On Saturday I joined about 200 people for a volunteer-led rally in Fall River MA (we were not paid) whose purpose was to ensure that our Representatives and Senators know the American people won’t sit idly by as Congress sells out working class America.
It was one of many held throughout the United State.
I knew a number of people, but I did not know most. I assumed we were all on the same page, and did not anticipate anything going wrong.
There was to be no yelling. There wasn’t.
We were to stay on the sidewalk. We did.
We were not to react to anything aggressive that we might encounter from a passer-by. We didn’t have to worry about that.
At the end of the two hours we departed.
Last week I was at a rally in downtown Boston; the week before I stood with others in a Wall pf Peace and Compassion outside the mosque in Boston; and before that, I as at the Boston Women’s March.
Just as in all the past such events I have attended, the crowd had intended to be peaceful and was.
But, not knowing everyone, it was a hope filled assumption that everyone would remain calm and peaceful and would cooperate with the proscription toward violence.
But people being people, and people having their own issues and various levels of self-control, there was always the possibility someone could act stupid in the excitement of the moment.
I have been at events where people with opposite viewpoints have approached rally participants attempting to get people riled by yelling things, but the rule of “don’t engage” usually kept things from escalating.
I have also been at events where security has prevented people not involved with the sponsoring group from starting trouble either because they thought that would be funny, or they wanted the group to look bad.
Most standouts and demonstrations have a message they do not want to get lost in something unrelated.
It has been obvious since Trump became president that people are not happy with his diarrhea of executive orders, his rolling back of people’ rights and the appointment to the position of heads of a departments people with a history of working against those very departments.
So it is a given that people will continue to exercise their right to peaceful assembly and express their opposition to things being done.
The First Amendment, which is just as important as the Second says.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”.
Rather than taking the steps to ensure that executive orders are based on the Constitution, ending the stream of attacks on people’s rights, and thinking more carefully about who gets to be in charge of what, Republican lawmakers in at least 18 states have introduced or voted on legislation to curb mass protests.
Now it may be reasonable to act against protests that purposely block traffic or set out from the get-go to destroy something, but it goes a little too far when a law allows for the seizure of assets of people who are involved in a protest that later turns violent even if the group holding the protest is not the instigator of any violence, and those whose assets are seized are merely present and not involved in the violence.
Want to squash people’s expression? Just send some plants to a peaceful protest, have them act up, and the protest is shut down and the organizers are theoretically dissuaded for any future action.
The justification for the laws?
“You now have a situation where you have full-time, quasi-professional agent-provocateurs that attempt to create public disorder,”
according to State Senator John Kavanagh of Arizona.
Ignoring that people have something to say, Kavanagh wants people to believe there would be no protests if people weren’t hired to participate in them, basing this claim on nothing more than his saying it. If this were true, what was the cost to whoever it was who paid all those people who attended all those Women’s Marches.
“The Supreme Court has gone out of its way on multiple occasions to point out that streets, sidewalks and public parks are places where [First Amendment] protections are at their most robust,” said Lee Rowland, a senior attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union.
When he was at the African-American Heritage Museum Trump said he likes all those states that voted for him with double double digits. They are Southern ones, and it is interesting that laws, such as these latest ones came up there before when people rallied for rights and redress of government wrongs.
Certain drugs for the treatment of HIV infection or AIDS Certain drugs used for fungal of yeast infections, like fluconazole, itraconazole, ketoconazole, and generic levitra cheap voriconazole Cimetidine Erythromycin Rifampin Side Effects : Negative effects that you should are accountable to your doctor or perhaps health care professional asap: allergic reactions like pores and skin rash, scratching or perhaps hives, swelling of the face, lip, or tongue. breathing difficulties changes in hearing changes throughout. Students are familiarized with the ultimate examination by rewarding specific check out for source tadalafil sales online questionnaires. It’s like one of the many you see generic viagra in stores around the mouths of long-term smokers, or on grumpy people who express their displeasure by frequently pursing their lips. Later the dosage can be view description lowest prices for cialis increased to get increased efficiency in results. As Douglas McAdam, a Stanford sociology professor who studies protest movements. Explained,
“For instance, southern legislatures — especially in the Deep South — responded to the Montgomery Bus Boycott (and the Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education) with dozens and dozens of new bills outlawing civil rights groups, limiting the rights of assembly, etc. all in an effort to make civil rights organizing more difficult.”
“Similarly,” he added, “laws designed to limit or outlaw labor organizing or limit labor rights were common in the late 19th/early 20th century.”
The overriding purpose of the latest round of proposed laws is to create self-censorship among protesters who have every intention of obeying existing laws.
Even Trump’s accusations of “paid” or “professional” agitators, have been leveled at protesters before.
“This is standard operating procedure for movement opponents,” McAdam said. “Civil rights workers were said to be ‘outside agitators, and the tea party was dismissed as an ‘AstroTurf’ phenomenon — funded from on high by the Koch brothers and others — rather than a legitimate ‘grass roots’ movement. In all these cases, including the present, the charges are generally bogus, with the vast majority of protesters principled individuals motivated by the force of deeply held values and strong emotion.”
This is a list of states proposing these new, mostly unnecessary laws:
Arizona would open up protests to anti-racketeering legislation, targeting protesters with the same laws used to combat organized crime syndicates. Police could seize the assets of anyone involved in a protest that at some point becomes violent.
Colorado would strengthen penalties for “tampering” with oil and gas equipment.
Florida Republican and state senator George Gainer wants to provide criminal penalties for protesters obstructing traffic and exempt drivers from liability if they struck a protester under certain conditions. A form of vehicular Stand Your Ground with the similarly convenient defense for harming another.
The Georgia Senate wants to increase penalties for blocking “any highway, street, sidewalk or other public passage.”
Iowa wants to make protesters who intentionally block highways subject to felony charges and up to five years in prison.
Indiana originally wanted to allow police to shut down highway protests using “any means necessary”, but a Senate committee toned that down a bit to police issuing fines for such behavior.
Michigan wants to increase fines for certain “mass picketing” behavior, and made it easier for courts to shut down such demonstrations.
Minnesota would increase fines for protesters blocking highways and airports with a separate measure holding the protesters to the costs of policing the protests.
Missouri wants to make it illegal for protesters to wear masks, robes or other disguises during protests deemed to be illegal. This would not go over too well with the Klan, I’m sure.
Mississippi would make obstruction of traffic a felony punishable by a $10,000 fine and five years in prison.
A North Carolina Republican has said he wants to introduce legislation making it a crime to “threaten, intimidate or retaliate against” current or former state officials.
North Dakota is considering a few bills that would remove penalties for motorists who hit a protester with a car in some circumstances. These bills are in response to the long-standing protests there against the Dakota Access Pipeline.
The Oklahoma legislature is considering a bill that would increase penalties for trespassing on certain pieces of “critical infrastructure” like pipelines and railways.
Oregon would require public community colleges and universities to expel any student convicted of participating in a violent riot.
Because of the Dakota Access Pipeline protests, a senate panel in South Dakota approved a bill that would increase penalties for certain acts of trespassing and blocking highways, and included the potential for similar protests in South Dakota if the Keystone XL Pipeline goes forward.
A Tennessee Republican also wants to protect drivers if they inadvertently strike a protester who is blocking a roadway. Now you can say you felt threatened if you run a protester down.
Virginia wanted to increase penalties for people who refused to leave the scene of a riot or unlawful protest, but that idea died in the state senate last month.
Washington state lawmakers, claiming it Is “Economic Terrorism” (the use of terrorism makes an action seem more threatening that it is) want to increase penalties for people blocking highways and railways.
Reactionary laws are not actually good ones.
And it is interesting that the Republicans proposing these law were put in power by the Tea Party and now seem to forget what the Tea Party was.