The question of the etiquette of the election riot has surfaced again in 2016 with the presentation of two candidates in the US Presidential election. We say two because up until now there have been no serious contenders for a third nominee, and precious little seriousness in the ones we have.
In the past election riots have been the political style of Brazil, Spain, and any number of African and Asian countries. Public transport buses have been set alight in cities all over the planet in an effort to engage in reasonable political dialog. This, and the torching of various parliamentary chambers, has been a feature of electioneering since Genghis Khan…and he was a man for a head count, we can tell you. He piled ’em up to count ’em and there was never a word of complaint.
The ” before” camp argues that the scientific application of terror before the poll can avert the worst effects of not choosing whichever candidate can promise the most chickens in the most pots. Sort of pre-emptive strike. The ” after ” supporters call this foul play ( fowl play….Owwww….) and say that it limits the number of rioters available to go through the television and liquor stores – leading to some of these premises not being efficiently looted. It is a question of numbers.
There is much to be said for both arguments. Some neighbourhoods may not have enough disgruntled minorities to be able to stage a really destructive affair and may have to limit themselves to only one burning car. Resources are everything in the mob business. Other districts may have an embarrassment of crowds, and run the risk of people amongst them becoming ashamed of themselves and going home. It is vital that a balance be struck, and preferably with a police baton.
To this end we would like to take this opportunity to remind readers that:
” Rioter’s Lives matter ”
” Occupy Yourself ”
” Free The Toronto/Sebastopol/Lima/Ceduna Seven ‘