His personal life was, famously and perhaps appropriately (considering his lineage) mired in controversy. The infamous events of Chappaquidick, fictionally reimagined by author Joyce Carol Oates, overshadowed even the assassinations of his brothers. It is widely accepted that Kennedy’s role in the death of Mary Jo Kopechne and his subsequent cowardly actions dashed any hopes of ascending to the Oval Office, perhaps ironically saving him from sharing the lethal fate of Jack and Bobby.

20 years later, a night of raucous partying at the family compound in Palm Springs, Florida lead to his nephew, William Kennedy Smith, being charged with (and later convicted of) rape. As Melissa McEwan recounts, Ted and the rest of the Kennedy clan fell back on their privilege, using the full might of the Kennedy name and money to smear Kennedy-Smith’s victim. Here we see the paradox of Ted Kennedy: a man whose class privilege was both a burden and a boon. To be a Kennedy brought great expectations and no-little danger, but it also allowed its name bearers to escape responsibility when their appetites for excess resulted in self-inflicted tragedy.

Philadelphia Daily News columnist Will Bunch wonders if the totality of Ted Kennedy’s life should in fact be summed up by the lack of accountability faced for his role in the death of Kopechne. It is, as Bunch notes, a hard question to answer. Perhaps the true greatness of Ted Kennedy is that this and his many personal failings never prevented him from striving to narrow the gap between the upper class and those who didn’t enjoy the luxury of financial largess and a famous last name.

Ted Kennedy ultimately believed his role – his responsibility – in the US Senate was to give voice to the voiceless, those who couldn’t afford to hire expensive K-Street lobby firms or embark upon expensive ad campaigns to raise public awareness. With over 300 pieces of legislation passed during his lengthy tenure in the Senate that bore his stamp in some form or fashion, it is not hyperbolic to say that Kennedy helped steer the direction of American civil society in the latter half of the 20th century. This is reflected by the broad cross-section of organizations that hailed his life and legacy upon hearing of his passing. The National Center for Transgender Equality, NARAL, the United Farm Workers and the NAACP; these disparate groups (along with countless others) all heralded the tireless social justice efforts of a man who never allowed his personal wealth to stop him from fighting to fully extend the inherent rights contained in US citizenship.

Despite his myriad flaws, I would contend that’s the true legacy of Edward M. Kennedy: erasing the stain of class privilege smeared over what should be basic human rights. In a vocation where leaders seem to serve lobbyists and industry more than the people, Kennedy, part of a family that is the closest America has to royalty, epitomized politics as public service. As Michael Tomasky observed yesterday, by fighting for equality Ted Kennedy made his country “a dramatically better place”.

Several weeks ago, not long after the conflict officially ‘ended’, I found myself in the middle of a Tamil-Canadian march – quite literally.

On May 22nd, around dinnertime, I was driving into Toronto and noticed a lot of police situated along York Street, with even more on University Avenue. Across the street from the U.S. Consulate was a number of Canadians of Tamil origin, all wearing black, some holding signs and red Tiger flags. Curiosity piqued, and with the other recent Tamil protests in mind, I decided to return that evening to investigate further.

A few hours later, I made my way back to find approximately 50,000 people, almost uniformly Tamil, all holding candles and dressed in black, conducting a somber vigil at Queen’s Park, Ontario’s provincial parliament building. After several speeches from local community leaders, the crowd began to quietly move south down the middle of University, achingly slow, in the general direction of the Gardiner. There was a broad cross-section of people — the elderly, young families, lots of strollers being pushed. Rally officials in green fluorescent vests directed the crowd from the sidewalks, keeping things orderly and organized.

The crowd continued to walk in collective silence, thick, almost solid in its funereal grace. As I followed on the sidewalk, I suddenly found myself directed by an insistent rally official onto the street into the middle of the masses. Almost immediately I absorbed the rhythm and pace of the marchers, walking in perfect concert with thousands of other pairs of feet. Despite the large number of participants, this wasn’t an unruly, defiant gathering; instead, they were mourning, marching in mute honour of their dead loved ones.

Clearly there was a lot of concern from law enforcement officials that the march might once more end up at the Gardiner, as evidenced by an increasingly thick wall of police along the march route – dozens of officers, on foot, in cruisers, on bicycles.

I broke off from the march at Dundas, eager to catch a glimpse of the front. Police had by now blocked off the sidewalks, so I had to sprint down a side street to Queen Street West, where I nearly collided with more police – this time in full riot gear. Riot police, preparing for a non-existent riot.

The itchy tension of the overwhelming police presence (I counted 3 tour buses parked at the staging area) was all-too-palpable and entirely unnecessary in light of the peaceful masses they were preparing to face. Judging by some of the incredulous comments from curious onlookers, the ridiculous incongruity of the situation was indeed on full display–no more so than when 5 cops rode out on horseback, truncheons ready at their side.

As the march slowly, peacefully moved towards the barricaded line of riot police apparently determined to protect the Gardiner at all costs, (and, not surprisingly, where the march ended – peacefully) I overheard a woman talking to her young son.

“This,” she said, pointing towards the mass of people in the distance, “is how you get things done. Black people, we need to learn.”

She later told me that she had brought her son downtown that night especially to witness the mobilization, believing it was an historically-significant event and thus important for him to experience.

Indeed–what this march (and still-ongoing events in Iran) show is that, even in this brave new digital era of decentralized online activism, direct action – boots on the ground – still draws the attention of the general public, media and politicians like nothing else. There were so many people on the street that night, talking about Sri Lanka, the Tamil people and their struggle for independence. If one of the desired outcomes of the march was to garner attention for Tamil self-determination then it was successful.

But that night such overarching, abstract concerns seemed entirely secondary to the black-clad masses who, by flickering candlelight and with minimal words, gave somber voice to the voiceless, those who, unfortunately, will never get to tell their stories first-hand.

GlobalComment: Would you mind explaining what the ‘Quiverfull’ movement is, and what first got you interested in writing about it?

Kathryn Joyce: Quiverfull is a movement among conservative Christians, largely Protestant homeschoolers, who don’t believe in using any birth control at all, but instead that believers should leave all family planning decisions in the hands of God.

They frequently end up having families of 8, 10, 12 children or more, and follow strict doctrines of wifely submission and male headship.

I became interested in writing about them while researching the phenomenon of pro-life pharmacists refusing to fill birth control prescriptions on “conscientious objection” grounds, and I was surprised to find a wide-ranging and well-organized anti-contraception movement among a non-traditionally anti-contraception population: evangelicals and fundamentalists.

GC: Tell me a bit more about the origins of the term ‘Quiverfull’ — where does the word come from?

KJ: Quiverfull takes its name from Psalm 127, “Like arrows in the hands of a warrior are sons born in one’s youth. Blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them. They shall not be put to shame when they contend with their enemies in the gate.” Although the movement likely started with homeschooling leader Mary Pride’s mid-80s book, The Way Home: Beyond Feminism, Back to Reality, the name Quiverfull was probably made popular with the publication of Rick and Jan Hess’s book Full Quiver: Family Planning and the Lordship of Christ. From there, many followers and groups have used variations on the name, and, following their identification as holders of “full quivers” of children, call those children their “arrows,” sent off to do battle with their enemies.

GC: How politically engaged and active are Quiverfull adherents?

KJ: That’s an interesting question, and it varies. Generally, they are pro-life absolutists, and are frequently very involved in antiabortion politics in a range of ways, and also have deep connections to more mainstream representatives working against contraception access. They have certainly become very involved in local politics in some areas, though they see their most potent impact in reforming the church to become more devout in matters of family planning and gender relations, and tend to see their role as the purifiers of the church at large, and also as a means of growing the church, so that through numbers they will be able to enact their political will on the culture.

GC: One usually thinks of the Catholic church as being particularly rigid on matters of family planning (and, to varying degrees, gender roles). Is there an historical precedent for natalist movements within Protestant denominations, or is this a recent phenomenon? And is the movement limited to the US, or is it expanding globally?

KJ: There’s certainly a history of natalism in different countries and political regimes as well as a number of religions. I think one of the interesting things about Quiverfull and current pro-natalist movements among the American Christian right is the way that it has consciously declared that it should adopt some Catholic teachings on contraception and family planning. Quiverfull is generally an evangelical and fundamentalist movement, but it is very cross-denominational. Some more political advocates, such as the coalition members of the religious right organization World Congress of Families, expressly advocate an ecumenical, interfaith orthodoxy regarding family size and gender roles, attempting to find common ground among pronatalist advocates from all branches of Christianity.

Gender roles, I think are a bit of a different question though, and strict adherence to submission and headship has long been a mark of fundamentalist and evangelical churches. But both this resurgence of patriarchy teachings and the Quiverfull conviction are in large part reactions against what movement members see as the encroachment of feminist ideas into the church.

GC: What are some of the ‘feminist ideas’ within mainstream Evangelical Christianity that Quiverfull adherents specifically object to?

KJ: Several things: acceptance of nontraditional family roles, or the church staying out of family planning decisions; women teaching or leading in church, and especially women’s ordination; acceptance of birth control, and of women working; in some denominations, even women speaking in church at all.

GC: So, on that last point, they take Paul’s declarations about a woman’s place within the church quite seriously.

KJ: Yes, quite.

GC: You’ve written about the role of home schooling in the Quiverfull movement. One of the earliest proponents of home schooling as a Christian alternative to the ‘secular’ public school system was the notorious Christian Reconstructionist RJ Rushdoony. How much of an overlap (if any) is there with Reconstructionist theology and Quiverfull?

KJ: Some of the most prominent advocates of Quiverfull, such as the homeschool ministry Vision Forum, are also great promoters of Rushdooney’s work, and allied with Rushdooney’s Chalcedon Foundation.

There is a heavy Reconstructionist element to a lot of Quiverfull advocacy, with advocates speaking about the generational changes they will bring about through having many children and encouraging their children to do the same. The ideal of an agrarian lifestyle also seems to take some inspiration from Rushdooney’s work, particularly in how he encouraged Christians to get back to the land and to the business of bearing and raising large families.

GC: Getting back to gender roles, with numerous magazine and media appearances, and a reality show, probably the most prominent ambassadors for the Quiverfull movement is the Duggar family. What do you think of the way the Duggars have been profiled within the mainstream media, specifically with regards to the way the media tackles the issue of gender?

KJ: My take on the Duggars is informed by an exited Quiverfull woman, Cheryl Lindsey Seelhoff, who said that the Duggars and other families of means are often held aloft as attractive representatives of the movement, but that really, their experience is anomalous. They’re far richer than the average Quiverfull family, many of whom live necessarily simple lives, both as a lifestyle choice and because it’s the only way to stretch limited funds enough to feed and clothe such large families.

I’ve seen a good handful of Duggar shows, but not that many. From what I have seen, it seems like their Quiverfull and patriarchy convictions are mentioned lightly, but never gone into in depth. The show’s producers capture Michelle’s moments of submissive wifehood, but there is little exploration of how far that goes, or how much the daughters will be expected to follow in her footsteps.

It’s not that surprising though; it’s a reality show after all.

GC: You mention the daughters. What are the courtship rites for Quiverfull adherents? Are we talking arranged marriages and dowries?

KJ: Courtship instead of dating seems to be an increasingly popular component of the lifestyle. Courtship in many of these circles involves a young man courting the father of the woman he’s interested in, and proving himself to him before speaking to the daughter about his feelings. There’s a big focus on fathers being the protective covering over their daughters, and when daughters marry, it is explicitly spoken of as a trade-off of ownership: a girl is “owned” – they use the language very bluntly – by her father until she is owned by her husband.

To some degree, these can begin to resemble arranged marriages, with advocates talking about the romance and protection that is afforded a girl whose future is arranged above her head. But most broadly speaking, courtship is the intense involvement of the father in his daughter’s romantic life, and after he gives his approval, a relationship beginning with the express purpose of marriage, not just dating without direction. This is becoming more mainstream, I believe, with tie-ins to abstinence movement developments like purity balls and purity rings, ceremonies, etc.

GC: Cheryl Lindsey Seelhoff is one of the more prominent women to abandon the Quiverfull movement. Since leaving Quiverfull she has famously embraced radical (descriptive, not meant in a pejorative sense) feminism. What about some of the other women you’ve spoken to who have escaped the movement–how have they made the transition to ‘normal’ life?

KJ: I’ve spoken to a few women who have left the movement, and uniformly it seems like they had a very difficult time making the transition. Seelhoff was widely denounced and her business was ruined. Another woman I spoke with didn’t leave by choice but was excommunicated from a Quiverfull-promoting church for failure to be submissive enough. Another woman has left with her children and finds herself overwhelmed with the demands of single parenting as the mother of seven. And a friend of hers who left lost physical custody of her children, who are now estranged from their mother and view her as a sinner.

I think a commonality of their experiences is a well-justified fear of the difficulties life as a single mother to many will have for them. Though they’ve worked doggedly at home, they often have no official work history to show for it. Often they won’t have references to speak for them as their communities may shun them. And the financial cost of raising these children by themselves, and navigating either expensive child care options if they can find work, or finding a way to make money if they care for their children at home, is a huge dilemma. Exited women I’ve spoken with say they feel many other women are unhappy, but look at their options outside and decide to stay.

GC: A self-consciously patriarchal backlash against feminism is, as you’ve outlined, a huge part of the Quiverfull lifestyle/ideology. But are there elements of white supremacy within the movement as well? How racially homogeneous is Quiverfull?

KJ: Quiverfull is largely white, but not entirely so. There are families of color within the movement, as well as prominent biracial couples. I think there are racial undertones to a number of aspects of the movement, particularly its preoccupation with demography and population. Similarly, there are questionable ties between some movement leaders and far-right fringe groups that embrace neo-Confederate notions about slavery and race or immigration. Additionally, one movement author, Charles Provan, author of The Bible and Birth Control, was also notably a Holocaust revisionist. And a very popular author and women’s leader, Nancy Campbell, author of Be Fruitful and Multiply and publisher of the long-running Above Rubies magazine, frequently makes a pitch for large families in order to out-breed Muslims.

However, I don’t think that all Quiverfull people are motivated by racist thinking whatsoever, or even that there’s more racism within the movement than in American culture at large, but I do think that there are troubling undertones to a lot of the messages that the leadership of the movement advances, and the way in which they seem to appeal to people’s racial or immigration fears or biases as a third motivation for having large families beyond obedience to God and the idea of Christian dominion through numbers.

GC: What is the Demographic Winter, and what relationship, if any, does it have with Quiverfull?

KJ: Demographic Winter is an argument being advanced by right-wing “pro-family” activists who claim that low fertility and falling birthrates in Europe auger a massive depopulation crisis that threatens the way of life of the white, Christian West. Particularly, they forecast a “death of Europe,” wherein hedonistic, atheistic and gay- and abortion-rights-friendly Europeans will bring about their own extinction by failing to have enough children to keep Muslim and Global South immigration at bay. Though there have been drops in fertility in Europe in recent decades, and it is a topic that numerous other organizations and governments and scientists are examining, the labeling of the phenomenon as a “Demographic Winter” apocalypse by the U.S.-based pro-family movement is a prelude to their offered solution: the revival of large, patriarchal families where the woman is a stay-at-home mother to a full quiver of children, and the father is a benevolent leader of his wife and children. In this way, coalitions like the World Congress of Families have neatly been able to co-opt a population trend, turn it into a crisis, amplify its threat and raise nationalistic support by drawing on centuries-old religious and racial conflicts, and provide the reactionary solution.

GC: What do you ultimately hope to accomplish with your extensive coverage of Quiverfull? Do you think the movement will continue to infiltrate the mainstream, or remain on the fringe?

KJ: I’m a journalist, so I hope to have covered an under-explored subject thoroughly and illustrated why it’s relevant far beyond the fringes of American religion. It’s hard to say whether the movement will continue to grow as it has for the past two decades, but Quiverfull families are certainly enjoying substantial media attention at the moment, and I think it’s crucial to explain that there is a lot more to the movement, theology and lifestyle than often meets the eye.

While Kadima and Likud almost equally split the centre-right mandate, Labor, the party that originally built the Jewish state, received its lowest mandate ever, managing to only garner 13 seats in the Knesset. In its place, a new force has emerged from the far-right margins into the mainstream of Israeli politics in the form of Avignor Lieberman and Yisrael Beiteinu.

The ultra-nationalist party, formed by Lieberman in 1999 as an offshoot to Likud after Lieberman became disenchanted with concessions the party was making to the Palestinians, placed 3rd in voting, ahead of once-venerable Labor (although the 15 seats it picked up were somewhat lower than projected, a development that may reflect a strong turnout by Arab-Israeli voters). Most disturbingly, Yisrael Beiteinu may hold the final decision as to which party leader, Benjamin Netenyahu or Tzipi Livni, will form the next government of Israel.

Lieberman’s ascendancy should not come as a surprise to those who have been charting the recent course of Israeli politics.

Rosenberg points out that, over the past 32 years, “the right-wing Likud Party (or its Kadima spinoff) have controlled the government for 24 years, with the Labor Party only in power for eight,” creating a hardline political environment that has caused “the peace process [to founder] in the years since Labor Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin shook PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat’s hand and began negotiations toward a two-state solution.”

Indeed, it was the brazen provocation of uber-hawk Ariel Sharon visiting the disputed Haram al-Sharif mosque complex in Jerusalem (recognized by Jews as the Temple Mount) that helped spark the second Intifada, further scuttling gains made by Rabin and Arafat.

But it was two events in 2006, the election of Hamas in Palestinian elections, followed by the ill-fated war against Lebanon, which was initiated by nominally centrist caretaker PM Ehud Olmert, that has accelerated Israel’s rightward drift and, arguably, allowed Lieberman to extend his political reach beyond the fringe.

In a 2007 Nation profile, Ben Lynfield notes that “[a]long with Netanyahu, Lieberman is the prime beneficiary of the sea change in Israeli politics after the Lebanon war,” that resulted in the existing political establishment, Kadima and Labor, becoming “discredited–but not Lieberman, who was not associated with the Lebanon debacle”. Add to the mix the corruption scandal that brought down Olmert’s governing coalition, forcing the most recent round of voting and you have a volatile electorate eager to sweep away the old order.

Indeed, in some ways, the stunning electoral success of Yisrael Beiteinu and Lieberman, a former bouncer who later received a B.A. from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem in political science and international relations, represents a secular nationalist parallel to the rise (such as it were) of Hamas, another hardline ultra-right-wing party swept into power in a transformative election following years of corruption and diplomatic insolvency on the part of the Palestinian Authority. But, unlike Hamas, which has been entirely marginalized by the global community following its unexpected electoral victory, Lieberman is treated as a legitimate political actor. According to Lynfield, [then] Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice welcomed [Lieberman] at the State Department on December 11, [2006], a day after he was featured at a forum, sponsored by the Brookings Institution’s Saban Center, that also included Bill Clinton, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and several other members of Congress.”

Still, despite having previously hob-nobbed with those who claim to support ‘democracy promotion’ in the Middle East, Lynfield further notes that, again, much like the Hamas leadership, “Lieberman, though striving for power through the ballot box, believes democracy is at best a secondary value.”

Lynfield quotes from a September 2006 interview with Lieberman, stating “I very much favor democracy, but when there is a contradiction between democratic and Jewish values, the Jewish and Zionist values are more important.”

What does Lieberman mean by “Jewish and Zionist values?”According to a recent TIME Magazine profile, Lieberman:

• Has pushed to institute a mandatory loyalty oath and advocates stripping anyone who refused to sign it of their right to vote or hold public office.
• Advocates a reduction of Israel’s Arab population by redrawing borders along Palestinian-controlled areas to cede select towns to the Palestinian Authority.
• Has called for the death penalty for any Arab Knesset member found to be collaborating with Hamas.

Yisrael Beitenu’s original power base was built among Eastern European immigrants, many of whom left former Eastern Bloc nations following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 (Lieberman himself immigrated to Israel from Moldova in 1978). Most were residents of illegal West Bank settlements, and hold no love for hostile Palestinian Arabs whose land was unceremoniously appropriated–a sentiment that is, quite obviously, reciprocated. But Lieberman’s unwavering message of national pride and intolerance for dissent has reached beyond his initial constituency. The Israeli public’s reaction to what it perceives as an external, existential threat has been adroitly exploited by Lieberman and his partisans, striking a chord with many disenchanted Israeli citizens.

Before the election, Lieberman was quoted as stating that “Israel is under a dual terrorist attack, from within and from without. And terrorism from within is always more dangerous than terrorism from without,” rhetoric that resonated with an Israeli populace still reeling from ongoing rocket attacks from Gaza into Southern Israel. Even though said attacks do little measurable physical damage, the psychological effect has resulted in hardened Israeli public sentiment towards Palestinians living in the occupied territories–so much so that support for the recent war in Gaza was nearly universal, transcending ideological divides and essentially rendering the Israeli peace movement inconsequential.

As Shmuel Sandler, dean of social sciences at Bar Ilan University, quoted by the New York Times in a recent profile of Lieberman, observes, “[Lieberman] appeals to simple-minded voters. Average Israelis feel that we have given up territory, and at the same time the Arabs don’t want to accept the Jewish nature of the state.”

But is it simply ‘simple minded’ voters who find appeal in Lieberman’s certitude? This dismissive elite sentiment is questioned in a recent post by an Israeli blogger, quoted by Jeffrey Goldberg in his Atlantic.com blog:

“[W]hy is [Lieberman] gaining in the polls? Not because he offers simple solutions for simpletons, no, that’s actually what left-wing Meretz is doing, but because he is the only voice saying what a lot of people are thinking.”

As successful Yisrael Beitenu candidate Danny Ayalon said in a recent LA Times op-ed, Lieberman’s straight talk “appeals to Israelis after years of sweet talk about concessions for peace that have yielded nothing but more loss of life on both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian divide.”

Much like European far-right politicians like Jorg Heider, Pim Fortuyn and Jean-Marie Le Pen, all of whom have made political hay out of exploiting fear of the brown other within, Avigdor Lieberman is rebranding ultra-nationalist right-wing populism for a 21st century political consumer–fascism with a smiling face and a ‘positive’ message. Rosenberg notes that, unlike traditional Israeli far-right parties, Lieberman “favors separation of synagogue and state” and “promises civil marriage and an end to the Orthodox monopoly of control on all matters relating to the Jewish religion.” Lieberman even advocates a version of the two-state solution, seeing separation of Jews and Arabs as a means of preserving Israel’s Jewish national character.

As a result of this more inclusive, ‘positive’ vision of anti-Arab nativism as a force for national renewal, Lieberman’s most devoted supporters tend to skew young, with Yisrael Beiteinu winning “the highest level of support in mock high-school polls,” according to Haaretz.

Ayalon is blunt in his explanation for Lieberman’s popularity: “[W]hat makes him persona non grata among the bien-pensant is precisely the source of his appeal to the broader public.”

Avigdor Lieberman may never actually become prime minister of Israel. But, by giving a face and a voice to long-repressed nativist, ultra-nationalist sentiments among many in the Israeli populace, he has perhaps irrevocably widened the gap between already-polarized Israeli and Palestinian polities.

With upcoming Palestinian elections almost certain to result in the ascension of a more radical (and possibly united) Palestinian government, the future of the peace process–and the prospects of a viable two-state solution–appear increasingly bleak. Intermediaries such as Quartet envoy Tony Blair, U.S. Middle East envoy George Mitchell, and representatives of the Turkish government will have to be innovative, patient and increasingly intolerant of hardline inflexibility on the part of all parties involved if a lasting peace in the Middle East is to be successfully brokered before it’s too late.

What else can you call what occurred on New Year’s Day in Oakland? A BART officer caught on tape shooting transit passenger Oscar Grant in the back, while Grant lay flat on his stomach, restrained, prone and defenseless. Kinda difficult to argue self-defense, or ‘excited delirium‘ (or whatever they’re calling it this year) when the victim isn’t even facing his assailant (let alone upright) and the cause of death is a police-issue lead projectile that sliced through flesh and bone without prejudice.

So, what next? Oscar Grant is but the latest Fatal Attraction video victim of a growing siege mentality within law enforcement, one that transcends the traditional boundaries of race, gender, orientation and class (though make no mistake–those factors still greatly affect the conduct of law enforcement officers, on both an individual and systemic level, to say nothing of the marginalized communities forced to live day-to-day with the consequences). Thanks to a pop-cult fetishization of get-tough law enforcement (with new reality TV star Sherriff Joe Arpaio serving as the latest darkly cartoonish personality cult) and the (largely erroneous) notion that “criminals” are increasingly coddled by a too-soft justice system, the general public is often all-too-quick to give the benefit of the doubt to overzealous officials who, whether through malice, fear, or out of a warped sense of duty, cross the line that separates upholding the law and undermining it.

More and more, contemporary law enforcement officials throughout the so-called ‘civilised’ world seem to view the public they purportedly serve and protect through a clouded prism of reflexive suspicion and militarized paranoia. Under this distorted reasoning, anyone–be they a pregnant woman, a wet naked man with a hearing impairment, or a frail 92 year old grandmother–is automatically deemed to be a potential threat; all options, therefore, remain on the table, to be utilized at the official’s discretion. Above all, obedience is paramount; when this principle is not sufficiently adhered to by civilians (especially marginalized segments of the population), the consequences can quite literally be fatal.

Until we collectively address the broad systemic and societal conditions (including and especially the War on [Some] Drugs) that encourage and enable law enforcement officials to act with reckless–at times lethal–impunity and willful indifference, there will continue to be a fresh new slate of Oscar Grants, Hope Steffies, Robert Dziekanskis, and on and on and on. We are all, in a sense, responsible for what has happened to them and other victims of ‘excessive force’ (an anodyne term, banal in its innate reductiveness) who weren’t afforded the perverse luxury of having their assaults (or killings) captured on tape for grim posterity. By virtue of apathy, paranoid insecurity in the wake of overblown and misrepresented crime statistics, race and class-based stereotyping, and, above all, a misguided, unquestioning reverence for uniformed authority uber alles, we have collected overflowing buckets of blood–more than enough to stain every pair of hands in the ‘free world’ several times over.