Protesters vandalize Google bus, block Apple shuttle
usatoday.com
usatoday.com
Google: consider Chicago. We'd be happy to have you. Also our food is better, we have all four seasons, and most of your employees wouldn't even need a special bus to commute, because our public transportation actually works. But you can still run your busses out to Plainfield and Elgin (the approximately equivalent commute from SF to MTV). We'll find the busses charming, not inflammatory.
I am of course dignifying what has happened here. Really, this is just a bunch of people thrilled to have an excuse to fuck up a bus.
I don't have a problem with gentrification, but I do think it's tone-deaf (at best), and maybe counter-productive (at worst) to ferry rich people into low-income neighborhoods via fancy white buses on a daily basis. Turning Oakland into a bedroom community for silicon valley does nothing for the people who have lived in Oakland for decades -- they're raising rents far more than they're building low-income housing with the taxes on their rent checks.
If the tech companies want to encourage their employees to live in Oakland, they should open offices in Oakland, pay their taxes in Oakland, and otherwise encourage people to live, work and play in Oakland. Bussing folks out of town in the morning and into town at night is the worst possible outcome for everyone but the people on the bus.
Meanwhile: by paying employees who own and maintain property in Oakland, Google is in fact providing part of the tax base for Oakland. Every other city in the country understands this and their mayors and city councils practically puke on their shoes trying to get big employers to move in. When big employers leave cities or go under, it devastates the economy. It does not take a degree in econ to understand why.
Income inequality is a real thing. Starving cities that are already under immense financial pressure of tax revenues does nothing to solve it.
But, like I said: opportunity to fuck up a bus. How do you pass that up?
I'm sure that some people were doing that. You can find people who will tolerate anything. The point is, the buses shift the market by making that kind of commute appealing on a large scale.
"by paying employees who own and maintain property in Oakland, Google is in fact providing part of the tax base for Oakland. Every other city in the country understands this and their mayors and city councils practically puke on their shoes trying to get big employers to move in."
Red herring. Again, the increased property taxes those tech employees are paying (assuming they're not just renting from owners who are all protected from tax increases by Prop 8, but I digress...) isn't offsetting the real cost-of-living increases experienced by the people living in Oakland.
Said another way: your theoretical, twice-removed tax-base gains aren't making the housing cheaper, or the poor people richer in Oakland.
I find it interesting that in this situation in general (and in your comments in particular) most of the blame seems to be focused on the tech companies. The businesses are just making economically rational decisions around how providing transportation helps recruiting. What is their alternative?
There are two sides to the supply and demand equation. Asking companies to scale back the "demand" for workers moving into the city is ridiculous. The City of San Francisco is the one that is actually to blame for not appropriately managing the supply side of the housing market by making it so hard to get new projects approved and built. Why is all the focus on the companies and not on the city government and neighborhood NIMBYs that seems to proliferate all of SF.
We live in a market economy where goods go to the highest bidder, not the person who wants or needs it most. However if you really feel for some reason that the people in Oakland being displaced are the people in the US who are most in need of help, there is a very simple solution: pay their rent for them with your own money.
But oh, I forget, this fits right in with Google's approach to doing business, from whether it's scanning books or slurping up wifi data: break laws first, deal with consequences later.
Are are you harping on about where the busses are parking? If so, why not direct your irritation at the city government, which could be making a few hundred extra dollars a week writing them parking tickets.
Doesn't make it right for the protesters, and guess what, it doesn't make it right for Google to keep on doing what they're doing.
That's not a straw man, you might have meant "false dichotomy".
I think that OP was trying to say that anecdotally people will actually not move closer to work, they will just drive. At least this is supported by some kind of data, where your premise is not.
By your logic, every single person who pays local taxes should just go on a bender and do whatever they want to the city, to hell with the rules eh?
Why is it okay for corporations but not individuals to disrupt and fuck things up?
If getting your municipal government to act on your behalf was so simple, do you really think they would be resorting to smashing windows? You're so blind, dude.
Your suggestion to the window smashers was to "get the city to write them a fucking parking ticket". I asked you why you think they would be engaging in the tactics that they are engaging in if that were any sort of viable channel through which to have their grievances addressed. As far as I can tell, you've done nothing to address my question, and your suggestion to the protesters remains invalid and meaningless. I think you should retract your condemnation of them, since so far you've been unable to propose a realistic alternative.
Deleted comment
Care to make a wager, how about just for $100, of course you'll lay me 99 to 1 odds given your certain right?
There's been several local papers that have reported they don't have permission (e.g., http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Google-riders-under-si... ) and talking to a Muni driver he indicated they don't have permission. If you're willing to take the bet though, I know one of the PR guys over at MUNI who I could get a hold of to provide us a definitive answer.
Deleted comment
"Currently, those buses are using Muni stops without permission and without paying a cent."
I just want to edit this to say, I'm really disappointed in you. I had a lot of respect for your comments, but you don't bother to even read a reply and post a sarcastic response, just very disappointing.
http://archives.sfmta.com/cms/cmta/httpwww.sfmta.comcmscmtaS... http://archives.sfmta.com/cms/cmta/SFMTABoardNovember62007mi... etc...
I did like my sarcastic YouTube link, though. In that respect, I regret nothing :)
Certainly, having big buses pulling in and out of traffic doesn't help speed up the flow of traffic at that precise instant in time. But the situation was already pretty bad, and if you're taking hundreds of individual cars off the road, that's a step in the right direction.
(Public transit won't work because the jobs are all in the Middle Of Fucking Nowhere. Try walking to the Google campus some time. It's in the middle of a swamp, separated from the mainland by a jam-packed freeway.)
So I'm not sure what the solution is. Move Google to San Francisco? Sure. But then the protesters are going to complain about how they watched 5 N trains go by without stopping because they're full. San Francisco was never designed to be "the big city" (that's San Jose, right?), it organically grew. People liked it a lot, they moved there, and now there are too many people that want to live there, and not enough space for them. That's a problem, but it sounds like a problem that can only be solved by not wanting to live there.
As for the Google Campus, I have taken public transit to it, it's not hard, can take either SamTrans or CalTrain + a walk. That's not to say it's a solution though.
The only real solution to the real problem (increased rent prices causing gentrification) is to increase the housing supply and reduce demand on that supply. Google has some levers it can pull to do that (build dorms, invest in real estate projects, etc.)
The deeper issue is that people choose San Francisco because of the relatively low density, which does make for rather pleasant neighborhoods.
High-density low-income housing projects have been proven a failure in every other major city, so I'm not sure that's a solution either. Most cities have already town them down, settling on San Francisco levels of density. As an occasional visitor, I certainly find it nice. (Though taking the bus to the Richmond District from downtown is quite an ordeal. 30 minutes to go like two miles!?)
There really is no easy answer; I don't think anyone knows what to do, and I don't think NorCal has the risk appetite to try something experimental. That's the problem.
(My solution would be to make San Jose more appealing to the tech-worker demographic. It doesn't have the charming hills or coastal location that San Francisco does, but it is pretty close to a lot of jobs. I would consider living there if I moved to the Bay Area. It's even biking-distance to Google, and it's not quite the suburban wasteland that Mountain View is.)
Good comment overall, but this bit doesn't strike me as quite true. It may be that certain cuisines (Polish, Italian, American, and several others) are better in Chicago, but in United States I've yet to see a city that beats New York or greater Bay Area for variety of quality food.
Some cities have their specialities (American and seafood in Pacific Northwest, East and South-East Asian in LA), but walking down Clement Ave in SF or Shattuck Ave in Berkeley alone is quite a religious experience for a foodie (not to mention many hidden spots of great ethnic food in South Bay).
That said, Chicago is unmatched in one respect: architecture (no, not even by New York). Simply a stunning and beautiful city.
In my experience, people leave the Midwest for the West Coast specifically to escape that. Or at least the winter.
These are actual real problems that need actual solutions, and the elitist attitudes really need to stop. Just because we know technology doesn't make us better than those who don't, and for the bay area to be a sustainable location it really needs all members of the community to work together. The tech companies have failed at this, and that's why these protests are happening. Not because people want to 'fuck things up'.
As far as the Chicago bit goes- yeah, it's not a bad city. I feel the bay area could learn a lot from it when it comes to scaling things up. I can live without the snow though.
I hope everyone of these protesters standing in the way of the bus gets arrested (as opposed to protestors standing aside - no problems with them). It's not elitist to want people to be civil. It's not elitist to want to go to work. There's no solution to gentrification. Not a single one. There's nothing to be done about private entities buying private property at a price that the buyer and seller agree on. The next door neighbor has no say whatsoever over the process unless there's a pre-existing homeowner's association. If you aren't happy with it, tough luck. Annoying people isn't going to help anyone. Because there's absolutely nothing that can be done, short of a constitutional amendment that would never see the light of day.
Seriously, read what these people are saying. They've complained about the fact that Muni buses are dumping people into the middle of the road because these tech buses are literally parking themselves in the muni bus stops to pick people up. If any other citizen did this it would be a $271 fine, but for some reason having a tech company behind you means you're above the law.
The two tiered system- the economic apartheid- is the real issue here.
and from below:
> Again, that's the main point of the main protest
This is just dishonest. When the organizing groups say they're going to have another protest in january and keep protesting until the Ellis Act is repealed, it's silly in the extreme to suggest that the "main point" has anything to do with using MUNI stops without permission. And that of course has nothing to do with the protest in Oakland (where the window was smashed), but I notice you put in "the main protest" there, so I assume you're referring to the one in the Mission.
Gentrification is a very real issue and constantly being brought up in these protests. When signs read "TECHIES: Your World Is Not Welcome Here" and that fake Google employee is saying "This is a city for the right people who can afford it", no, bus parking is an outlet for ire and certainly not "the main point".
Well that's a perfectly OK thing to protest, but I'm not sure it's illegal though. Have you called the city and asked? I bet they have permission. Illegal means violating the law, are they violating the law or you just unhappy about the arrangement. I can see a valid argument being made about it not being a good thing, but I doubt it's illegal.
If it is illegal just call the police? What do they say?
Maybe you should like, educate yourself on the issues because picking a side? That way you can actually be informed, instead of spouting reactions that really don't make sense in the context.
The city says there may be a trial next year with designated bus stops being used by these private buses for cash, but until then, the law is being flouted.
If you got a car or van and started transporting people across the city using the public bus stops, sooner or later, you would be fined and probably arrested too.
Interestingly, I don't recall protesters protesting the delivery vehicles who constantly block traffic lanes all over SF. That gives me pause and think the protesters' 'narrative' is questionable.
I'd support the buses loading unloading on side streets, but still, imagine all the cars which would have to be on the road to replace the buses, if they were made illegal. Having buses bus people is actually a good thing.
What I think bothers some of the protesters is that the careers they chose aren't as remunerating as those chosen by 'techies'. I know artists who resent the fact the the average person does not value 'Art' as much as they value low brow entertainment. They feel at a loss and upset at the fact they have to 'sell out' doing advertising gigs to make money --that doing 'Art' is not profitable and that the government should subsidize it more because "they know it's good and it's an intangible part of a good society, etc." Much of that may be true, but the reality is most people (the proletarians and the vilified middled classes) don't have an appreciation for 'Art' and ironically it's the wealthy who 'get' 'Art'.
Googlers can take the Caltrain to Mountainview and hop on the free shuttle buses which drop them off at their campus. Why don't they do that?
Or since Google has an office in San Francisco here's a better idea - let people who live in San Francisco work from that office, and people who live outside work at Mountainview.
Have you ever tried to use Caltrain? It will make you want to gouge your own eyes out.
If the public transit was functional, like in DC or NYC or Boston, we'd use it.
Which tech company is behind Academy of Art[1] and UCSF[2]? When I lived in San Francisco half a year ago, I saw far more of these than the tech company shuttles.
1. http://www.academyart.edu/news/articles/transportation-syste...
2. http://campuslifeservices.ucsf.edu/transportation/services/s...
Here you go: http://www.sfbg.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/Full_325_...
The article clearly states that the tech companies pay the city for the right to use the bus stops. Elected officials made a decision to sell public bus stops to publicly traded corporations.
What you are saying is factually incorrect. They are not paying anything at the moment. They are in talks to start paying next year, but the reasons those talks happened is because people started protesting this.
A vehicle temporarily pausing to pick up or discharge passengers is not usually regarded as "parked". A car is unambiguously "parked" when it stops and the driver leaves. If the driver is still present and you want to charge him with something, it's more likely some sort of moving violation would apply. "obstructing traffic", perhaps?
Technically there is something called "civil disobedience" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobedience) and I think this guy kinda made it famous.
To the employed elite, I can see why it would seem that way. Of course elite isn't a precisely appropriate term, but relatively speaking, it is an elitist stance.
> not elitist to want people to be civil.
Actually, yes, it is, and quite so. Try being "civil" when you're homeless or struggling to fill your stomach. Seriously, just try it.
Look at the difference between the SF and Oakland protests on the same issue.
> the elitist attitudes really need to stop
Hi pot, it's me the kettle. Guess what? You're BLACK!
http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2013/06/21/google-moving-chicago...
> I, with all my obscene class privilege, would be happy to have you.
FTFY.
If I had to design hell, it would look something like 2 and a half hours commuting each day.
But the point where they start physically attacking employees is the point where they lose any respect. Employees aren't trying to get them evicted. Heck, at least they're taking shared transit instead of private limousines.
Sorry, but they've reduced themselves to common hoodlums and should be treated as such. No evictions? Evict every person who participated in a violent attack on their neighbors.
"Sorry, but they've reduced themselves to common hoodlums and should be treated as such."
I think you'll laugh at that some day.
Edit: I hope you'll laugh at that some day.
Presumably they are being priced out of their homes because they don't actually own the houses they live in. Is your solution to pass a law preventing the people who do own the houses from raising the rent?
But the other group also condoned the actions of the hoodlums and declined to disagree with their tactics.
First, "declining to disagree" is not at all the same as agreeing. Declining to disagree with violent tactics isn't agreeing with or even condoning said violent tactics. It's simply declining to disagree.
Consider: you're either with us or you're with the terrorists. But wait, what if I'm not with either of you? What then?
This construct propagates a lot of hatred and dysfunction.
Second, remaining silent -- i.e. refraining to comment at all -- isn't implicit agreement or condoning. As far as I can tell, nobody other than whoever slashed the bus's tires condoned slashing the bus's tires.
I can't find anywhere in the posted article where the "other group" condoned any of the violent actions that occurred (e.g. slashed tire, broken window). So I don't know where you're getting that the "other group" condoned the actions of the hoodlums. Unless you're inferring from their "declining to disagree" with the tactics that the "other group" condoned the tactics". Which if that is the case, we've just shown how that logic isn't tenable.
Likewise, leaders of a protest movement have to specifically say that violence is an unacceptable tool in their movement. (See MLK.)
The other protestors didn't remain silent. They were interviewed and given the chance to respond to the violence of the other protestors and deliberately phrased their responses so as to not condemn violence.
> Consider: you're either with us or you're with the terrorists. But wait, what if I'm not with either of you? What then?
Perhaps you're a Muslim cleric, or one of the many people who simultaneously condemn terrorism and American foreign policy.
There is a real history of "divide and conquer" being used by the state to publicize and in some cases invent real and imagined differences between groups. The memory of COINTELPRO -- specifically bad-jacketing and anonymous letters -- is very strong in today's Left (and understandably so, given the success of the tactics at neutralizing groups like the Black Panther Party and the American Indian Movement) and trying to get half of a protest to condemn the other half should rightfully be met with suspicion.
I don't think people need to answer for things they did not engage in or intentionally facilitate. Also consider: agent provocateurs have been used in the 20th century (a matter of fact) and the 21st century (perhaps merely a matter of suspicion) -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_provocateur#United_States and combining the tactic with your concept that everyone who participates needs to answer for everyone else who participates is results in some pretty unfair bullshit really quickly. Especially for any event that's publicized in any way, you really can't control who shows up and what they do, and it's unreasonable to expect people to.
As for the actual incident, based on one of the first-person accounts it sounds like the window was broken from inside the bus. If that's the case, that actually shows that the participant greatly increased the risk to themselves in order to minimize the chance of bodily harm. If you don't draw a distinction between actions against people and actions against property (a moral position that is strange to me - surely there's a difference between smashing in windows and smashing in heads!) perhaps that doesn't matter to you, but not everyone sees the same way, nor do people need to.
If you want to talk about violence, focusing on what you've defined to be the violence of the protesters is also greatly limiting the discussion. Evictions are characterized by armed sheriffs showing up to someone's home and forcing them out. I think evictions -- which happen systemically and all the time -- are much more violent than an occasional window being broken, and I don't think I'm alone in that belief. MLK also used armed guards to protect himself and while it's easy to find quotes of him calling the US violent, I challenge you to find a quote where he condemns members of the movement who believe in violence. He viewed non-violence as strategically superior, yes, but his cooperation and coordination with groups that support self defense only increased over the years, up until his murder.
http://pando.com/2013/12/20/breaking-protesters-attack-googl...
The employees profit from their plight, and are not of the working class.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_aristocracy#Use_within_M...
"we are against the ellis act ... we see that as related to tech and we want the ruling class which is becoming the tech class to listen to our voices"
"we are against the tech money that has caused evictions of seniors and people with disabilities throughout the community"
uh...wut?
I understand that the growth of the tech sector generates quite a bit of demand for housing and that leads to increasing rents if supply is held constant. But, this is a econ 101 problem. The solution is to let more housing be built as to stabilize the prices and not YOU PEOPLE GTFO ALONG WITH ALL THE ECONOMIC BENEFITS THAT HAVING A THRIVING INDUSTRY IN THE LOCAL ECONOMY BRING!
What could possibly go wrong?
Seriously. NYPD would be all over them blocking traffic and breaking windows.
(Though honestly, the NYPD has been pretty nice to me while riding a bike. But I'm new around here.)
The problem is the city does not do a good job securing affordable housing. It isn't like Googlers or Twitter employees don't shop. They probably shop a lot, spend a lot of cash.
These high-tech employees are also suffering with the high rent. Not everyone makes 180K a year. At least 1/3 of the salary goes to the government and 401K.
The other reason housing becomes less affordable is foreigners who come to invest in real estate.
Kick them out? Detroit is be happy to take care these tech geeks. But I bet 10 years later they will just be unhappy when the average residents can't afford an apartment.
My problem is with low-pay jobs. Security at big tech companies are hired by contractors and they get low pay. Google should be able to pay more, shouldn't they? I remember there was a series of protest this summer in MV.
Maybe Google should just build a dorm.
It is sad people can't afford a place to sleep. I can't imagine being homeless right now in NY, it's fucking cold. Can we do better? How do we do better? Should we have more affordable housing and more generous affordable housing policy?
Coming from HK, it is indeed a way to make housing more affordable in 5-10 years, until big cash invest in them and then the entry price just goes straight up.
The ways to prevent that to happen quickly are limit how many skyscrapers apartments can be built in the next decade and how many must be reserved as affordable housing, plus restricting foreign money. But I am sure there will be resistance.
As I said, coming from HK, I was used to living in a city surrounded by walls and bricks. Then NY felt a lot different. Then this summer I went to MV for an internship and when I came back NY was strange to me. I say we can't build a lot of skyscrapers. I don't want to be surrounded by walls again.
Wow that is a lot of vitriol, it really does feel like back in High School. Too bad for the protestors there are fascist police to protect these fat nerds, er, techies.
I don't think anyone should be grateful for a barista job or whatever, but it's probably better than weeding a cornfield for six cents an hour. If everyone was poorer, everyone would be poorer. Income inequality has always existed and will always exist: money comes from value, and people have to create that value somehow. If you create less value, you'll have less money. (I agree that it's difficult to bootstrap yourself from shit job to riding around in a Wifi-enabled bus, and that's something we should try and fix. But the money to fix it has to come from somewhere.)
I highly recommend this book for anyone who is constructively concerned about these issues.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_theorems_of_welfare...
But my link is also very relevant to the discussion and covers a different issue.
EDIT: in particular, high rents don't necessarily imply that supply should be increased, sometimes it just means poor people need to move somewhere else.
I don't know the SF area, but here's a subway map.
The solution to the problem is building another office in a cheaper area that's close to mass transportation.
Landlords have a right to charge as much as they can, and tech companies have a right to pay as much as they like (in fact, I encourage it).
The real problems are (1) artificial restrictions on housing supply, and (2) people not being unable to deal with the harsh realities of the market. The free market means you can use money to buy things that other people also would have wanted. In fact, there would be little point in working if we couldn't. There is no reason to feel particularly sympathetic to the people who happened to be living in an area where rents increased. If the adjustment costs are very high, I also have nothing against increased aid to the people affected. But unless a person owns something, they don't have the right to it, and so people who have been renting a long time don't have the right to keep renting indefinitely at that price.
If they really want change, they'll have to figure out a way to create an incentive for the landlords to keep the price low, or for the workers to choose their house location differently. Being angry at anyone trying to maximise their comfort in a lawful way is rarely useful or effective.
In case you’re wondering why this happened, we’ll be extremely clear. The people outside your Google bus serve you coffee, watch your kids, have sex with you for money, make you food, and are being driven out of their neighborhoods. While you guys live fat as hogs with your free 24/7 buffets, everyone else is scraping the bottom of their wallets, barely existing in this expensive world that you and your chums have helped create.
You are not innocent victims. Without you, the housing prices would not be rising and we would not be facing eviction and foreclosure. You, your employers, and the housing speculators are to blame for this new crisis, so much more awful than the last one. You live your comfortable lives surrounded by poverty, homelessness, and death, seemingly oblivious to everything around you, lost in the big bucks and success. But look around, see the violence and degradation out there? This is the world that you have created, and you are clearly on the wrong side.
Predictably, you might even believe that the technologies you create serve the betterment of all humans. But in reality, the benefactors of technological development are advertisers, the wealthy, the powerful, and the NSA analysts running dragnet surveillance over email, phone calls, and social media.
If you want a Bay Area where the ultra-rich are pitted against hundreds of thousands of poor people, keep doing what you’re doing. You’ll have a nice revolution outside your door. But if you want out then you should quit your jobs, cash out, and go live a life that doesn’t completely fuck up someone else’s.
GET THE FUCK OUT OF OAKLAND!
[1] http://blogs.kqed.org/newsfix/2013/12/20/google-bus-proteste...
Do these organizations seriously campaign for no evictions, or are their names just hyperbole?
"We are a direct action group, whose mission is to help stop the wave of speculator evictions that have been hitting San Francisco by holding accountable, and confronting, real estate speculators that have been displacing long time San Francisco residents for profit."
The real problem with SF is its density and the people preventing it from getting denser (its density is a third of Paris', e.g.). Unfortunately, there are no protest-magnets for that problem.
low density -- attractive -- affordable
Pick two.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattanization
the same protestors that are big-government (these aren't anarchists - "anarchists" in america are nothing short of hand to mouth socialists) have found out they can't have their cake and eat it too - fuck them and fuck their precious little government as well
My view on California real estate is a giant bubble that fuels itself by boom in tech industry but ignoring above numbers. Last time it tried to bust it got deflated only by 25% and it back up to those levels again and going up even more. If you wanted to short some market this is probably it.
If people really want to get some attention from these corporates, vote your displeasure with your wallet en masse.
At no point will violence and vandalism be a valid argument in this discussion. The fact that the different spokespersons seemed to go out of their way to not condemn this act, is telling of their expectations from their members. They're willing to place themselves above the law or at least are willing to try and look the other way if their supporters commit crimes, but at the same time they want sympathy and understanding for their dire situation?
Good luck with that.
It's an economic reality that if a property attracts higher value through development (eg richer people moving in to a part of town), that its surroundings will rise in value as well. Shops and services targeting this new demographic will start to show up, catering to their (often different) needs, which have new needs of their own etc, ... This will affect everything from the pavement, the cars in the street, the small shops, the traffic lights, to the big brand supermarkets. It's usually a welcome sign that an area is improving.
Yet from the protester perspective, they see the housing prices starting to outgrow their incomes and see themselves being forced out by their landlords to make room for richer people who can afford the rent. They don't want the area to develop further, they want to keep it at a status quo to stop the housing price from rising further.
Does that make is less of a tragedy? No, leaving one's house because one can't afford it anymore is a heartbreaking decision, but it's a decision that a houseowner should make sometimes. You can't keep something just because you think you deserve to have it. We aren't living in an utopia and we must adapt to changes in our environments, whether that is getting an extra job or moving elsewhere, or trying to get more housing developed to satisfy demand and stop the prices from skyrocketing. Why not protest the government?
IMO the protesters had a cause, but this violent act has done them much more harm than good. Protesting is a right, but when your words aren't heard, you don't get to throw stones at buses and expect to get a free pass. People will judge a group by its most prominent and vocal members. Grammatical dissection of whether or not the spokespersons are in fact not condemning the act doesn't really help their case, it rather defuses their argument and makes them look juvenile and opportunistic in the process, exactly what those who want them out, want them to be.
Great success.