My argument in support of applied or tactical or strategic violence is to compare the "cost" of a broken window at a fast food chain or a bank (I don't support throwing rocks into the windows or otherwise damaging the property of small single-owner businesses or residential homes) to the cost of anti-human violence conducted by the police and other state agents against entire populations in Canada.

"Violence" is defined in very particular ways. My question is why are certain individual acts of violence decried and criminalized, and other ongoing day-to-day acts of violence perpetuated by the Canadian state, both in Canada and across the globe (Afghanistan) are deemed okay?

Sadly, that's a rhetorical question.

I respect Judy's voice and her position in the left, but I one point I do strongly object to is her characterizing the black bloc as being typically violent. This is how they are characterized in the MSM and I'm sad to see Judy buy into the rhetoric.  

I'm interested in reading more in this thread as the discussion progresses.