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.
We need your help! If you like PunditHouse, please consider donating to us. Even $5 a month can make a difference!
Short URL: https://pundithouse.com/?p=8268
