On Jan. 24th of this new year, the Minnesota House Committee proposed legislation that would charge demonstrators involved in protests for the cost of policing those disruptive protests. Not only does this proposed bill foreshadow politician’s attempts to dilute the dissent of those economically disadvantaged, but it also undervalues the term “disruptive.”

Disruption is a pillar of our country. Without the disruption during the Civil Rights Movement, or the disruption that led to the 19th Amendment, finally granting women the right to vote, or even as far back as the Boston Tea Party, our country would be drastically different.

In order to induce change in a system that has tendencies to maintain the status quo, disruption is imperative. However, putting a price tag on someone’s ability to disrupt the status quo is like saying civil disobedience is only allowed to those who can afford it. Which holds quite a few unconstitutional connotations. Minnesota representative Ilhan Omar, who was born in Somalia, stated during the committee meeting that the proposed bill reminded her of the authoritarian dictatorship in Somalia.

Additionally, supporters of this bill see disruption in only a violent or negative way. However, protests that cause disruption do not in effect cause violence. I don’t agree with protests that do support violence in any way. In most cases where it does resort to violence, it is a small fraction of the protestors, most of which are not truly representative of the movement as a whole.

For example, many perceive the Black Lives Matter movement to be violent and dangerous, due to a minority of people who resort to violence. However, if you talk to actual organizers and participants of the movement, that is in no way what they stand for.

Rashad Turner, a BLM organizer in St. Paul, talked about the MN State Fair protest, stating that they only planned to disrupt traffic, not actually enter the fairgrounds, as well as raise awareness of inequalities minority workers face statewide, especially at the State Fair. “We’ve always been peaceful,” he told the Pioneer Press.

Another common argument for this bill is that disruption is expensive and it should not be the tax payers’ responsibility to fund it. According to the Twin Cities Pioneer Press, four Black Lives Matters protests last year cost the St. Paul Police Department roughly $122,805. Not to say that this is a small amount, but to put it into perspective, last year the police department’s general fund budget was 86 million. That would make the protests less than one percent of the budget.

That being said, I do not underestimate the expenses of protests, not only in Minnesota, but around the country. Where taxpayers’ money ends up will most likely always be a topic of controversy. However, I would argue that more than money, the motivating reason behind passing this bill is that with disruption brings discomfort. Protests thrive on the tension of those in power. Without that tension, the exigence diminishes and change rarely happens. Feeling uncomfortable during a disruptive, but peaceful protest is a fairly privileged response. These protestors are begging to bring awareness to something they feel desperately needs to be heard and understood. Clearly these concerns haven’t been met with a solution in a conventional way, so they take to the streets, where people can no longer ignore them.

Racial, economic, and social disparities have grown throughout the country. Instead of trying to mend the problem, this bill silences and suppresses those who need their voices to be equally heard. Creating laws that financially hinder people from protesting does not solve the concerns of their dissent but creates an even larger disparity for dissent to emerge.

Sam Miner can be reached at mine0034@stthomas.edu