While I found “Portrait of an anarchist” (Tempo, Nov. 11) to be largely fair-minded, the first sentence (“Here he is, Public Enemy No. 1: the anarchist, the protester . . . ), despite its tongue-in-cheek tone, to be indicative of the smear mentality the media invariably heap on political outsiders.
In most stories leading up to the Trans-Atlantic Business Dialogue economic summit demonstrations, like all high-profile protests, the terms “anarchist” and “protester” have been used synonymously.
“Anarchist,” with its connotations of violence and destruction, projects these qualities onto anyone with an anti-corporate, anti-establishment view, regardless of the specificity of those views or the tactics used to advance them. Hence an entire side of the issue is rendered ethically invalid. This is the same semantic sleight of hand that allows John Ashcroft to categorically equate dissent with terrorism.
Classical anarchism views the state as inherently coercive and oppressive, and proposes a social order based on free association and mutual assistance. It is unfortunate that this concept is so sadly misunderstood but used to attack the fundamental right of free, dissenting speech.
