Right-wing protesters disrupt Revolution Books event Sunday evening

Sierra Brown/Staff

Related Posts

Seven right-wing protesters tried and failed to enter a celebration of the 100th anniversary of the Bolshevik Revolution at Revolution Books, a well-known local communist bookstore, Sunday evening.

The event attendees, who at first outnumbered the protesters, lined up across the front of the bookstore in silence to prevent the protesters from entering.

Guy Taiho Decker, one of the right-wing protesters, allegedly attempted to enter the bookstore while livestreaming the entire event and repeatedly demanded, “Why are you discriminating against me?” in reference to the blocked entrance. Decker then called Berkeley Police Department to file a complaint against the bookstore for harassment, and the protest concluded with the arrival of BPD officers, who determined that no crime occurred and made no arrests.

Sunday’s protest was not the first time that Revolution Books has faced such opposition. Right-wing protesters attacked the bookstore at least three times in September during “Free Speech Week.”

The event attendees standing in front of the entrance were skeptical of the protesters’ stated intentions. One attendee pointed to potential violence as a reason to prevent the right-wing protesters from entering.

Jourdin Davis, another right-wing protester, said he expected more people to participate in the right-wing gathering. He added that if he had been allowed into the event, he would have listened “with an open eye and ear.”

“They’re acting like security guards,” Davis said about the blockade. “It’s based on a misconception that I’m going to be there to disrupt, and I’m not.”

While some of the protesters said they were members of the “Make America Great Again” movement, Davis said this particular gathering of individuals was not affiliated with a specific organization.

Revolution Books manager Reiko Redmonde said she thinks the protesters decided to attack the bookstore at Sunday’s event because of anti-communist sentiment.

“They think (Berkeley) is the center of revolutionary and left thinking,” Redmonde said. “They think that UC Berkeley is a place where people think, read, criticize — and all of these things are the antithesis of what they’re about. So that’s why they’re attacking us.”

Contact Danielle Kaye at [email protected] and follow her on Twitter at @danielledkaye.

Please keep our community civil. Comments should remain on topic and be respectful.
Read our full comment policy
  • TaiFood

    “The connection between domestic terrorists and Revolution Books is established by the thug in the green shirt, hat, & moustache by the videos and the Union Square engagement or lack of discourse…”


  • TaiFood

    It’s important to note there are criminals that lurk among these who ignore civil rights of those they hallucinate as posted on the Bookstore’s window.

    Where is this suspect?


  • Dencal26

    Commies are as bad as Nazi’s. The left is complicit

  • TaiFood

    Here’s accurate journalism.

    Because Daily Cal intentionally and continually misrepresents many record the incidents in hopes of IMPROVING Fake News and False Accusations by Berkeley officials, some residents, and media outlets.


  • TaiFood

    April 12th conversation about Fake News of smearing Patriots as violent


  • roccolore

    It seems that the Commies can dish it out but not take it.

    • helen

      At least they now openly admit that they’ve been “attacking” other people for years!
      Window pounding=ATTACK

      “Trying to attend…”=ATTACK

      • roccolore

        Commies riot and loot.

  • TaiFood

    This is an example of very bad journalism because it only puts forth the misleading and false information.

    What are the journalistic standards of this media outlet?

    For example didn’t Revolution Books post public invitation?

    What if I were a journalist and prospective customer?

    As for political leaning, I look to JFK’s “The President and The Press” as one of my ‘touchstones’.

    I recommend the version archived at my Alma Mater UC Santa Barbara. (GO Gauchos!)


    • y_p_w

      What’s with the word salad? It’s perfectly legal for a business to exclude people provided that it’s not on the basis of them being in a protected class. They could choose to keep out journalists or even specific journalists. While a sign that says “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone” isn’t absolute, it does reflect that business are free to deny service to someone – even on the basis of ideology.

      • TaiFood

        When I read someone use the phrase “word salad”, I see someone who is unable to comprehend the comment and can’t form a REASONABLE question.

        My comment assumed the ability to comprehend more abstract framing of the discussion I initially opined as bad journalism.

        Ridicule might be humorous but it is rarely advanced education… Instead it forces compliance.

        Your inability to form a question leads me to believe you don’t want to know that you are misinformed.

        I suggest searching for:

        “California Attorney General Unlawful Discrimination”

        The first link (‘hit’) I get is a publication titled “Unlawful Discrimination”.

        Search in that PDF for “bookstore”.

        I found better information than you have that defines a bookstore as a Public Accommodation.

        Both the Berkeley PD and Revolution Bookstore were ignorant with respect to the protection provided by the Unruh Act as spelled out in Chapter 4 of that publication by California’s Attorney General.

        Are you able to access the internet?

        • y_p_w

          Good luck finding any case law where a successful case was won over someone denied entry on the basis of political persuasion.

          It did protect those who weren’t specifically listed, such as on the basis of sexual orientation before that classification was specifically added to the law.

          • TaiFood

            Now this is progress.

            You pivoted, although without a cordial apology that would signal civil discourse.

            But at least you are open to researching the case law.

            If not, I imagine every Supreme Court case has its origins… And just think you might be a small part of realizing the bigotry, this time around, paints Berkeley as “Alt-Selma”.

            I’m thinking those that lived in Selma in the 60’s assumed their own righteousness.

            More relevant to me is the analogy to mistreating those of Japanese heritage by similar bigotry in California amassed from WW2, and racism from Korean & Vietnam War.

            Did that age well?

  • zzz

    Could you people grow up and leave the stunted communists alone?

    I do love the 100 years of Trump like winning from the Communists. Celebrating the Russian revolution is celebrating mass murder.

    • TaiFood

      Do grown ups stand up to unlawful discrimination?

  • Killer Marmot

    You keep using the word “attack.” Did these protesters attempt to forcibly enter the book store? If not, then attack is the wrong word.

    • BerCaley

      Home schooled were you?

      • TaiFood

        Am I accurate to perceive your comment as a failed attempt at ridicule?

        Or envy?

    • y_p_w

      “Attack” refers to what happened last month. What would you call pounding on the windows, throwing elbows, or making threats to rape their employees/customers? They were asked to leave (even when private security told them to) and refused until police arrived.

      Attacked is pretty accurate.

      • TaiFood

        What is the one whose civil rights were deprived called the police?

        Have you heard of Unlawful Discrimination?

        • y_p_w

          There are public accommodations laws. Provided that someone isn’t discriminated against on the basis of being in a “protected class” there is no violation of public accommodations law. Heck – a bar on Telegraph Ave could legally deny service to someone on the basis that they’re wearing a Stanford T-shirt. A bookstore could legally refuse to allow someone in wearing a MAGA hat because being a Trump supporter doesn’t put one in a protected class.

          There was no violation of the federal Civil Rights Act nor a violation of California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. If it’s obvious that they’re right wingers looking to cause trouble, it’s perfectly legal to tell them they’re not welcome. The police understand that, and in any case public accommodations laws are usually handled as a civil matter. The police correctly assessed that no crime had been committed when the bookstore denied them entry. They can always try suing them or complaining to the California Attorney General, but it’s going to go nowhere because they have no legal standing to force them to allow them into their store.

          • TaiFood

            Your reply doesn’t appear to leave room for better information than you have today.

            Specifically California has additional rights granted to its citizens that include protecting from harassment and intimidation due to arbitrary reasons including political persuasion.

            Since I have not self-identified why doesn’t that mean inclusivity in Berkeley?

            See CA Civil Code 51.7

            California Code, Civil Code – CIV § 51.7
            “(a) All persons within the jurisdiction of this state have the right to be free from any violence, or intimidation by threat of violence, committed against their persons or property because of political affiliation, or on account of any characteristic listed or defined in subdivision (b) or (e) of Section 51 , or position in a labor dispute, or because another person perceives them to have one or more of those characteristics.  The identification in this subdivision of particular bases of discrimination is illustrative rather than restrictive.”

            Let me guess?

            You won’t apologize.

          • y_p_w

            (a) All persons within the jurisdiction of this state have the right to be free from any violence, or intimidation by threat of violence, committed against their persons or property because of political affiliation, or on account of any characteristic listed or defined in subdivision (b) or (e) of Section 51, or position in a labor dispute, or because another person perceives them to have one or more of those characteristics. The identification in this subdivision of particular bases of discrimination is illustrative rather than restrictive.

            So exactly what here says that one can’t refuse service to someone based on political persuasion? It only says no threats of violence based on political persuasion. If anything, these people coming to Revolution Books and making threats of violence are in violation of 57.1.

            There’s 51.7(b)(2), but that only says that one can’t condition a refusal of goods/service on the basis of someone refusing to waive rights to seek redress for violations for being discriminated against.

          • TaiFood

            Is there an apology implicit in your capitulation?

            “…because of political affiliation…”

            In any case what ‘facts’ do you have that I was with any political group?

            And if you are relying upon this Fake News (disingenuous or intentionally misleading or false category, not inclusive) you should be prepared to explicitly issue an apology.

            What if I were a journalist or prospective customer or simply responding to a public invitation for a presentation I found interesting, possibly even fundraising for illegal activity?

            Wouldn’t that be included in the broad definition of a criminal conspiracy, for example?

          • TaiFood

            You might not realize I’m hoping you’d make the additional effort to research and correct your misinformation.

            Most likely you’ll end up just deleting your comments based upon your false assumptions.

            To further this thread I suggest a search for “California Attorney General Unlawful Discrimination”.

            Do you think enforcement of Civil Rights should only apply when you agree with the political affiliation?

          • y_p_w

            What do you mean by deleting comments? Disqus has no such function. Only a moderator can do that, and it would show up as deleted.

            You can cite that all you want, but until there’s an actual case where someone was prosecuted for keeping out a potential customer based on political beliefs, that’s all you have.

          • TaiFood

            My apologies.

            I’m putting forth my own bad assumptions then.

            In other social media venues the usual responses rarely include an apology instead, what JFK termed ‘shrink’ from responsibilities in his inaugural address… Another ‘touchstone’ of mine.

            And…another chance to promote the excellence of UC Santa Barbara’s education ;-) over UC Berkeley with respect to the US President.

            “…In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger. I do not shrink from this responsibility–I welcome it. I do not believe that any of us would exchange places with any other people or any other generation. The energy, the faith, the devotion which we bring to this endeavor will light our country and all who serve it–and the glow from that fire can truly light the world.

            And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you–ask what you can do for your country…”



          • TaiFood

            I note you overlooked or refused to research:

            “California Attorney General Unlawful Discrimination”

          • y_p_w

            I looked it up. You can continue that all you want, but you can’t point to an actual case demonstrating where a business was prosecuted for violating someone’s civil rights by denying service on the basis of political belief, It’s certainly not in the statutory language that you cite. I get that the California government has outlined an expansive definition of the Unruh Civil Rights Act covering “arbitrary discrimination”, but you can’t show that it has been applied to this particular class. Sexual orientation was protected through case law before it was added. Besides that – any business has the right to deny service to someone being disruptive.

            Maybe I should consolidate my responses here.

            You argue that Berkeley PD doesn’t know the law. Perhaps not, but they’re certainly right that no crime was involved. Maybe they have notes that can be made available to the Alameda DA or California AG for a civil complaint, but the police can’t compel someone to serve a potential customer. Even in cases where clear civil rights protections have been violated, the police can’t compel compliance. The only remedy is a fine or perhaps a judge issuing an order requiring “specific performance”.

            As far as the whole issue of “attacks” or threats go – these are all allegations made by those interviewed. I make no claims of their veracity but mention them in the context of other comments.

          • TaiFood

            First you neglected to mention if you actually read the “Unlawful Discrimination” publication by the California Attorney General.

            In chapter 4 you will find a relevant declaration that indeed bookstores are considered Public Accommodations and that my civil rights were intentionally deprived.

            Did you know that was both a CA & Federal CRIME?

            As for your pivot about case law. I defer to the guidance of the CA Attorney General and await your apology.

            As for “attacks” … If I can give you the facts that prove otherwise what would be your response?

            Will you denounce this bad journalism?

          • y_p_w

            Again – where is it a “crime”? Are there specific jail time or perhaps criminal fines? This is from the doc you cite:

            You can pursue an Unruh Act claim by filing a verified complaint with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) or a private lawsuit. If a business establishment is engaging in a pattern or practice of discrimination, you can refer the matter to the Attorney General’s Office or to your local district or city attorney. Please refer to the housing chapter of this publication for the procedures to follow and remedies available in redressing your claim for a public accommodation’s violation of the Unruh Act.

            Doesn’t sound like a crime to me. I await your apology for improperly referring to violations of the Unruh Civil Rights Act or the federal Civil Rights Act as a crime.

            You’ve got all these cites but can’t seem to get them straight. You citied California Civil Code 51.7, which deals with violent acts or threats on the basis (at least one of them) of politics. There was none on the part of the bookstore or its customers. And in any case the AG handbook you cite says that any remedies for violations of 51.7 are civil or administrative (i.e. not criminal). That wouldn’t mean that there might not be criminal law (like California Penal Code 422) that deals with making criminal threats, but the deal with making threats on the basis of the victim’s politics are that there may be civil actions that can be taken by the victim in addition to what the state can prosecute as a criminal matter.

          • TaiFood

            Because we both deserve proper respect to return the vicious City of Alt-Selma that is known as Berkeley to lawful behavior.

            If I present a crime to what will you capitulate?

            If I can’t, at least, y_wp can claim y_w_p defended the immortality and racism of Selma in the 60’s – in abstract – 50+ years later.


          • y_p_w

            I’m having a hard time trying to parse what you’re saying. It’s like you’re using all this odd code language rather than English.

            Again – I don’t believe that the Unruh Civil Rights Act nor the federal Civil Rights Act has been violated by Revolution Books. You may take a more expansive view that there is an absolute bar to discriminating against people, but I feel that there still needs to be a protected class that is generally immutable (such as race or sexual orientation, although religion is specific to the law). However, it’s pretty simple to read that there is no criminal act involved – even if a business chooses to blatantly discriminate against someone on the basis being in a clearcut protected class. The remedies are civil. If anyone feels that their civil rights have been violated by the store, they’re free lodge a civil complaint with the state or file a lawsuit. But it’s not a crime where the police can make an arrest or citation. It just isn’t. It’s a basic matter of law.


          • TaiFood


            Can you illustrate your inability to comprehend English language by quoting the phrases or passages that need to be simplified to a lower grade level?

            Thank you in advance.

          • y_p_w

            I’ll just say none of it makes much sense.

            And you still haven’t acknowledged that denying service to a potential customer is not a crime. It may illegal depending on the reasons, but it is not a crime. Any illegality would be remedied through civil processes.

          • TaiFood

            Well not being able to articulate your lack of comprehension allows our dialog to progress, except without citing specific passages and pivoting to your WANTS doesn’t help improve my communication skills.

            So if you want to improve your education and my communication skills to a lower comprehension level I’m reasonably available to review the comment sentence by sentence with you contributing your take first.

            It doesn’t do any good for me to guess what you can’t understand.

            As for crimes.

            That’s the easy part and a great example that just because you don’t know it doesn’t mean a crime hasn’t occurred.

            Have you reviewed the Civil Rights era and how Democrat’s domestic terror group KKK functions like refusefascism dot org? A deception of Revolutionary Communism (RevCom dot us)?

            What crimes of CONSPIRACY can be ascertained?

          • y_p_w

            So I take it you can’t point to any part of the California Penal Code or United States Code that would suggest that a crime has been committed?

      • roccolore

        Your side riots and loots to prevent people from speaking.

      • angdonlon

        I seriously doubt there was a threat of rape.

      • TaiFood

        Please post your reference or apologize for your false accusations please.

        • y_p_w

          Follow the link where it says “attacked”.

          • TaiFood

            Obviously you don’t have anything to support anyone “attacking” the bookstore.

            In one video @ 4 min mark (see comment field in linked “attacked” article by the horrible journalism disproven by videos.)

            I saw a few persons QUIETLY walking into the bookstore and were themselves harassed and intimidated and physically prevented from entering the bookstore as is their right as the bookstore is a PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION.

            The closest thing I saw to being attacked was BY THOSE INSIDE the bookstore YELLING “OUT! OUT!” against the QUIET prospective customers who rationally declared they wanted to evaluate products of the business.

            Am I inaccurate?

    • TaiFood

      I came alone as a journalist and a prospective customer to be informed and hopefully exchange information or challenge bad information.

    • TaiFood

      Also, don’t assume the information in the article is accurate.

      What if someone showed up solo and a crowd formed, instead?

      Some who supported the victim of unlawful discrimination by Revolution Bookstore would then be mislabeled as “protestors”?

      Would Daily Cal issue a formal apology?

      • y_p_w

        Take that up with the staff of the Daily Cal. They’ve gone over the video (and it’s extensive) and make those claims along with interviews of store employees.

        • TaiFood

          Did they contact me for any publicly available video and audio also extensive and broader framed.

          I emailed the author identified as [email protected] something…

          So far… Nothing.

          This is an example of bad journalism as the smear of Fake News, variants called Yellow Journalism long ago, is indicative in another comment below.

          I’ll wait for the polite request for the link to enable your, assumed, upcoming apology to me…

  • BerCaley
    • TaiFood

      Here’s the set up I enjoy…

      What bad information is persuasive to you?

      Did you read the comment section?