A Conservative Case to Defund the Police

Vincent J. Curtis

4 Sept 20

Last month, about 100 people decided to pain "Black Lives Matter" on Main Street in front of Hamilton's city hall.  Main Street is a major thoroughfare, and the painters blocked traffic for two hours and the police did nothing.  They only helped re-route traffic.  No arrests were made.  Tdoay, it was announced that after a police investigation no charges would be laid.  Some people were issued a warning by police, but that was the extent of legal action against people engaged in public mischief, unlawful assembly, and vandalism.  It was learned that it cost the city over $5,000 to remove the pointed slogan from the asphalt.

The decision by the police not to charge the road painters makes a conservative case to defund the police.  Not enforcing the law against radical leftists, but vigorously enforcing it against ordinary people makes the case that the police favor certain groups, and forgive certain lawbreaking, of a leftist persuasion.  (Protesting is a right more sacred than religious worship!) So, why should conservatives support this kind of arbitrary policing?

If you violate any of the illegal and unconstitutional ordinances, orders, and rules that are supposed to “slow the spread”, if you stand up for your rights against overweening and arbitrary power, if you don’t wear one of those useless masks, then God help you for breaking the law, and here’s an $880 fine.  But vandalism over $5,000 and public mischief are against the law also, but if it’s for a leftist cause, then you get a pass from the police.  I guarantee that if the painted words said, “KKK” or “OCBLM” (only certain black lives matter) you’d be arrested and held over the weekend before a bail hearing.  For certain, you would, in addition, be accused of a hate crime.

“Law is for the law abiding” is often the case, as it is in this case.  But selective enforcement of the law based on political considerations makes a conservative case to abolish that kind of policing.

-30-