I have talked before about how non-violence is often ineffective, depends on the mercy of the state to not kill everyone and the elitist favoritism of the media to keep watching, etc, but let’s talk about how dangerous it is too.

Because often activists that use ‘violence’ (how ever you define that) are the ones that are accused of putting other activists in danger, but the moment you demand that activists not fight back, the moment you make publically passively enduring harm part of your action (as non-violent civil disobedience does by nature) you are asking activists to take huge risks with their safety.

And not just physically. It is far more damaging to your mental health to have to passively endure than to be able to take action and fight back. Feeling helpless, being forced to be inactive while your friend suffers next to you, is such a huge factor in creating post-traumatic stress. Being in motion, taking joint action, doing your utmost to keep each other safe, makes an intense experience not just physically safer but also much easier to process.

There are times when an explicit act of non-violent civil disobedience is something you might choose. I understand that. But if you do, don’t pretend for a minute that you are chosing the safest option and definitely do not flout your responsibility to the people you are asking to participate. Have medics, have a legal team, and for goodness sake have a mental health support system in place for after the action.

Non-violent or not, you have a responsibility to organize a safety net for the people you mobilize. Take it seriously. They are knowingly exposing themselves to harm and risk, appreciate that.