Not only did a protester who called herself “Blanca” follow Arizona Sen. Krysten Sinema into the women’s room to exercise her right to express her grievance, but it was recorded for all to see and applaud.
Protesters followed Sen. Sinema into the bathroom at Arizona State University to confront her on Build Back Better and immigration pic.twitter.com/NDSmeu0h2M
— Jennifer Epstein (@jeneps) October 3, 2021
Unsurprisingly, the breakdown of positive and negative reaction fell along the usual lines, the former because why should Sinema be allowed to stall with impunity while the latter because there is still a vestige of a norm that there are places where neither protesters nor cameras should follow.
The same argument remains as to why should a senator be allowed to do anything or be anywhere free from the consequences of her actions to her most passionate critics? Why not a restaurant? Why not at home? Why not in the bathroom stall? Why not? She’s still a senator even as her body functions as it must. The aggrieved remain just as aggrieved. Their pain and passionate doesn’t abate during her moments on the john, so why should the senator be entitled to pee in peace?
The student subsequently had enough time to put words together in response to the negative reaction to her time, place and manner of protest, even if the words weren’t close to responsive.
To be fair, it’s often said that the best defense is a good offense, and this was certainly an offensive explanation for following and recording a senator in the can. But to be serious and fair, this is the logical extreme, even if there are far more extremes to come, of the contention that this is an existential battle for the future of humanity and that the norms that make this icky, creepy and gross no longer apply.
No, it’s not a deep and thoughtful approach to the problem, and it is still widely considered socially unacceptable to go after anyone, even a senator, in a bathroom stall, but when everything is a matter of life or death, would you not do everything possible to fight for life?
Or is it life and death? If so, then you have an excuse to come out guns blazing in self-defense. Would it have been acceptable had this protester beaten Sinema or shot her? Obviously not, until you consider the further deep slogans that “words are violence” and “silence is complicity.” And yet, public restrooms are sacrosanct?
The breakdown in norms inexorably leads to protests in toilets. At least this time, the protester didn’t force her way into the stall, megaphone in hand lambasting the senator’s face with her protest. The Constitution protects the right to seek redress of grievances, and Blanca had her grievance. The Constitution does not place express limits on how it’s to be done, although the Supreme Court has held that neutral place, time and manner restrictions may be imposed without infringing on the right to seek redress of grievances. But it’s impossible to craft laws to address every instance of action that a passionate person might employ.
This is what the breakdown in norms leads to, and Blanca did no more than take one step further than polite society was prepared to accept. Whether she did it because she harbored any belief that this might be an effective way to persuade a senator to see things her way or because she hoped to become a heroine of the cause, adored throughout the virtual universe, is unknown.
What is known is that the same rationalizations that have been used to subvert norms of socially acceptable behaviors can be just as easily applied here as elsewhere. And just as easily applied to anyone against whom a grievance exists as a senator. Whether it will be condemned the next time someone posts their video of bravely confronting a politician stalling or applauded has yet to be seen, but as social norms are rejected, there will be no safe space left for anyone against whom a complaint can be raised.
No comments:
Post a Comment