When The Black Wind Blows
I’ve been very busy the last few days, with a combination of post-moving stuff (hey, look, we’re close to family now, and it’s the holidays), and with some important changes at work (on which I shall write a very journal-y entry shortly). Which explains why I haven’t already written about an utterly unacceptable, and miserably predictable, incident. Quite a bit’s been written already, and I don’t have anything new to add, but I don’t want to go without noting it here.
If you’ve read here for a while, you may have noticed that I’m a fan of the writing of Peter Watts, both his novels and his blogging. You will also have noticed that I am very much not a fan of the rising abuse of police powers over the last decade across Western society, particularly in the form of the US DHS, and in special particular, in the form of the US Border, where I’ve personally seen several times what I would describe as egregious abuses of power. (Fortunately I’ve never been on the end of any serious problems–just a lot of delays, and sub-gorilla chest-thumping).
So, you can imagine my immediate reaction upon reading this story:
Dr Peter Watts, Canadian science fiction writer, beaten and arrested at US border
…Peter, a Canadian citizen, was on his way back to Canada after helping a friend move house to Nebraska over the weekend. He was stopped at the border crossing at Port Huron, Michigan by U.S. border police for a search of his rental vehicle. When Peter got out of the car and questioned the nature of the search, the gang of border guards subjected him to a beating, restrained him and pepper sprayed him. At the end of it, local police laid a felony charge of assault against a federal officer against Peter. On Wednesday, he posted bond and was taken across the border to Canada in shirtsleeves (he was released by Port Huron officials with his car and possessions locked in impound, into a winter storm that evening).
In reading the comments at that post, and on the discussions at Making Light and Scalzi’s site, I was actually shocked by the number of people who seemed to assume Watts must have done something to “deserve” the attack. Shocked both at the assumption that it was more likely someone like Watts had misbehaved than that some border guards had abused their authority, but even more shocked at the notion that anything he might have done would have deserved that reaction.
Watts himself has since spoken a little bit about the incident (twice actually), but for obvious reasons can only say a certain amount–although in what-appears-to-be typical fashion for Watts, he’s already said more than his self-interest might dictate. A scrupulously honest, outspoken person on one side, border guards on the other side–I know which way I’m biased.
There’s been a lot commentary around since. Let me quote some of my favourite bits.
Don’t tell me Watts should have known better. He’s a free, law-abiding citizen of a free country, who has a right to believe in the rule of law and reasonable behavior in the nation right next to his. If you tell me he asked for it, he deserved it, what happened to him was justified by his actions, I swear I will ban you from this goddamn journal. Because that could have been any of us.
Everyone involved in this crime who was wearing a uniform should go to jail. They’ve brought shame on my country and on my justice system.
That’s Emma Bull, who I am proud to call a friend, being awesome.
If we assume, arguendo, that (irrespective of how it ended) what started this was an honest query about the legitimacy of the search, then this is a time to stand up and be counted; because Peter Watts did. Someone has to have the courage to look authority in the eye and challenge it. To force the powers that are to justify themselves. We like ot say we have a system where the people who are in charge are answerable to the people they are governing.
That only works when the governed refuse to act like sheep.
Terry Karney, making an important point, and one that needs to be made a lot more often.
I believe he questioned the authority of the border patrol, and that is why he was beaten, thrown drenched and under-dressed into a cold holding cell, and eventually dumped at the border.
There are those that will say he asked for it; that he should have cringed more. That he should have been meek in the face of authority, and anticipating the abuse of it. That he should have been cowed.
But do we wish to become a society that enforces meekness in the face of abuses of authority on pain of physical abuse? There are other societies that have enforced the rule of law through terror. I do you the dignity of assuming that you do not need reminding of their names and infamy.
Author Elizabeth Bear, in a letter to her representatives.
It’s not just authors writing on blogs, though, the story has been picked up by the national press, including The National Post, the Toronto Star, the Globe & Mail, and many others. (And if the comments at the site I mentioned earlier were depressing, the comments at the major papers are enough to make me utterly give up hope for humanity–I mean these people are just fractally wrong. Many, many people should read comments like this one before they make their own.) There was also some coverage in the Port Huron paper, which includes an expanded version of the border guards’ story–a story that sounds very unlikely to me.
I’m sure there will be video of the incident, and that it will vindicate Watts. Sure enough that I’ve put my money where my mouth is and become one of those friends Watts didn’t know he had. I’ve done this for three reasons: because it could as easily have been me at that border, because while I don’t know Watts personally he’s in my tribe (a mouthy atheist Canadian SF writer Oysterband fan? How could he not be?) and we must hang together or they’ll hang us one by one, and because it’s important to resist this kind of abuse whenever you can.
Bill
kimberly mceod
Paul Wilson
Alex Marshall
khadija
Entries (RSS)![[Valid RSS]](http://www.chrismclaren.com/blog/wp-content/themes/homosum/images/valid-rss.png "Validate my RSS feed"){kind=small}
What’s remarkable about Peter Watt’s travail is that you and so many of his fans didn’t bother to ask basic questions of Peter before uncritically accepting his account.
None of us was there, so we can’t know what happened. We must rely on the police report, Mr. Watt’s version, and our own experience and reasoning abilities to arrive at a conclusion, which should be provisional pending the release of objective evidence. The most anyone on the outside can do is say what “appears” to have happened. For you to state that you are “shocked” that an outsider might rely more heavily on the police report than on Mr. Watts’s account is evidence of your own bias and little else, given that you weren’t there.
I rely more heavily on the police than Mr. Watts for a number of reasons. First, the general outlines of the incident squares with my own considerable experience at national borders, including the U.S.-Canada border. A traveler is subject to questioning and search at a border, and custom and experience says to submit to these things. Mr. Watts appears to have stormed out of his vehicle, provoked a confrontation, refused an order to get back into his car, and then to have struggled with the police who decided to arrest him.
Secondly, Mr. Watts’s own account confirms that interpretation in some respects. He acknowledges having gotten out of his car. He obviously didn’t get back in. And he confirms some sort of struggle with the police. Thus, while Mr. Watts’s interpretation of whay happened is at odds with the police interpretation, we don’t have accounts that wildly or fundamentally differ. Thirdly, Mr. Watts has refused to explain his actions, declining to say why he exited his vehicle, why he refused to return, and why he struggled with police at the scene. He calls such explanations “evidentiary,” an absurdity on its face given that he was the one who gave a partial account to begin with.
Finally, Mr. Watts’s overweening arrogance and self-righteousness in his description of the events, and in his handling of those who have questioned his account, does not bode well for his version of events. He has profanely characterized the police as some sort of gestapo; questioned the motives of those who doubt him; refused to answer detailed questions about his behavior; and, most recently, implemented censorship on his blog to block questions from his doubters while permitting others to continue ad hominem attacks on them.
Again, we can’t actually know what happened. We can only speculate. My speculation is that Peter Watts displayed the behavior of a juvenile at the border, resulting in his being treated like a juvenile. Then he complained about it, as juveniles often do. And when challenged, he ran away from his challengers. If more evidence is released confirming Mr. Watts’s version of events, I’d be happy to alter my speculation, but for the moment I cry no tears for the our Canadian visitor and his bruised, outsized ego.
I’m not sure what the point of even replying is. You’re showing as much bias as I have in the opposite direction, while calling me to task for showing bias. At least I acknowledged mine. Neither of us were there, and both of us are speculating on what happened, but it certainly seems that our speculation is very different. But don’t pretend your speculation is somehow more impartial and reasoned than mine–you don’t get to use terms like “overweening arrogance and self-righteousness” or “juvenile” and claim to be impartial.
Yes, given no other facts, I will more readily believe that a border guard misused his authority than that violence and authoritarianism were appropriate responses to the situation–regardless of who is involved. This is a result of my own considerable experience at the US border–obviously your experiences have been wildly different from mine.
When you factor in my perception of Mr. Watts, based on his fiction and his blog, but more importantly based on character assessments from people who I actually know, trust, and respect, and who actually know him, there’s no question. Factoring that in, there’s no scenario in which violence was the appropriate response. (Although, given your tone, I suspect we would differ there as well–I am such a person who doesn’t believe even actively mouthing off to a cop is appropriately responded to by violence and arrest, much less any kind of mere questioning of authority.)
But, even if there were question, the onus certainly isn’t on Mr. Watts to prove his innocence, or that his behaviour was appropriate, either in the larger moral sense, or in the particulars of defending himself from stones thrown by Internet trolls. Aside from the fact that he has a much stronger motivation to keep silent until after legal issues are resolved than the other side–he has a lot to lose, the border guards and US prosector relatively little–there’s a question of who should have to prove something. As a foreigner, I may be getting this wrong, but isn’t there a little something about “innocent until proven guilty” written down somewhere in US law? Shouldn’t it behoove the State to prove that violence was the only appropriate response in the situation, and that nothing else could have handled it? Shouldn’t there be a requirement to prove that crimes were actually committed? Or, taking a step back, shouldn’t someone be allowed to question authority? As has been said elsewhere: are we now to consider insufficient cringing a crime?
But hey, if you want to default to the side of the bullyboys, and I want to wear my bleeding liberal heart on my sleeve, that’s cool. No one’s forcing you to read this–there’s millions of pages on the Internet, and I’m sure you can find lots of them that will suit your biases better.
Me, I’ll wait for the video. But I’m pretty sure what I’m going to see on it… or rather not see.
The district attorney isn’t going to prosecute Poor Peter Watts, so he has nothing to fear. Of course, this doesn’t mean he’ll actually tell the truth about what happened. Even though he is safe from prosecution, the coward and censor Peter Watts has called the details “evidentiary,” so he won’t say what really happened. He won’t tell anyone about storming out of the car to provoke the police, nor will he say why he didn’t get back inside when told to, nor will he say why he scuffled with the police.
Self-righteousness feels so much better than reality. It feels that way to Peter Watts, and it feels that way to his unthinking fans. The fun part is that I am sure you don’t regard yourself as a robot, but that’s exactly what you are.
Well, this might be a robotic response, but all I see is someone who feels like Watts owes him an explanation, and is throwing a tantrum about not getting it.
I’m not interested in engaging with you. You may also consider that robotic, and go about your day.
Of course you won’t engage. You don’t have an answer. It’s typical of extremists of all stripes. People who can’t think for themselves storm off into the night. It’s so much easier.
Here’s my favorite part of your fatuous posting:
Can only say a “certain amount.” Translated: “Because I am a robot, I will allow Peter Watts to give a completely biased, partial account, and not ask a single question. This is because I am a freethinker, mind you.” Do realize how utterly ridiculous you sound, and how completely juvenile Peter Watts’s behavior was?
Poor Peter Watts, and his bruised ego. Poor Peter Watts, and his smug white privilege
Peter Watts and his friends seem to share a belief in censorship. You’ve removed my links, depriving me of my full voice, and Watts refuses to publish my comments. Funny about the “freethinkers.” Just as cowardly as the rightwingnuts, when you get right down to it.
It’s interesting to me, JMG8, that you’re complaining about being deprived of your full voice, but you won’t even submit your comments under your full name.
Trish, hon, I don’t see your last name up there.
[...] to see the Watts story get some coverage on one of the larger political [...]
[...] as you probably know, I’m a fan of Peter Watts’ writing. And before the whole thing with the US Border cowboys, the most interesting public controversy Watts was involved with (well, maybe the second most [...]