In the convoluted web of contemporary politics, it seems some individuals are striving to paint themselves as victims while ignoring the consequences of their actions. Take the recent events involving Naima Levy Armstrong and Don Lemon, among others. These incidents expose a disturbing trend where activists, pomposely justifying their unlawful actions under the guise of protests, cry wolf when confronted with the repercussions of their behaviors. It’s reminiscent of a theater production where the reality is twisted to suit a narrative that defies common sense, leaving many to wonder where personal accountability has vanished.
Naima Levy Armstrong, an ardent activist, reportedly likened her treatment in custody to historical slavery, a comparison both historically and ethically disproportionate. It’s a simple logic: if one resorts to lawless behavior, they should anticipate legal consequences, including the use of chains and cells. However, instead of reflecting on her actions, Levy Armstrong chooses to dramatize her experience, asserting an alarming level of ignorance toward the essential purpose of incarceration which is punitive, not pampering.
Don Lemon, facing different circumstances, has made statements implying that his situation relates to his identity as a gay Black man in America. The notion that legal systems target individuals based on identity rather than actions undermines the rule of law and propagates a dangerous narrative that victimizes oneself irrespective of factual circumstances. This is not the hallmark of journalism but rather a calculated maneuver to divert attention from the core issue—unlawful behavior.
Moreover, the involvement of Black Lives Matter associates in these incidents stirs troubling ideological waters. Many of these activists, originally propelled into action by the tragic events surrounding George Floyd, have shifted from pursuing genuine social justice to engaging in acts that border on lawlessness. It’s worth asking: at what point does activism morph into anarchy? While invoking the right to protest, engaging in acts that threaten peace and security cannot and should not be tolerated. True protests, safeguarded by constitutional rights, do not equate to acts of intimidation or chaos.
The irony is not lost when these individuals decry their treatment at the hands of law enforcement while blurring the lines between activism and criminality. What message does this send to society? That consequences can be evaded by pulling the race or identity card at the most crucial juncture? Unfortunately, this tactic trivializes the very real struggles faced by individuals who genuinely encounter systemic biases.
It is time for a return to basics—a reminder that the rule of law exists to balance rights and responsibilities. Those who undermine this balance for personal propaganda risk not just their credibility but the progress of meaningful dialogue in society. As crime rates fluctuate and societal tensions simmer, understanding the difference between protest and lawlessness becomes not just important, but imperative. If these figures wish to stand firmly as advocates of change, perhaps a pivot towards accountability and responsibility is the necessary first step.
