Quick Hits to City Council on Protest Ordinance
I attended last night’s City Council meeting to listen to the public hearing on proposed changes to the rules and regulations regarding protest and assembly on city property.
I found it awkward that the occupy movement had so many speakers against the proposals, which was also the side I was taking. Two agreements with that bunch within a month? What is this world coming to!
While I too was opposed to the changes, I sincerely wish someone would teach the occupiers that by failing to follow the rules of decorum at a Council Meeting, they aren’t exactly doing their side any favors. Were I on Council, it would be almost out of spite that I ignore the issues at hand and vote in favor of the ordinances so as just not to give into the toddler like temper tantrums that were thrown by so many speakers.
With that said, I have posted some quick hit commentary on Facebook as to why I am opposed to the rule changes. These changes aren’t just about Occupy, they’re not just about the DNC. The changes are permanent and will undoubtedly lead to a number of unintended consequences.
Here’s what I’ve said elsewhere:
I was simply embarrased by a number of the occupiers who made a good point or two, but then failed at simple decorum. They hurt themselves.
I would have spoken against the ordinance changes as well, my primary concern being how poorly written they are. There is so much so broad as to cause subjective interpretations of the law (which puts undo stress on law enforcement officers) and yet other sections in which there is not enough definition.
Just a couple examples:
The definition of “Extraordinary Events”, because of the “or” in the sentence, can be defined simply as an event “likely to attract a significant number of people”. What is “significant”? 50? 100? 10,000? It is entirely left up to the City Manager to decide, and is thus subjective.
The banning on camping is fine by me. Set up hours during which protest is allowed. However, at every Tea Party rally we have held, we have had temporary tents to house registration tables, provide some shelter from the sun/rain, etc. We take them down when we are done. These are now banned with the new ordinance proposed and will actually perhaps lead to additional cases of heat exaustion and sunburn.
There’s a section in the new law essentially saying that picketers are subject to local, state, and federal laws and proceeds to list them. Really? A law to follow another law? A little redundant.
I’m also opposed to the lottery provision. Anyone wanting to protest should be allowed to protest. It isn’t a “luck of the draw” situation.
The listing of banned items is also bound to make criminals out of law abiding citizens. I frequently carry a backpack. This looks to be restricted? The ban on plastic pipe and other “weapons” even from an “observer” of the protests? What if my dad (rip) who drove everywhere in his handyman van came to a parade. He has plastic pipe, saw blades, etc all the time at his access. Would he now be a criminal?
I wish none of this was necessary. The law could be one sentence: “Don’t hurt anyone, clean up your mess, don’t block traffic”. I understand that legally you need to do more. These changes, however, even from a cursory reading, are so subjective and interpretive it’s pathetic. Boy Scouts will be made criminals for carrying a pocket knife. Legal to do at any time, but not if you are marching in a parade? I don’t get it.
I was agreeing totally with one of the occupy speakers (before he went and got himself arrested because he couldn’t stop talking at 3 minutes) that all of this, while under the guise of the DNC, is actually a permanant change to the rules for everyone for all times. If we wanted special exceptions for the DNC, it should be made clear that the changes have a specific timeline. These changes, as proposed, are permanent.
A church shouldn’t need a lawyer to figure out if they can have a parade…and then be forced to pay for security from only off duty law enforcement…assuming those evil Christians need law enforcement at all. There are plenty of security options that don’t involve paying the high fees of off duty CMPD. I guess private security is now banned as well?
We certainly love our laws. It seems we can never have enough of them. I urge everyone to write their City Councilman and support a vote of “no” on these specific changes. They need to be re-written and re-thought out so as to address the real problems, not criminalize everyone.
Many good points, Christian.
One thing that I regularly read concerns “unintended consequences.” While I do believe that some of the consequences of poorly worded/defined, as well as very clearly spelled out, laws were not forseen, I think that many of these consequences that we mere subjects, rather citizens, consider as unintended, are actually intended, and if not directly so, those implementing the laws are not sorry in the least for the so-called unintended consequences.
Excellent points. I’d like Foxx, Cannon, Smuggie, Barnes and Mayfield show me the permits the Greensboro Four obtained…
Um, Joe, hello? Woolworth’s wasn’t City property.
Spend a day with the Secret Service, as I have a number of times and you will see what they go through to protect the President and Vice President.
Also, It’s a shame Eric Rudolph and his backpack wasn’t randomly checked in Atlanta.
I don’t like individual liberties being curbed either and yes once on the books, laws and ordinances have a way of sticking with us, some good, some dumb. But after Atlanta, Tucson, Oklahoma City and 9/11, there are those who don’t give a damn about you, me or anyone else and will do harm if they get the chance.
I fly about 80,000 miles per year, so if I have to take off my shoes, have my computer scanned and be inconvenienced for two minutes, so be it.
The irony and hypocrisy here isn’t lost in the fact Democrats are the very ones claiming they are the party of individual liberty and diversity….
Wiley, the two political parties are football teams. No matter which one wins*, the impact on your life is identical. The great myth is that Democrats care about “personal freedom” while Republicans care about “economic freedom”. The truth is that freedom is freedom, and neither party* cares about protecting freedom.
Check the costs in both blood and treasure of the “war on terror” vs. those of 9/11 and you’ll be hit with a very unpleasant truth.
* Exceptions being rare such as Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel, Ron Paul, Gary Johnson, etc.
Wiley, the problem here is if I was intent on carrying a bomb into a crowd in my backpack to cause suffering, the law against backpacks wouldn’t stop me. The Tucson shootings were a year ago, for example, and I believe there was already a law against murder. Didn’t stop the guy.
To take that a step farther, were guns not banned at many of the sites of mass killings, a concealed carry holder would probably have saved significant numbers of lives.
We don’t need further restrictions on our freedom, we need more protection of the ones we already have.
Do you have locks on your doors and windows?
A lock on my door infringes on no ones rights. They don’t have a right to enter my property. Not sure where your train of thought is here.
Of course locks don’t keep criminals out. They keep honest people honest. A locked door won’t stop someone intent on taking what is mine if that is what they have their mind set to do.
Why do they not have a right to enter your property? Because it’s the law?
You expect the law to protect your property, right?
Isn’t what we’re discussing here the same thing but on a larger scale? Instead of YOUR property, we’re talking about the people’s property and potential safety of the public in large gatherings as a whole.
It’s the same analogy you stated. Locks keep honest people out.
An ordinance that allows law enforcement to randomly check a person’s backpack, which they can do now in any government building is no different. It’s an at-large issue to help protect everyone as a whole. It doesn’t inhibit your right to gather, protest or whatever.
We know you, me and others are law abiding citizens, so I don’t see any random check as an affront to my rights. I know I’m not going to break the law.
So lets not check pocketbooks, backpacks, briefcases, etc going into BoFA stadium when Obama speaks (or even during Panther’s games).
Then when someone pulls a Bremmer, a Chapman, a Hickley or even an Eric Rudolph, we just chalk up the carnage to “oh well, that’s just the price of freedom”?
Yes, I have locks on all my doors and windows, but I don’t use them. Haven’t in 24 years. What’s your point?
Is it: Do I try to protect my own belongings against those who would take them? But I don’t depend on government to do it because government is incapable of doing that. Government can only stop those who have already commited acts – and arrest those – legally arrest – according to laws on the books. Hence you see the vague, subjective laws Christian cites, which allow government to inflict themselves upon the people yet pretend they were legal.
Why do we need conceal carry permits?
We shouldn’t need them. The 2nd amendment is my permit. Unfortunately, local and state governments disagree. A perfect example of what I’m talking about. Too many rules.
Actually, I think NH and VT don’t have the permits…you can carry concealed without one. Georgia is also looking to go that direction.
nor do we need to hold people accountable for yelling FIRE! in a crowded theater, you know, since the First Amendment protects free speech..
“Don’t hurt anyone, clean up your mess, don’t block traffic”
All these are already illegal. Therefore no more ordinances are required.
Fair enough and even a better point!
Mayor Foxx, like Mayor Dailey in ’68 is going to be crackin’ some skulls. I can’t wait.
Wiley, Thanks for the discussion.
They don’t have a right to enter my property because it is my property. With or without “the law”, I am endowed by God with the rights to life, liberty, and property. We enact government and laws to protect what is already inherently ours. So no, not because “it’s the law”.
No, I do not expect goverment to protect my property. I expect them to protect my right to have property. I don’t expect a government security force to guard my door 24/7, nor would I want it to. I do expect them to detain and punish those who do take my property as a just punishment for the violation of anothers right to property.
In your BofA example, that is a privately owned facility and they can set whatever rules to entry they want.
In your “fire! in a crowded theater” example in a below post, you are equating the wrong actions. The yelling of “fire!” is the blowing up the bomb side of the equation. It is the direct causing of harm and creating of danger. To use that example properly, the banning of backpacks at a gathering because someone “might” have a weapon is like gagging everyone who enters the theater because someone *might* yell “fire”.
I do understand your points, really I do. I’m trying to think beyond. If it is legal for me to carry a cooler to a park any other day, I don’t like the subjective limitation of that action just because the circumstances have changed and the “event” is now called an “extraordinary event” because some city staffer said so. I am no more likely to commit a crime just because what I’m attending has a different name or there are more people or whatever. I don’t like the assumption of guilt by my government. Today it’s a backpack during a festival. Tomorrow its????
Now, ultimately, yes, the local government does have the right to implement these rules on behalf of the people who elected them. I just really wish they wouldn’t. Those who give up liberty for security deserve neither.