Twelvepole
|
posted on March 27, 2003 11:37:45 AM new
In many cities anti-war protestors are costing the cities extra money and expense, due to the fact that they are not "peaceably" marching or just protesting... shutting down streets and services is not something to be proud of...
I think the cities should begin fining anyone arrested in connection with a protest, that breaks the law... lets see over thousand in SF .... at lets say $5,000 fine each... $5 mil would do wonders for the coffers of SF... and I mean any protestor pro-troop or anti-war...
I use anti-war as they are the most common law breakers during protesting.
|
Linda_K
|
posted on March 27, 2003 12:18:30 PM new
I'd go along with that. If they disrupt business/government/people trying to earn a living, by protesting un-peacefully, then they should be held accountable.
What gives me a sad chuckle is these are supposedly the same people who want more of our tax dollars to be spent on the poor and needy. So...I sure don't understand why they'd do things that costs any city so much money, when those same funds that COULD go to the needy, will now be used for other purposes created by their unlawful protesting.
I know after the SF protests, they said it cost the city $900,000. I believe that was for just one weekend. These people excuse their behavior by saying things like "We tried email all our elected representatives and it didn't go any good...we voted and it didn't do any good...so we're taking this route to be heard." If we all lived by this thinking we'd all be breaking the law. Society has established laws for a reason. And when they're in the minority, and feel they're not being 'heard' it does not mean they can do whatever they'd like to. Such nonsence.
Then these anti-American anti-war so-called 'peace' protester organizers set out and planned to shut down the city of Manhattan in the same manner.
|
donny
|
posted on March 27, 2003 12:35:55 PM new
"Support our Troops" rallies also cost money, so we can't have those. Bush went down to Florida yesterday for some PR thing with the Air Force. That costs money, so he can't do that any more. Blair came over to have face time with Bush. That cost money, can't have that either. The war is costing more than all those combined, better stop that too.
|
Linda_K
|
posted on March 27, 2003 12:39:41 PM new
Matter of fact...here's a Washington Post article about the Manhattan protesters.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A36682-2003Mar27.html
Anti-war groups had called for a day of widespread civil disobedience, including blocking busy intersections and staging a "die-in" to protest media and corporate "profiteering from the war."
The anti-war demonstrations are costing the city millions of dollars in police overtime and drawing resources away from crime-fighting and anti-terrorism operations, Police Commissioner Ray Kelly said Wednesday.
"This is more than protest, more than free speech," Kelly said. "We're talking about violating the law."
|
Linda_K
|
posted on March 27, 2003 12:44:34 PM new
Not the same thing at all, Donny. Are they practicing civil-disobedience? No. Are they keeping people from going to their jobs/earning a living for themselves and their family? No. Are they damaging businesses, being destructive? No.
The right they have is to protest 'peacefully' and in the areas their 'permit' okayed. Not to block streets etc. Breaking the law is not being peaceful.
|
DeSquirrel
|
posted on March 27, 2003 01:00:20 PM new
If you want to have a protest you could be required to post a security deposit that would be used if the city had to clean up the park.
To have a march you could be required to post a bond and provide security. If your security people can't stop the destruction of property, the bond could be used to cover the damage to people's property.
|
Twelvepole
|
posted on March 27, 2003 09:23:26 PM new
PORTLAND -- Portland officials say anti-war protests that shut down streets and bridges have cost the city between $100,000 and $200,000 a day.
If the number of protests continues at the same pace, that number will rise sharply and the city could spend $5.7 million by April to handle demonstrations; $4 million of that pays police overtime. Portland Mayor Vera Katz says the city is monitoring the additional expenses because at some point, the other city services could suffer.
Paying police overtime could drop the city's year-end contingency fund from $7.3 million to $3.3 million.
(Copyright 2003 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)
I say fine 'em and fine 'em hard...
AIN'T LIFE GRAND... 
|
yeager
|
posted on March 28, 2003 01:42:56 AM new
Twelvepole,
I agree completely with the idea of fining the protestors who break the law. The city could impse a surety bond of XXX and if you are arrested, then you forefit the money.
I personally don't believe in abortion. When I see a person who supports the pro-life position on TV, who has bombs abortion clinics, I see a person who needs to go to prison. These people sometimes go to extremes to make their point.
There is absolutely NO REASON to break the law when protesting. There is no positive outcome.
|
donny
|
posted on March 28, 2003 03:22:42 AM new
"Not the same thing at all, Donny. Are they practicing civil-disobedience? No. Are they keeping people from going to their jobs/earning a living for themselves and their family? No. Are they damaging businesses, being destructive? No."
Note, Linda, that one of the things I said would have to be stopped, under the "costing money" criteria was the war.
Is the war keeping people from going to their jobs/earning a living for themselves and their family? Yes. Is the war damaging businesses, being destructive? Yes.
The reasons why protest shouldn't be allowed are as varied and shifting as the justifications for this war. It's about disarmament/showing a united front/regime change/supporting the troops/respect for the president/liberating Iraqis/starting a domino effect of Middle East democracy (my personal favorite)/not disrupting the flow of commerce/9-11. Two things they're never about - controlling the oil and stifling the Constitutionally protected right of dissent.
As to civil disobedience, we seem to be a bit confused about what civil disobedience means.
civil disobedience
NOUN: Refusal to obey civil laws in an effort to induce change in governmental policy or legislation, characterized by the use of passive resistance or other nonviolent means.
Note, it involves nonviolent means. While violent means of protest can certainly be worse than the actions they seek to change, civil disobedience can be a pretty honorable thing, as espoused by Thoreau and practiced by Ghandi, Martin Luther King, and Rosa Parks, among others.
"I became convinced that noncooperation with evil is as much a moral obligation as is cooperation with good. No other person has been more eloquent and passionate in getting this idea across than Henry David Thoreau. As a result of his writings and personal witness, we are the heirs of a legacy of creative protest." - Martin Luther King, Jr, from his Autobiography, Chapter 2
|
gravid
|
posted on March 28, 2003 04:09:45 AM new
To bad they didn't have you to guide them during the civil rights movement. You'd a slapped those uppity niggers right in jail when they couldn't pay the $5k fine and stopped all that silly nonesense.
|
thchaser200
|
posted on March 28, 2003 04:19:23 AM new
I quess the civil disobedience will when someone has a break problem and takes out a few of the protesters laying in the road.
It is only a matter of time.
As for the New York protesters laying in the road, a night in Rykers Island will solve that.
|
Twelvepole
|
posted on March 28, 2003 05:24:27 AM new
I am glad you are so narrow minded as to think this is even comparable to the civil rights movement there gravid...
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
|
Linda_K
|
posted on March 28, 2003 06:37:48 AM new
gravid - I find your post using a racial term offensive. Un-necessary, imo, to make your point. 
|
fiset
|
posted on March 28, 2003 08:08:02 AM new
I have no problem with organized protests but agree that when they disrupt business and travel or incur large expenses to the city in terms of lost revenue, police overtime, etc., the protestors should have to help foot the bill.
Also, I find Gravid's post puzzling. I'm not sure I see the nexus between my opinion on this issue and me being a racist. Maybe thats not what he meant but thats how it comes across.
|
tomyou
|
posted on March 28, 2003 09:02:11 AM new
Gravid, what a idiotic statement. With any luck a moderator will be directed to it and you can have a nice hiatus for your less than tasteful language. If one isn't smart enough to make their point with out having to resort to that kind a racial language then they have no use to this board. Bottom line : I wonder if any of theses protesters have stopped to think about the traffic issue they are casuing. perhap an emergency vehicle such as an ambulance of fire truck is being delayed because of some fools laying in the road. This could lead to a tragic conclussion of an unwarrented death which seems to defeat the reason of the protest in the first place doesn't it. After all isn't there protest against needless death and this is the Exact situation they are creating. As most of you Know I am pro war with multiple family memebers on the lines in Iraq but I have no issues with peacful demonstrtion without disruptions but being a Fool is no way to support your cause.
|
Helenjw
|
posted on March 28, 2003 09:14:53 AM new
Gravid made a good point.
Poor protesters would risk jail because of inability to pay the substantial fine that twelvepole suggested.
Similarly, in the south, the poor black's right to vote was discouraged by poll taxes.
Civil rights should not be supressed by fear of fines or jail.
Helen
BTW...Gravid was not using the term in a derogatory manner. The term used by gravid accruately describes a southern view of black protesters.
|
antiquary
|
posted on March 28, 2003 09:51:08 AM new
Reading in context, Gravid is not stating *his* view of blacks protesting for civil rights, but rather the prejudicial mindset of those who would deny blacks, or others with whom they disagree, the right to protest. Unfortunately such narrow and prejudicial attitudes continue with a small segment of the society today.
|
Linda_K
|
posted on March 28, 2003 10:01:17 AM new
antiquary - We understand the context....doesn't excuse the word usage. You defended Borillar when he referred to Colin Powell using the same racial slur. It's not necessary to make any point. I thought we, as a people, we all above that.
|
tomyou
|
posted on March 28, 2003 10:06:17 AM new
Coming from you that shouldn't really surprise me helen. Using that method that means if you can't afford to accpet responsibilty for your actions that you have no responsibility for you actions. breaking the law is breaking the law regardless of social standing.I happen be in the south and that in no way describes the way I or anyone else I know view "black Protestors" Believe it or not most view any protestor as a "protestor" I don't happen to categorize them as you seem to no matter what the cause or ethnic make up of said protest. SOME really should stick to their cut and paste methods because they do themselves no favors when they try to speak. It also really has little to do with the intent of the thread. Financial status has nothing to do with breaking the law. Everyone blast that some of these protestors are everyday doctors, moms, and lawyers and they should all be treated and FINED the same when the law is broken and civil disobedience is the result. Their is a huge difference in a "peaceful " protest and the blatent disregard for the law and other well being.
[ edited by tomyou on Mar 28, 2003 10:10 AM ]
|
antiquary
|
posted on March 28, 2003 10:12:25 AM new
There is no racial slur, however much you would *like* for others to think so, Linda.
|
fiset
|
posted on March 28, 2003 10:14:42 AM new
"Civil rights should not be supressed by fear of fines or jail."
I haven't seen a single person suggest that protests shouldn't be allowed. The issue at hand is how to handle the economic consequences of some protests, especially those that disrupt businesses and emergency services.
How about my rights if I'm a business owner on Fifth Avenue here in Manhattan and my business is shut down because protesters are effectively denying access to my establishment?
|
Linda_K
|
posted on March 28, 2003 10:22:12 AM new
antiquary - It's a derogatory, hatefull word.
BTW...Gravid was not using the term in a derogatory manner. The term used by gravid accruately describes a southern view of black protesters.
Now our resident far left liberal is speaking FOR the 'southern view of black protesters'. You have no right to 'speak' for others.
|
Helenjw
|
posted on March 28, 2003 10:24:33 AM new
Linda, How about the name of a book that I sold on Ebay by Joseph Conrad. Although I was able to use the term on Ebay, I hesitate to mention the title because the posters here with their hot little fingers on the moderator email button would take the word out of context and attempt to dump another poster. Soon, all dissenting posters will be removed and you will be talking to yourself.
Helen
|
fiset
|
posted on March 28, 2003 10:25:25 AM new
"There is no racial slur, however much you would *like* for others to think so, Linda."
This may be surprising but some of us "others" you refer to don't base our opinions on what Linda (or anyone else) would *like* us to think.
Gravid used a racial slur in a way that suggests those of us who think fining certain protestors in certain situations view the civil rights protestors with that same racial slur. I find that suggestion offensive.
|
Helenjw
|
posted on March 28, 2003 10:30:23 AM new
Linda
"Now our resident far left liberal is speaking FOR the 'southern view of black protesters'. You have no right to 'speak' for others."
I am not speaking FOR the southern view. I am stating that based on my experience, gravid's terminology describes a prejudiced view that some southerners hold.
BTW...Note that I said "a" view which does not encompass the entire southern population.
ed. to add, that some southerners hold
[ edited by Helenjw on Mar 28, 2003 10:35 AM ]
|
Helenjw
|
posted on March 28, 2003 10:53:05 AM new
Recently, an unpopular poster was called a "Nazi bastard".
The poster who made that allegation is still among us.
Why? The answer is that the hot fingered group didn't care about that.
Helen
sp.edit
[ edited by Helenjw on Mar 28, 2003 11:17 AM ]
|
antiquary
|
posted on March 28, 2003 10:56:56 AM new
antiquary - It's a derogatory, hatefull word.
Yes, it is. As is bigot, nazi, fascist, etc. Some use words like liberal, protest, etc., with that same connotation.
However, none of any of that relates to the usage of the word in a specific context. In the context, Gravid himself makes no racial slur.
He only identifies a particular mindset.
|
Helenjw
|
posted on March 28, 2003 11:01:12 AM new
How about my rights if I'm a business owner on Fifth Avenue here in Manhattan and my business is shut down because protesters are effectively denying access to my establishment?
That's a cost of doing business. It's a tax deductible business expense....if uncovered by your insurance.
The problem of emergency vehicles is the responsibility of police who approved the parade route. I believe that they usually maintain either a detour or a lane for emergencies.
Helen
|
tomyou
|
posted on March 28, 2003 11:18:29 AM new
Thanks for proving twelvepoles point. that it is "the responsibilty of the police" and thats the point of the post. It is the responsibility of the police to arrest and fine those who choose to put themselves above the law and the well being of others.And that is for any kind of protest on either side of any issue .
[ edited by tomyou on Mar 28, 2003 11:21 AM ]
|
Linda_K
|
posted on March 28, 2003 11:22:24 AM new
Excuses, excuses.
|
