Another one bites the dust
Not before time, the King’s College London ‘occupation’ in support of Hamas has collapsed. A statement from the college’s Principal states:
Senior colleagues and I are pleased that the recent occupation of a lecture room has now come to an end … I very much regret any distress that has been felt by any part of our diverse College community, in which naturally there is considerable variety of opinion on these matters. I do hope that the College can continue to debate the issues of the day in a balanced and constructive manner. As an international place of learning with a long tradition of expertise in international relations, we have a duty to do so.
I joined the King’s Jewish Society, protesting outside King’s on Friday against the rise in anti-semitism on campus. They don’t have a corporate view on Gaza or the King’s ‘occupation’, but they do on anti-semitism: and that has skyrocketed since the start of the ‘occupation’. When asked to make a statement against anti-semitic violence or threats, the leaders of the protest refused. That says most things you need to know about the protest.
However, no act is illegitimate by its definition alone. It can be immoral, of course, and I think this is for the above reasons. But it does not become illegitimate because it is illegal. What is illegitimate is if, by the act of protesting, one extracts a concession that absolves one of responsibility for the protest. That was one of the terms set by the ‘occupation’, and one which King’s administration has conceded.
The occupiers have compared themselves to modern-day suffragettes or Gandhis (well, the abhorrent misspelling “Ghandis” - so much for respecting other cultures!). Those comparisons are patently risible. When the suffragettes broke the law, they expected to go to prison. When they went on hunger strike, they expected to die. When Emily Davison threw herself under the King’s horse, she didn’t expect to bear no consequences. They, cowards as they were for waging war against innocents, still bore the responsibility for it.
These people do not. The college may well have decided to concede to the demands of the occupation, as outrageous as I think that would have been. But they should also have thrown the book at the protestors by enforcing their own rules: including expelling the ring-leaders. By reducing the cost of protesting to nothing, by absolving the protestors of fault, it bears the moral hazard of precipitating far more simple protests. The only way that coercive protest can be limited to only the most heinous of issues is by enforcing the rules. The law may be an ass, but it must be enforced as such.
