> Hawk Newsome has no relation to the Black Lives Matter Global Network (“BLM”) founded by Patrisse Cullors, Alicia Garza, and Opal Tometi — and is not the “president” of BLM or any of its chapters. Only BLM chapters who adhere to BLM’s principles and code of ethics are permitted to use the BLM name. The reason for this is simple: unaffiliated uses of BLM’s name are confusing to people who may wrongly associate the unsanctioned group and its views and actions with BLM. As BLM has told Mr. Newsome in the past, and as is still true today, Mr. Newsome’s group is not a chapter of BLM and has not entered into any agreement with BLM agreeing to adhere to BLM’s core principles.
If you look hard enough you can find unaffiliated yahoos of every ideological persuasion and self-proclaimed identity (libertarians, stoics, Christians, vegans, Canadians, chess players, computer programmers, stamp collectors, minivan owners, ...) spouting militant nonsense. Such statements should be condemned (and have been by those nonviolently protesting police brutality), but cannot be taken as sweeping evidence that everyone with similar self-proclaimed ideology or identity is a supporter of hateful violence.
If you intend to apply this kind of standard, then surely every organization that calls itself "conservative" should be similarly held responsible for the actions of the MAGA insurrectionists, right?
https://blacklivesmatter.com/for-immediate-release-statement...
> Hawk Newsome has no relation to the Black Lives Matter Global Network (“BLM”) founded by Patrisse Cullors, Alicia Garza, and Opal Tometi — and is not the “president” of BLM or any of its chapters. Only BLM chapters who adhere to BLM’s principles and code of ethics are permitted to use the BLM name. The reason for this is simple: unaffiliated uses of BLM’s name are confusing to people who may wrongly associate the unsanctioned group and its views and actions with BLM. As BLM has told Mr. Newsome in the past, and as is still true today, Mr. Newsome’s group is not a chapter of BLM and has not entered into any agreement with BLM agreeing to adhere to BLM’s core principles.
If you look hard enough you can find unaffiliated yahoos of every ideological persuasion and self-proclaimed identity (libertarians, stoics, Christians, vegans, Canadians, chess players, computer programmers, stamp collectors, minivan owners, ...) spouting militant nonsense. Such statements should be condemned (and have been by those nonviolently protesting police brutality), but cannot be taken as sweeping evidence that everyone with similar self-proclaimed ideology or identity is a supporter of hateful violence.
If you intend to apply this kind of standard, then surely every organization that calls itself "conservative" should be similarly held responsible for the actions of the MAGA insurrectionists, right?