Advance Permission For Protests? Are We In Russia, Or Wisconsin?
This and the rest of the Walker administration's latest effort to squash basic rights can't be constitutional.
The [new] rules require groups of four or more people demonstrating in the statehouse to have permits and request them three days in advance...
Under the policy unveiled last week, Walker's administration also could hold demonstrators at the Capitol liable for the cost of extra police or cleanup and repairs after protests.Free speech and assembly are just that - - free...speech...and...free...assembly.
Says the Wisconsin Constitution, Article I:
SECTION 3. Every person may freely speak, write and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right, and no laws shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or of the press.Bearing witness against government policies and officials by groups made up of few as four individuals together (Roommates? Pew mates? Family members?) should not have to be planned days in advance, then approved after begging the very authorities whose policies are being protested.
SECTION 4. The right of the people peaceably to assemble, to consult for the common good, and to petition the government, or any department thereof, shall never be abridged.
And who can jail you for failing for protesting without their permitting approval.
Or who can hand you a bill for their time if they so graciously allow your protest, and presumably arrest and jail you, too, if you do not or cannot pay their charges.
Talk about pay to play.
Maybe Putin's policies are the model for the Walkerite opponents of free speech and assembly.
Note this line in the second paragraph of a Reuters story about demostrations in Russia:
Police said they had detained about 250 people in central Moscow when they tried to stage an unapproved rally..And by the way; why are Republicans in Madison so comfortable with political practice imported from Moscow?
14 comments:
The [new] rules require groups of four or more people demonstrating in the statehouse to have permits and request them three days in advance...
So what is the definition of a demonstration?
Will Eagle scouts wanting to demonstrate their knott tying skills be required to obtain a permit?
Hmm.. Seems like bating to me. " how can we incite the left so they look bad?"
Remember Walker's statement about putting instigators in the large crowds?
So what if the wonderful singers file permits for everyday of the year?
Can you be denied a permit?
So you can bring in a gun but need a permit to demonstrate?
Random thoughts on oppression.
The key word in our Constitution is "abridge." The Republicans overlook this word. They say that this is about order and assessing liability. No, it is an attack on our right to peacefully petition our government.
It is unreasonable. It will spur civil disobedience and cause further division. I beleive that is exactly what they are looking for.
Here is a link to an NPR interview where Jason Stein (JS Capitol ) says the rules are not in fact new, just being clarified.
http://www.npr.org/2011/12/05/143157276/wis-to-require-permits-for-protests-in-capitol
It seems pretty simple. If you make a mess, clean it up or you will have to pay for it.
Why should the taxpayers be saddled with yet another debt because immature group of protesters are too selfish and uncivil to clean up after themselves?
That's funny, Reagan.
Your party wants to give taconite miners in northern Wisconsin the right to make a mess that might simply be impossible to clean up, and even if feasible, it will cost taxpayers hundreds of millions to clean up.
All these demonstrators might do is trample on the grass.
Lest We, The People of Wisconsin forget, the current Republican legislative regime from top to bottom has and will continue to instigate further distractions, like these new rules, to deflect focus from their larger goals of dismantling public education, destroying the unions and opening up the state to environmental destruction in the name of job creation.
It was your current Republican legislative, "representatives," who gave over their prior legislative duty of rule making to the office of the governor, i.e. big corporate control.
What does the author think about these?
http://www.cityofmadison.com/specialEvents/streetEvents/
"A Street Use Permit is the required permit that allows individuals or groups to use City streets – including sidewalks, parking spaces/lanes and State Street performance areas – for an event or activity."
http://reservedane.com/terms.aspx
"Written permits are required from the Dane County Parks Office for:
1. Public meetings, assemblies, tournaments, entertainment.
...
15. Any special event.
http://danedocs.countyofdane.com/webdocs/pdf/ordinances/ord059.pdf
"59.01 INTENT. (1) It is the purpose of the Dane County Board to regulate the assemblage of large numbers of people, in excess of those normally needing the health, sanitary, fire, police, transportation and utility services regularly provided in Dane County, in order that the health, safety and welfare of all persons in Dane County, residents and visitors alike, may be protected."
http://city.milwaukee.gov/ImageLibrary/Groups/cityDPW/divisions/administrative/docs/specialevents/SpecialEventOrdinance.pdf
"Definitions: ... d-3. Demonstrations conducted for the purpose of indicating approval or disapproval of governmental policies or practices, expressing a view on public issues, or bringing into public notice any issue or other matter.
e. "Special event" means any planned extraordinary, temporary use of the public right of way or public premises of 25 people or more including but not limited to parades, processions, demonstrations, bicycle or foot races, festivals and block parties."
For those events in Milwaukee defined under d-3, they still need to apply for a free permit "at least two working days prior to demonstrations".
So, did the Cities of Madison and Milwaukee, and Dane County, import these practices from Moscow?
For groups of four?
Mr. Rowen, I'm glad you answered that way. So, is this an argument that the arbitrary number of participants to trigger a permit requirement is too low? Fine. I've got no problem with people arguing that point. However, the arguments seem to be that the mere act of requiring any sort of permit is by itself unconstitutional. If so, then I don't see how the examples I provided (including some from your former employers) would be allowed either.
craptacular, you have to look at intent. Both when the rules are written and when the authorities dust the rules off and set out to apply them.
It's ridiculous to think that 4 people coming into the Capitol to give the governor a dirty look is a "large number[s] of people, in excess of those normally needing the health, sanitary, fire, police, transportation and utility services regularly provided". So the wording of the rule is cause to suspect that it was written in bad faith.
Similarly, the state's decision to start upholding this rule in the midst of this recall election also has the distinct stench of bad faith and ill intent.
It's also grossly out of date in the age of Twitter.
The large rallies at the Capitol had permits. Rally organizers got permits in order to have use of Capitol building electricity, but not in order to protest. They didn't need and have never needed a permit to protest. All of this was litigated and clarified in previous years. The only people confused about the rules for protesting at the Capitol are Walker and his minions.
Demonstrators.
Counter-Demonstrators.
Demonstrators rallying to support first demonstrators (think police and fire orgs)
Fake Demonstrators planted by shadowy corporations.
Bunch of free thinkers with a completely different agenda demonstrating nearby.
Now divvy up cleanup and security costs and expect every group to meekly pay their share without scheduling another demonstration against unfair and partisan cost allocations.
What a remarkably well-thought-out idea this is. I can't see how it could come back to haunt anyone.
This permit or permission game is merely another Walker/GOP attempt to silence or intimidate any organized desent or resistance by removing or limiting their venue to gather or speak.
Of course this near KGB tactic is used under the guises of safety, health and expense when imposed and posted on the village green as a "new, reviewed and improved FitzWalkerKochistan Royal Edit".
The GOP attempted this with the Walker RECALL circulators by listing on the internet places where petition ciculators would be and advising their minion to act outraged, offended and claim it was private property and demand that they leave. If they didn't demand that businesses and property owners call the police.
This latest Walker gambit of desperation won't stand or work just as their ploys to shut down malls, shopping centers, public streets and properties to RECALL petitioners.
This RECALL movement is coming out of every town, village and city in Wisconsin like a "blowback" steamroller.
Scotty Walker may have the Koch and their irk's big money but We have the People of Wisconsin.
My money is on the people!
When the 4 people have not bathed in days and throw there garbage around, yes, they should be required to clean it up. If they don't then they should be charged, hence the need for a permit.
I believe this is also focused on planned gatherings and organized protests.
I read a comment somewhere that said, "does this mean the boy scouts will be charged?" Well, first the boy scouts do not deface the capitol and leave their garbage all around for others to clean up, but if the did, then yes they should be charged clean up. Secondly, the boy scouts to my knowledge do not have members threatening to kill or assault elected leaders, thus the need for increased security as some of these events
Furthermore, although many of these types of people I am talking about still live with their parents, it does not mean that the taxpayers still have to pick up for them... despite the fact they often behave like children.
Sure, Reagan. Is that why Walker's first eviction from the Capitol is going to be the solidarity singers, who have not so much as dropped a candy wrapper?
Post a Comment