Thursday, May 11, 2006

The vandal's apology

I should have done a separate post on what happened in Red Square last week Wednesday. It seems that the perpetrator has had a change of heart regarding his actions.

David Zhang, the Fairhaven student who destroyed pro-life signs in red square last week issued an apology to the protesters on his blog:
Although i may disagree with the way certain pro-life advocates choose to get their point across, they have a right to express themselves however they wish. that is their right guaranteed to them by the first amendment, and i respect that.

my actions damaging their signs were wrong and violated their right to free speech. i realize that the way i chose to express my anger was inappropriate and inexcusable. I am truly sorry for any harm that i may have done, and i sincerely ask for their forgiveness.
The previous post is Zhang's own (somewhat dramatized) account of his actions and resulting arrest. It looks like some of the pro-lifers have been commenting and also one comment from the person who took the photo that was published in The Western Front, Andrew St. Hilare. A good read.

Zhang is a somewhat well known figure. Most know him as the perpetually barefooted guitarist who can be found either playing in Red Square at mid-day or "open mic" night at the Underground Coffeehouse.

Crossposted at Western Unraveled
<< Home 4 Comments:
Blogger Nathan said...

Hey bro, have you read the comments on Zhang's "previous post"? Pretty good stuff. Maybe someday he'll be convinced.

12:58 AM, May 12, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Zhang is a charecter, now only if he would punch a military recruiter in the face. Tell that baby killer to get off campus

11:48 PM, May 14, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh yea, by baby killer I was talking about the military recruiter, not ripping on the pro lifers, who I support:)

11:48 PM, May 14, 2006  
Blogger Crystal said...

Very interesting reading I must say. I have read the book mentioned in one of the comments on David's journal ("Won by Love" the true story about how Roe vs. Wade came to be) and it truely did give me a much better sense of the issues. I have it if anyone wants to borrow it. The whole debate about how much someones suffers was interesting and made me wonder about murder trials, you know could an attorny use that argument? "Well your honor this person lived a pretty good life and they were only shot in the heart once so they didn't really suffer much. I don't think my client should go to jail on 1st degree murder charges because the victum died quickly and without much addo." Not sure it would fly...might be interesting to try sometime.
I have no doubt that the pictures were disturbing but what puzzles me a little more was that he left the abortion photos alone. Why? Wouldn't those be the ones you would want to take down if you were concerned about free speech because considering the high abortion rates among college students it would seem that those photos would be the most damaging because they would drive home to woman/girls what horror they have inflicted on their baby? I guess his actions don't really make sense to me. Was he really trying to make an pro-abortion stand or was he just mad about the comparison?

9:54 AM, May 19, 2006  

Post a Comment