When a gathering of three people (or animals?) "with a common purpose" is something the city claims jurisdiction over, you might as well picture the Bill of Rights in flames.
|
Will the First Amendment be allowed during Miami protests?
by Helen & Harry Highwater, Unknown News
Sept. 26, 2003
| |
It isn't yet illegal to protest in America, but it's not uncommon for cops to arrest protesters en masse and take them to jail — where charges are eventually dropped because no actual law was actually violated. This is a fairly common police strategy, designed to make life miserable for protesters, and to make people think twice before exercising their alleged Constitutional rights.
And this police anti-protest strategy works. When we lived in San Francisco, my husband and I often participated in peaceful political protests, and it was only dumb luck that we were never arrested. We certainly saw dozens of illegal arrests, and heard and read of hundreds more. It happens often enough it has to be a police policy, whether "official" or "unspoken."
The reality is, at many large rallies, deciding whether you'll participate is no longer a question of whether you can spend a few hours at a protest. You also have to decide in advance whether you're willing to spend a weekend in jail.
Yesterday we linked to this IndyMedia article by "Watchdog" (see sidebar, right), reporting on a proposal that would effectively criminalize protests at the upcoming FTAA meeting in Miami.
As described, Miami is proposing to actually write the sort of "law" cops usually make up out of thin air when there's a protest, as we've seen in San Francisco, and heard reports from Philadelphia, Los Angeles, and elsewhere.
When a gathering of three people (or animals?) "with a common purpose" is something the city claims jurisdiction over, you might as well picture the Bill of Rights in flames.
When we linked to the IndyMedia account yesterday, however, we had to hesitate: We’d seen nothing about this particular proposal in any of the usual semi-reliable mainstream sources, and we’re unfamiliar with "Watchdog," the author of the IndyMedia report. The idea of this law is completely in keeping with the times, and with the high-octane anti-freedom outlook of Miami Police Chief John Timoney, but we wanted some additional information before getting all worked up.
|
From IndyMedia —
Miami is considering adopting new anti-demonstrator laws, drafted by police chief John Timoney of the 2000 Republican National Convention fame, specifically to squash dissent to the FTAA, which is coming to Miami this November. If passed, this would be the most restrictive anti-demonstrator law in the US, falling just shy of marshal law rules.
... As written, the law would be in effect from September 25 to November 27, 2003, thereby specifically targeting anti-FTAA demonstrators. The city does not want any anti-FTAA demonstrations as they might interfere with the local power structure's desire to secure the permanent FTAA headquarters in Miami. However, the law would also apply to every gathering between those dates, including little league sports, concerts and any other "assembly."
The proposed anti-demonstrator law defines an assembly as any combination of three (3) people, animals or vehicles with a common purpose. That means the police can see me (1) driving down the street in my car (2), with a dog (3) and claim we are participating in a demonstration. Or, if two men (2) are sitting on the corner playing dominoes and a dog (3) walks by, the police can declare them an assembly for purposes of "law enforcement."
The law makes it illegal to have rifles, shotguns, pistols, grenades and other weapons at an "assembly." However, these items are already illegal most of the time in most places, and so, no new law is needed. However, by defining and targeting an "assembly," police are granted new powers to stop people (and dogs) and hold them accountable to all kinds of other rules.
Other newly outlawed items include: any kind of glass; marbles; vinyl signs (with your organizations name), sticks to hold up signs or placards; baseballs; baseball bats; any other rubber ball; anything police think is intended for use as a weapon.
|
Well, the additional information we've found is interesting ... and we're also intrigued by what we're not able to find.
Yesterday, a Miami TV station provided some coverage, and several readers sent it our way. If you're wondering what's in this proposed legislation, though, Channel 10 isn't telling: Their report (see sidebar, below) is all about whether or not the Commission will vote on the proposal, and how a delay makes any legal challenge more difficult — without a word about what the proposal actually says.
| |
Some activists see vote to delay as move to avoid legal challenge
WPLG-TV, Miami
Sept. 25, 2003
MIAMI — The city of Miami is hoping to avoid potential problems and out of control demonstrations when thousands of protesters head to South Florida this November where the next free trade summit will be held.
"I think this commission should discuss this today — either vote it up or down," said Miami Commissioner Thomas Regalado, who was the lone voice on the commission pushing for a public debate today.
Commissioners voted three to one to delay a vote on the issue for a month. Police Chief John Timoney says that won't be a problem. "We can push it back for 30 days. We can discuss it with the city manager — the law department will meet with the ACLU — other interested parties, the press ... and we're going to craft a piece of legislation that we think will satisfy everyone's concerns," Timoney said.
But some free trade opponents were not satisfied.
"We think that the administration clearly sees that this would not pass legal muster, and so they're trying to avoid a legal attack by passing this thing so late in the game that it will make a legal challenge very tough to do," said Max Rameau of the Miami Worker's Center.
Channel 10 Political Reporter Michael Putney reported that it is almost safe to say that no mater what kind of ordinance the commission passes there will very likely be a legal challenge. However, Timoney told him that the ordinance under consideration passed muster with a very liberal federal appeals court in California.
[Published by
WPLG-TV, Miami.]
| Another reader sent us the Miami City Commission's on-line agenda for yesterday, which includes this brief recap as item 17:AMENDING CHAPTER 54 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, ENTITLED “STREETS AND SIDEWALKS” TO ESTABLISH REASONABLE TIME, PLACE AND MANNER REGULATIONS CONCERNING MATERIALS AND OBJECTS THAT MAY BE POSSESSED, CARRIED OR USED BY THOSE PARTICIPATING IN PARADES AND DEMONSTRATIONS, AND PROVIDING FOR SUNSET OF SAID REGULATIONS AT MIDNIGHT ON THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 27, 2003; MORE PARTICULARLY BY ADDING NEW SECTION 54-6.1 TO SAID CODE; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION, A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE, AND PROVIDING FOR AN IMMEDIATE EFFECTIVE DATE.
The Commission's agenda lists a gobbledygook number (J-03-772) for the proposed legislation, potentially useful for further Googling, but this only led to earlier agendas of earlier meetings where the same proposal had been on the table, and described in exactly the same words.
Our usual round-up of 'unknown news' is somewhat truncated today, because we spent several hours Googling for traces of this proposed legislation, but we came up close to dry.
So here's the story so far:
An un-confirmed but also un-contradicted report says the First Amendment is up for grabs in Miami. We've emailed IndyMedia's author with a few questions (haven’t heard back yet), but it's been our experience that reports like this on IndyMedia are usually accurate.
Meanwhile, the city's politicians don't want to be on the record, so we can't find any official details, and the Commission apparently doesn't post proposed legislation on-line.
The Miami Herald and other Miami media seem to have no reporters assigned to report on this matter.
We'll continue digging as time permits, and of course, if anyone knows more about these matters, our email address is newsuneed at yahoo.com.
|
When facts are this hard to find, when politicians have their lips sealed and mainstream reporters aren't interested in asking or answering pertinent questions, there's usually good reason to be concerned. We're concerned, and you ought to be too.
| |
© 2003, by the author.
Comments? newsuneed@yahoo.com
There's much more than this at Unknown News.
|
|
| |
We try not to whine too much or too loudly, but we are poor and this site eats a lot of money and time.
We couldn't do it without the help of our volunteers. And for those who can't afford the time, giving just a buck or two can make all the difference and keep Unknown News alive.
|
Talk
to Us |
Archives |
| If you have something to say, we'd love to hear from you. |
Click here for archives of recent editions of Unknown News |
|
|
