags up concerns for me as to the veracity of the rest of the story.

As for PW himself, I don't know him. I have read one book by him, and I have had a number of email exchanges with him over several weeks when we were both on an email bounce planning the science programme for this year's Worldcon. So my impression of him is based on email discussion and the reports of people I know well who have met him.

In online discussion PW never got angry, overbearing or abusive, even when the conversation headed in directions he was unhappy with (and I don't think I'm betraying any confidences if I say that he had forthright views on some aspects of con programming that not everyone agreed with).

There are people I've dealt with in fandom who, even on a fairly brief acquaintance, quickly come across as having short tempers, overbearing manners or, frankly, anger management problems. My limited experience of PW, and the more extensive experience of people whose opinions I respect who know him better, suggest that he is not in that category.

But the point is that I am open-minded about what happened. My anger is principally with those who not only assume a version of events that is most adverse to PW, but advocate it as the right and proper way to deal with anyone who, however unjustly, attracts the ire of US uniformed authority.

[occams_pyramid]

I've been doing a bit of googling on this, and seen a *lot* of comments that he should have been absolutely compliant with whatever the border guards said, and then he'd have been OK. With the unspoken corollary that a beating and a few years in jail is therefore justified punishment for not doing so.

What happens to someone who has acute depression, or autism, or simply PMS, and who can't perform the required ritual humiliation? To say nothing of really serious offences like Driving While Black, or "looking at me in a funny way".

[daveon.livejournal.com]

It's been obvious for a while that being tired or having, say, low blood sugar when coupled to a police officer with a chip on their shoulder is a recipe for a screw up.

As I said to Flick, my problem is that should never ever be the case. Many many many years ago, a senior officer friend of my fathers was a regional commander (Chief Inspector level) in the Met in London. He heard stories via his local grapevine that his officers were being impolite to civilians so he went out with a determination to get himself pulled over. He succeeded and experienced it first hand. He then identified himself to the officers and invited them and their line manager to his office first thing the next morning to explain themselves and their attitude.

The problem is that while I could believe that of old school Met officers 30+ years ago, I think that the relationship of civil authorities with civilians has become completely broken, especially in the US over the last 8 years.

It's going to take some fixing.

[penguineggs.livejournal.com]

I accept that there are powerful arguments why online anonymity can be important. If you are discussing abuse, or sensitive personal matters, or whistleblowing, or complaining about someone with the power to hurt you, then yes, anonymity is a valuable shield.

You know who I am - to refresh your memory, I'm legionseagle on dreamwidth and we spent some time on the phone earlier this week. I post psuedonymously online because my firm has had bitter personal experience of difficulties which people doing the other thing - one of our partners posted in his own name but in his personal capacity a strongly held view about a transport issue in our city and our firm lost a major transaction from a client ideologically opposed to said matter as a result, and redundancies happened directly attributable to the lost revenue. For me, the risk of being called a coward by someone on BoingBoing is massively outweighed by not wanting to tell a family's breadwinner they are out of the door, sorry. Having to do that makes me physically sick, gives me sleepless nights and leads to me drinking more than I ought. And that's part of the problem - the results of online "courage" don't always hit you.

As as result, I'll express my absolute support for Peter Watts and my abhorrence at the ridiculously disproportionate behaviour of the US border guards - but I'm afraid I have to do it pseudonymously. I know that probably makes me a coward by these standards, but that's how it is. One problem BoingBoing has at present is that people associated with those running it - Will Shetterly and Kathryn Cramer - have been instrumental in the forcible outing of people who express views adverse to their own so you'll pardon me if my views on your essay are rather qualified.

[major-clanger.livejournal.com]

Point taken - but it's the point I hoped I'd at least tried to address in my final paragraph about how posting under an established nom de plume is not really anonymous posting, because you have your reputation to lose. To clarify, I am objecting to drive-by comments posted under hitherto unknown names. And I'm specifically referring to anonymous abuse. Furthermore, I'm not suggesting that people who do this should be 'outed', rather that no-one should have any compunction in removing or deprecating such posts.

For what it's worth, I do not approve of efforts to 'out' anonymous posters. If anonymous abusive comments become so repeated and offensive as to justify identifying the perpetrator, then there are proper mechanisms for doing that.

[cakmpls.livejournal.com]

I have encountered an astonishing number of people--almost all, of course, white (one exception that I can remember) and at least middle-class, and mainly women--who truly believe that if you don't do anything wrong you will never be arrested or mistreated by the police. I have heard otherwise intelligent people maintain that invoking one's right to a lawyer is a sign of guilt, and that no innocent person would ever have any reason to ask for a lawyer. I don't know how to persuade such people that allowing the police to abuse anyone's rights is a blow against all of us.

[major-clanger.livejournal.com]

Fortunately I live in England where we have the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 plus significant case law analysing its provisions. It is well-established here that any pressure to waive the right to a lawyer during interview is not only misconduct but is likely to render any subsequent confession inadmissible in court. (Also, under PACE all interviews must be recorded and a copy given to the defence lawyers.)

In a bizarre turn of events there is some evidence that police in London have been targetting middle-class white people for searches under anti-terror law, purely because they must record the ethnic origin of those searched and it was starting to become clear that a disproportionate number of them were arabic or black. As per one of my other comments, middle-class defendants (in fact, anyone not in near-poverty) will get little if any aid with legal expenses other than the entitlement to have a lawyer present during custody.