posted
I'm kind of taking a couple days off from the NDY stuff to help support the national action here in Chicago - 500 disability activists "on a mission from ADAPT" (for the appropriate Chicago theme).
As luck would have it, today they targeted the American Medical Association, which has its headquarters here in Chicago.
posted
What are they being arrested for? Trespassing? Failure to obtain a permit to protest? I'm a little confused and can't find the info anywhere.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
In a protest like that, they're not *planning* on it, but there are people who are willing to go that far (refusing to move) if it comes to that. It's not at all uncommon for organizations to negotiate something - usually a firmly scheduled meeting - as a compromise. When something like that happens, it's great. The goal is to effect change, not to get arrested.
But people need to know that your people are willing to do that.
FWIW, I did not expect to be one of those organizations that would negotiate. The AMA likes to think of medical professionals as a law unto themselves - between tort reform and the quiet push to carve out exemptions from manslaughter prosecution, they really want to be free of accountability to a degree unmatched by any other segment of the population.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Stephen, do you have any response to this (a comment on on of the blogs the NDY blog linked to)?
quote:What your article fails to mention, is that thousands of people, including myself, who work in this building but NOT for the AMA were locked inside for hours because the protesters were blocking all the doors. No one could come in or leave; a woman was crying because she could not get past in order to pick her young child up form school. People missed appointments, flights and numerous other important commitments. This was not a "peaceful" protest. Last year, the protesters spit on those who entered and exited the building. I support anyones right to speak their voice, but why involve innocent people and disrupt their lives?
posted
I'm trying to imagine how they could keep me from leaving the building short of physically preventing the doors from opening.
Did they physically lock the doors? If so, major fire hazard. Such action deserves physical removal and criminal charges.
If they were just in the way, I would have pushed through - physically. My claustrophobia will not tolerate that.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dags, I don't know. I also wonder whether it was the activists themselves, or building security in response to their presence.
I tend to agree with you -- both on the basis of claustrophobia, and because I would have been the frantic mother who couldn't go pick up her kid.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
I don't have a reply. I'm not part of this action - not in planning or execution. At least some of your questions will be addressed by going back to the same blog entry, which now involves about twenty posts. A lot of the posts are from activists who were there.
BTW, I really don't want to cop out here - when NDY does an action I'm part of the decisionmaking team. I can and do answer as to why any given tactic gets adopted. I've encouraged activists involved in the protest to get engaged in the discussion on this particular blog and some have obliged. Just a reminder - it's here: ADAPT Storms the AMA
BTW - I think I've learned that giving a list of four demands to the media is two demands too many. Outside of the blog of the Chicago Reader, neither major paper and none of the tv stations mentioned the "conflict of interest" issues with nursing home ownership and investment by physicians.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:P.S. btw, we worked an agreement with the police to let people with urgent/emergent situations in and/or out on a case by case basis.
A case-by-case basis? That would REALLY piss me off. It means they are purposely taking power over others' right to leave the building, not just having that access denied as a side-effect of the demonstration.
Assuming that's the case, arrests were warranted. Without negotiation beyond "leave within X minutes (where X is small) or be arrested."
If I'm ever caught in a protest like this one seems to be - meaning intentional violation of the law to prevent my ability to move about - I most likely will sue. I've worked out the cause of action in both DC and Virginia.
I am not including traffic slowdowns/stops and restrictions that arise merely from the presence of crowds of people.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: I'm trying to imagine how they could keep me from leaving the building short of physically preventing the doors from opening.
Did they physically lock the doors? If so, major fire hazard. Such action deserves physical removal and criminal charges.
If they were just in the way, I would have pushed through - physically. My claustrophobia will not tolerate that.
If you can get enough people pressed together you'd be surprised how little headway you can make even if you resort to violence. Doors make that twice as likely.
But I personally would have tried to press through the crowd. If I had encountered any resistance that was not simply gravity in action, I would sue.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is very distressing to me. I definitely support the rights of the disabled and completely understand the desire to make a statement but I cannot condone or be supportive of the methods used. I can imagine myself being in that building, and my kids needing me and someone blocking my ability to get to my children. I think, like BlackBlade, I would have forced my way through the crowd and pressed charges against any protestor who forcibly tried to restrain or stop me.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah... it sounds like a worthy thing to protest, but what a way to do it. If I were trapped in a building by protesters, I wouldn't have any respect for them and it certainly wouldn't engender any sympathy for their cause... Some of the comments from folks claiming to be ADAPTers on the "ADAPT storms the AMA" were really just ridiculous.
although thanks sndrake for bringing this up, I'd never heard of the whole disabled/nursing home/medicare issue. That's really interesting - and frightening - reading.
Posts: 57 | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
According to their blog, they're at it again today at a different location:
quote: CHICAGO - A group of disabled protesters is blocking access to elevators and escalators in a government office building in downtown Chicago.
A wall of wheelchairs is preventing occupants of the James R. Thompson Center from exiting or entering their offices, although people are being allowed into the building.
Man, and people call atheists "extremist" or "fundamentalist" for daring to talk and write about religion. When we start blockading churches and actually *doing* something rather than talk, then those terms will be justified Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
In reading the blog kmb, it appears that those who are most ticked off are also the same folks who were upset by the anti-war protests inconvienencing them also.
They write as if the world exists for their convience to begin with... when there aren't really any guarantees in life at all.
quote:These tens of thousands of people would give anything to be late to a community engagement, miss a flight or some other community commitment...because it would mean they were living free lives like the ones some of the commenters may take casually for granted.
This statement is so condescending though. she makes it sound like these are casual things people missed. "Community engagement"? How about a mother trying to get to her children? That's not trivial! And missing flights is not trivial, how does this arrogant woman know it wasn't someone trying to fly home to see a critically ill parent, or whatever.
And even if it were some "trivial" thing I was late to - I still say protestors don't have the right to block my exit of a building regardless of who I work for or where I was intending to go.
I hope the people arrested are charged and punished to the fullest extent possible. This is ridiculous.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
kmbboots: I was referring to this thread where certain atheists are called extremists and fundamentalists, not due to what they're actually doing but due to what they're (supposedly) saying.
I'm contrasting that situation with this, since both groups in reality have rather moderate stances (at least from a superficial reading of a few pages of the blog, when judging this group).
I just find it a bit odd that one group can use forced detention and intimidation to further its goals whereas one group is writing books for its goals. Yet its the latter group that gets deemed extremist and dangerous.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Man, and people call atheists "extremist" or "fundamentalist" for daring to talk and write about religion
I'm sure no religious person says that on the basis of atheists writing about religion at all, more likely it is what sort of substance their writings contain.
quote:I just find it a bit odd that one group can use forced detention and intimidation to further its goals whereas one group is writing books for its goals. Yet its the latter group that gets deemed extremist and dangerous.
Why can't we lable both groups if they employed these illegal and more importantly inhumane measures extremists?
Also you may have forgotten two orgies of mass murder flying under the banner of atheism that are the French revolution and the founding of the PRC. The latter being what one historian called the greatest travesty in human history.
I'm sure everyone is comfortable calling THOSE atheists extremists and dangerous.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah...I think that discussions of methods is different than discussion of goals. We are mixing apples and oranges. A goal to change policies that impact people who have no choice in the matter is different than a goal to mock or insult peoples' personal faith decisions. Again, we have a distinction between trying to change how people behave and trying to change what people believe.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:ADAPT did a great job blocking all of the entrances/exits and generaly getting noticed, which I conclude is what a protest is all about.
Belle, if you felt a cause was of such importance that you would participate in a public protest to begin with, and wanted to gain visibility, what would you suggest?
I'm not diminishing the circumstances of the people in the building. However, as far as a non-violent protest goes, it seems to be one of the few ways you can go short of lying down in the street.
quote:Originally posted by BannaOj: They write as if the world exists for their convience to begin with... when there aren't really any guarantees in life at all.
There is no guarantee that some people might not steal your car.
However, if someone goes outside of the law and does that, you are perfectly justified in being angry, upset, and advocating that they be punished.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Belle, if you felt a cause was of such importance that you would participate in a public protest to begin with, and wanted to gain visibility, what would you suggest?
Assembly and protest outside the building with picketing, but no blocking of people's right to egress. A very visible protest, with the ability to get their message out, but not going so far as to violate the rights of people who did nothing to them.
I support their cause, I truly do - it's worthwhile - but blocking people's egress from a building is way too extreme. Get your message out, yes. Infringe on other people's rights to come and go from their place of business - no.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
So when Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat on the bus, was everyone else truly morally (not legally) justified in being angry and advocating that she should be punished?
AJ (to mucus, not Belle)
Posts: 11265 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It would be wonderful if there were ways for groups like this to get people's attention without inconveniencing them.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Belle, I hear you, and I'm thinking about it.
What if the city refuses to issue a permit? I know in the case of the anti-war-in-Iraq marches, the city pretty much refused the requests of the planners, and was going deny any decent march route no matter what. So the organizers went ahead and did it anyway, because they felt it was their right to assemble and protest and the city of Chicago was wrong. (Mind you if it had been a Union protest of some kind, the City probably would have allowed the unions to march, down the optimal routes for visibility)
I don't know how much of this was in play with this disability rights group, but knowing that stuff like that goes on constantly in Chicago, thissort of action may have been one of the few ways to gain higher profile visibility, directed at a particular target.
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: It would be wonderful if there were ways for groups like this to get people's attention without inconveniencing them.
Inconveniencing them, as in making it impossible to not notice or be exposed to their message? Or inconceniencing them, as in making it a matter of you coming and going at their convenience?
It's strange to me that in this day and age where we are connected as a globe more tightly then at any other point in history that people are arguing there is no way to spread one's message and have it heard.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I'm sure no religious person says that on the basis of atheists writing about religion at all, more likely it is what sort of substance their writings contain.
Incorrect.
quote:Why can't we lable both groups if they employed these illegal and more importantly inhumane measures extremists?
Writing books and selling DVDs is illegal and extreme? I know where you're coming from, but there are specific examples in that thread and its linked articles where specific writers such as Dawkins are labelled extremists for those specific actions.
quote: Also you may have forgotten two orgies of mass murder flying under the banner of atheism that are the French revolution and the founding of the PRC. The latter being what one historian called the greatest travesty in human history.
I'm sure everyone is comfortable calling THOSE atheists extremists and dangerous.
Well, at least you didn't Godwin the thread, thank goodness for small favours
But seriously, *what* is a banner of atheism? What does it even look like? If I went back in time to the French Revolution and the PRC would I be able to pick those out? Nope.
Those people were flying real banners, the French revolutionary flag, the PRC flag and waving Mao's red book.
Those movements were as "atheist" as much as the founding of the United States was "Christian".
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:It would be wonderful if there were ways for groups like this to get people's attention without inconveniencing them.
Yet again, someone calls blocking egress from a building an "inconvenience." It's not at all - it can be extremely, extremely serious. If I have to pick up my child and I can't get to them, then they are abandoned, alone - which is child endangerment, depending on the age of the child.
What if someone in that building were a cancer patient on their way to a chemo treatment? What if they were on their way to an interview at their university that would determine whether or not they would be admitted to the academic program they needed? What if their mother was very ill, and calling from a doctor's office needing them to come get her so she could be driven to the hospital?
All of those are things that have happened to me, recently - things that were I prevented from accomplishing them it would have been far more than an "inconvenience." Some of the people posting on the blog talk about a mother crying because she was being prevented from going to pick up her children - I don't call that a mere "inconvenience".
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think it is a case of spreading the message so that it is "heard" but taking action to influence actual change. Lots of things are heard and ignored every day.
Posts: 11265 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BannaOj: So when Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat on the bus, was everyone else truly morally (not legally) justified in being angry and advocating that she should be punished?
Thats a red herring. Rosa Parks defied a law that she disagreed with by flouting the law in question.
These activists are disagreeing with a law (or a series of regulations about long term care) that are completely separate from the law that they are breaking.
People are not justified in randomly picking people and laws to flout to make a point. This was an obviously peaceful (but unjust) demonstration. However, one can easily see where the extreme goes.
BB made my concluding point for me, there are many ways of obtaining publicity and exposure these days, especially for worthy causes such as this. However, their chosen methods ended up almost like extortion.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
BlackBlade, I think there are a lot of ways for some people to spread their messages. Wealthy corporations, for example, can make commercials and buy air time. But most of us are not going to pay much attention to smaller causes that don't immediately effect us. What might you suggest for a group with limited resources?
And there is a lot of grey area. Is someone who works for, say, a company dumping toxic waste, sufficiently complicit in that company's activities that they should bear some inconvenience when people protest their activities? What if is is someone who doesn't make policy? It gets complicated.
I don't know that blocking entrances was a good tactic here. It just isn't black and white.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I understand your one to one corellation of directly breaking a law connected to the issue vs breaking a different one.
I just don't know how these disability protesters could break a "law" specifically associated with what their cause is because there isn't a one to one corellation...
Posts: 11265 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
Um...correct? Well here I'll be gracious, I am SURE there are religious people who are so close minded the mere fact an atheist is writing about religion leads them to assume it must be something along the lines of, "put all the god fearing in jail, they are dangerous."
quote:Writing books and selling DVDs is illegal and extreme? I know where you're coming from, but there are specific examples in that thread and its linked articles where specific writers such as Dawkins are labelled extremists for those specific actions.
I was referencing blocking buildings and molesting it's occupants.
quote:Those people were flying real banners, the French revolutionary flag, the PRC flag and waving Mao's red book.
Those movements were as "atheist" as much as the founding of the United States was "Christian".
If atheists shouldn't have to own up to communism and the French revolution don't ask Christians to own up to the Crusades, the Inquisition, or Fred Phelps. If you have never done that, this does not apply to you.
But I am curious, why don't you think the founding of the PLA and the Chinese Communist Party are examples of atheism?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
BannaOj: I'm a bit sketchy on this point, but my interpretation is that they want equal Medicaid money for care at home as in institutions such as nursing homes. (Completely, aside I'm not sure if this is entirely possible, if only for economies of scale, especially since Medicaid is only for lower-income people(?) ... but it does sound like a worthy goal)
So one could directly protest by refusing to go to these nursing homes, restraining themselves to their homes when someone tries to take them away, going on hunger strikes if they do not receive compensation for living at home, etc.
Admittedly, these are not as fun as "storming the AMA", but one could certainly argue that they might be more sympathetically received than blockades and demands.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:But I am curious, why don't you think the founding of the PLA and the Chinese Communist Party are examples of atheism?
Because atheism is a simple attribute - non-belief in deity. That's it. There's no dogma, scripture, prophets or temples. Nothing about atheism requires any particular action.
The Chinese Communist Party was also formed by men, but I don't consider it a male movement either.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:But I am curious, why don't you think the founding of the PLA and the Chinese Communist Party are examples of atheism?
Because atheism is a simple attribute - non-belief in deity. That's it. There's no dogma, scripture, prophets or temples. Nothing about atheism requires any particular action.
The Chinese Communist Party was also formed by men, but I don't consider it a male movement either.
OK then if it's not atheism what would you call the belief that, "There is no God and religious people are dangerous or at best an obstacle in the way of a neccessary action, and need to renounce religion or die?" Is that not enough substance to warrant its own term?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thought y'all should know. An agreement was reached with the Governor.
*The governor has agreed to meet with ADAPT by no later than October 17th. *There will be no re-opening of Lincoln Developmental Center as a residence for people with disabilities during the present administration. *Rahnee Patrick (Chicago ADAPT activist) will be an ADAPT liaison on the Governor's "Money Follows the Person" Advisory Committee. (caveat - I got all this in a rushed phone call with lots of background noise so there might be some details slightly off that will be edited later.)
If anyone thinks other avenues could have achieved the same outcome, it's because you have no idea of the time, energy and advocacy that have been put into achieving these very goals with the Governor for months - to no avail.
I am still collecting my thoughts on motivations, tactics and related issues and will probably post in the morning when I have time before helping with the press and internet stuff.
One thing, as I've shared here in some thread or other - almost every person I know who uses a wheelchair has had a cup of favorite beverage ruined when enjoying outside. Someone passes by, sees the chair, sees the cup and tosses change in. They didn't look closely enough to see this was a person's drink they were soiling.
I'm willing to bet that not *one* person at the protests yesterday or today had a cup of beverage ruined by someone tossing change in their cup.
An irreverant and irrelevant thought. Or maybe not.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: So one could directly protest by refusing to go to these nursing homes, restraining themselves to their homes when someone tries to take them away, going on hunger strikes if they do not receive compensation for living at home, etc.
Admittedly, these are not as fun as "storming the AMA", but one could certainly argue that they might be more sympathetically received than blockades and demands.
But it wouldn't get much attention and attention is what is needed for policy change.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:OK then if it's not atheism what would you call the belief that, "There is no God and religious people are dangerous or at best an obstacle in the way of a neccessary action, and need to renounce religion or die?" Is that not enough substance to warrant its own term?
Could be, but only the first four words of that statement address atheism. The rest represent some other ideology or subcomponent of an ideology, like Maoism.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
sndrake I just wanted to let you know that Diane's and your personal examples has let me to re-evaluate my thoughts on some of these things.
At Kama Con, when we walked to a restraunt for dinner, Diane wouldn't let anyone even boost her wheelchair up a curb. As an able person at the time, in some ways I felt hurt. Why was she refusing something that I could do so easily for her, and make everyone's life easier?
But that wasn't the point. I see it now. The point was, that according to the laws of this country she *should* be able to do it herself. Refusing help up a curb (that should have been handicap accessible but wasn't), and taking the long way around is one way to visibly demonstrate that and take power back in her every day life. If she accepts help, however well-meaning, it errodes what little freedom she has.
quote: If anyone thinks other avenues could have achieved the same outcome, it's because you have no idea of the time, energy and advocacy that have been put into achieving these very goals with the Governor for months - to no avail.
This may not be exactly what you're saying, but the implication seems to be "These methods are OK because they worked." That justification seems incredibly dangerous to me. If something else illegal, like say kidnapping the governor's children, had worked for the admirable social goals it was trying to achieve would that be okay?
I'm glad that progress was made, but I don't think the ends necessarily justify the means here.
I'm completely with Dagonnee on my response if I was inside the building. If I needed to leave the protestors would need to physically restrain me to prevent me from doing so, which would be immediately followed by a call to the police and/or a lawsuit.
posted
I suspect that most people wouldn't be nearly so upset if the protesters had blocked access to people trying to get in to the building. It's detaining people who want to get out that's upsetting. I hadn't thought about the fire hazard aspect, but that's a good point, too.
Why was it necessary to keep people from leaving? Refusing to let people into the building, particularly if done early enough in the day that a majority of people who work there would not be able to get in, would have been pretty effective, I'd think.
I don't buy the argument that if something bad happens to you, you therefore have the right to do it to others. It's appalling what has happened to many disabled people. However, it almost seems that some of the protesters posting on the blog are devaluing the people that they trapped in the building. Yes, it was a lesser offense than what has been done to disabled people. I still think it was wrong.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I could see inconveniencing people on their way in and out. . . parking the wheelchairs in staggered rows so that people had to wind through them, making them slow down and think/acknowledge what was going on. Or standing in rows in front of the entrances to create "cattle runs" like before airport security, so it impeded entrance and exit but didn't actually stop it. But this:
quote:A wall of wheelchairs is preventing occupants of the James R. Thompson Center from exiting or entering their offices, although people are being allowed into the building.
Strikes me as basically false imprisonment. And no, I don't think that's okay, regardless of what other tactics have been tried and failed.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, I feel really conflicted because I do appreciate that the goal was accomplished, and I'm sympathetic that it took a long time to get there and was a frustrating experience for the activists, but I still cannot condone this.
I don't care how long it's taken or how difficult it's been, that doesn't justify the kinds of actions done here. My conflict is even more extreme in that while I'm simultaneously glad that the demands were met, I'm also angry that this tactic succeeded because that means, of course, it will be used again.
If I recall my history correctly, Rosa Parks bravely refused to give up her seat, she did not prevent anyone from exiting the bus. There are ways to get your point across that do not require you to infringe upon the rights of other people, especially people who had nothing to do with the situation you're protesting.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:If she accepts help, however well-meaning, it erodes what little freedom she has.
I'm not sure that logic works, given that Diane's generally supportive of public aid. Why in the name of "freedom" would someone endorse taxing people and/or legislating mandatory assistance but choose to turn down freely offered help from an individual?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
