JOR: It’s not the “uniform” (anyone can wear a police costume; it means nothing), it’s the occupation.

MBH: It is the “uniform” in the Black and Red Cafe instance.

No, it isn’t. He was asked to leave because he was a cop and his being a cop made people uncomfortable. If he were wearing the suit but were not, in fact, a member of that profession (say he’s one of G.O.B.’s Hot Cops friends), I doubt that he would have been asked to leave.

In any case, you’re acting as if the cop were the only person whose feelings mattered. He is not. The people who you have silenced are the people who could not enjoy the use of the space while an armed stranger who was advertising his criminal profession was standing around in the shop in full battle regalia. Their comfort matters quite as much as the cop’s — more, since they are the people who the space was opened for, not for government law enforcers. Perhaps their comfort wouldn’t matter if the attitudes behind their discomfort were unreasonable or invidious. But if you think that it’s unreasonable for Anarchists to fear or distrust armed police officers, you’ll have to give some reason why that’s unreasonable; you certainly haven’t yet. Given the profession he participates in and was advertising his participation in, the other folks in Red and Black had every reason to be uncomfortable with his presence. And given that he was making other folks in the shop uncomfortable, the Red and Black collective had not only the right, but also every reason to ask him to leave.

MBH: Your example is not analogous. Klansmanship intends to dehumanize. Nazism intends to dehumanize. Law enforcement intends to protect humanity.

You have a lot of italics in your assertion here, but no evidence. Where did you get this revelation as to the intentions of law enforcement? Last I checked, many law enforcers are perfectly happy to dehumanize, and reveal through their actions that they have little practical interest in protecting large swaths of humanity. They’ve revealed these preferences repeatedly in how they’ve handled my friends and comrades. Even at the level of mission statements, last I checked, law enforcement institutions stated that their primary purpose was to enforce the laws; when the laws are dehumanizing, they proceed to dehumanize, and when the laws don’t protect any identifiable victim (as most government laws do not), they will happily assault and imprison “humanity” in the name of the law, without any compunction about protecting anybody.

Free [sic]: after how you treated a guest in your establishment mid-May – a upstanding officer and a military veteran, there is no way in the world I will every spend money at your facility

Man, if you think that being an “upstanding officer and a military veteran” is the sort of thing for somebody to be proud of being, what in the world made you think that you’re the sort of customer that a revolutionary Anarcho-syndicalist collective is trying to reach?

Officer Mark: The officer did nothing to warrant his ouster.

Please. You don’t have to do anything to “warrant an ouster.” Red and Black has every right to refuse service to anybody.
Cops don’t have some kind of special right to insist on being served by folks that don’t want to serve them.

Officer Mark: I’m sure that when something bad happens at r&b they will either expect the best efforts of the PPB or will claim that the PPB is biased against them. I truly wish that another anarchist group, like the hell’s angels or the jokers pays them a long term visit.

This is a particularly stupid argument from intimidation.

Really, seriously, if you will stop forcing us to pay cops’ salaries against our will, stop directing violence against us, and stop attempting to enforce arbitrary laws on us that we never agreed to, most Anarchists will be more than happy to arrange for our own self-defense, and will not complain if you don’t show up if we tried to call.

Our only demand is to be left alone.

Paddy: Look at a country like Somalia where there is no effective ordering force.

Right, Somalia, where they have no armed men relentlessly patrolling the streets.

The rest of your comment is nothing more than an elaborate argument from intimidation combined with a shorter appeal to the majority. As for what you appreciate, you’re welcome to fund that — on your own dime and on your own property. What I don’t appreciate is that I am forced to pay for what you appreciate — “services” that I never asked for, don’t want, and will be more than glad to do without.