Weapons of mass desserts

BLOG POST posted on January 27, 2010 by stimulator

A pie projectile ready to inflict laughs

→Media Analysis, →Cooperatives, →Environment, →Baby Animals, →Video, →2010 Olympics

Yesterday I watched a video where an activist from People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) pied Canadian Fisheries Minister Gail Shea. While I think the harmless stunt is hilarious, tactically I think it's a waste of time and accomplishes little. I even made fun of pie throwing activists in my short film "Star Non-Violent-Civil Disobedience."

As expected, a fast acting politician wanting to get his name in the press, denounced the delicious attack as an act of terrorism. That part was predictable. Since the terror attacks of September 11th, politicians has been liberally throwing the word "terrorist" around, like pies in a Three Stooges movie. Recently, Harry Bloy, a liberal MLA from Burnaby, called anti-olympic protesters, "terrorists" without batting an eye. Again, predictable.

What surprised me was the press release put out by the BC Civil Liberties association (BCCLA) yesterday, calling the pie incident "violent". The press release states: "(the 'BCCLA'), Canada’s oldest and foremost civil liberties group, today condemned violence as a protest tactic following an incident where a PETA protester apparently threw a “tofu cream pie” hitting the federal fisheries minister squarely in the face...."

Now why would the BCCLA go out of their way to condemn this incident? After all, the pie "assault", as they put it, didn't even happen in BC. Yeah, yeah, I guess they are entitled to their opinion, and we could speculate on their motives till' the cows come home. But for the sake of argument, let's deconstruct  the most disturbing allegation by BCCLA, you know, the one about the "violence."

The first definition of violence on the Oxford Dictionary is "behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something." Ask anybody out there and they'll tell you that violent behavior is intended to physically hurt. Please, watch the video again and tell me that if the following statement is true or false: "The PETA activist violently assaulted the minister with a tofu cream pie with the intention of physically hurting her." Now I don't have to tell you how ridiculous that sounds.

Violence my friends, is what the Vancouver Police recently perpetrated on Yao Wei Wu, when they dragged him from his home and beat him badly enough to disfigure his face. If the VPD would have pied him, it would have been a different story. Violence is what happened to Robert Dziekanski when he was tasered to death by the VPD. Violence is not pieing a politician.

To their credit the BCCLA took on both cases mentioned above. The violence perpetrated is unquestionable and those who committed the acts should be brought to justice. But to define the pie incident as an "act of violence" is as troubling as Harry Bloy calling Olympic protesters "terrorists." Why? Because it sets a precedent in the public record that these types of pranks are equal to beating somebody with a bat.

Yes the prankster invaded somebody's personal space, but "violence" is a strong word which invokes images of pain and paints the "offender" in a harsh light and equates her to a "violent criminal." The BCCLA owes it to its reputation as "Canada's oldest and foremost civil liberties group" to further clarify what it deems violent and give the public a more nuanced analysis of what this prank is.