posted
One year ago, A group called United for Peace and Justice request a permit to hold a rally in Central Park this weekend in protest of the RNC. Five months ago, the city denied the permit on the grounds that too many people would come which would damage the great lawn in Central Park. The group anticipate 250,000 people would attend the rally and larger gatherings have been permitted in Central Park in the past. For the past 5 months, United for Peace and Justice has been working with (fighting with) the city to get a permit for the rally, ultimately taking the case to court. Earlier this week, the court's denied the permit and United for Peace and Justice announced that they would hold the March for which they have a permit but would not hold the organized rally.
In a recent pole, 80% of the residents of Manhattan said they felt the rally should be permitted. Thousands have said they would gather in Central Park even without the permit.
I am a trained activist Peace Keeper and routinely work at local non-violent rallies. My job is to keep non-violent protests from turning violent so I have a pretty clear idea what kind of things are likely to turn cause tensions to excalate. It seems to me that NYC is doing everything it can to set up an incindiary situation.
Are they trying to provoke a 1968 style riot in hopes that it will increase voters sympathy for the Republican agenda or are they simply so naive about crowd dynamics that they are acting like fools?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
First, is this policy one NYC has enforced before? Have they allowed 250,000 in central park before? If they have, did they chang the policy in a documented manner before this group applied?
If this policy is legitimate, than giving into extortion doesn't seem like a sound policy to me, no matter what crowd dynamic experts say.
posted
250,000 people people in Central Park is a huge amount. I'm trying to recall how many were there for the opening of Disney's Pocahontas (my company built the movie screen), and I think it was roughly that number.
I would think that you need permits, and that you've got to put some $$$ up as escrow against repair costs for the Great Lawn, police presence, etc.
Political-wise, they should be allowed; logistics-wise, it seems like the NYC administrators pushed things off so that it woulld become impractical and physically unwise to hold the rally.
Don't forget, though: the estimates for the number of people at a political rally are typically doubled by those holdig the rally, and halved by the police and news media.
"Help Help! I've been proked by a pole!"
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: The group anticipate 250,000 people would attend the rally and larger gatherings have been permitted in Central Park in the past.
I think she already answered all of your questions but the last, Dagonee. And even if the policy was changed 'legitimately', it's still quite possible that they did so in order to, one might say, unfairly prevent the protestors from protesting the RNC.
OT, this is just the latest in a long series of biased actions by a municipality against protestors.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Whatever else it may be doing, NYC is most likely not trying to garner favor for Republicans. It's been a Democrat stronghold for a large part of my lifetime.
More likely, the cause for denial of the permit has its roots in some arcane plan to somehow make money.
Posts: 471 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Don't concerts in the park sometimes top 500,000? I'm thinking Simon & Garfunkle and Garth Brooks here . . .
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
With respect to Rabbit's professed expertise, it is entirely possible the administrators are nervous about allowing any large group of protestors to assemble.
By the nature of protesting, it's an organized negative commentary with a bunch of like-minded individuals.
Individual peacekeepers notwithstanding, it wouldn't take much for a mob mind to break out and turn a peaceful crowd into a logistical nightmare.
And given the tensions simmering over Republicans and the current state of affairs, I can't fault the police and the Administrative 'crats for attempting to err on the side of caution.
posted
Although New York is a traditional Democratic strong hold, the current Mayor, Michael Bloomberg, ran on the republican ticket.
I also couldn't fault the city police and administrators if they had erred on the side of caution, I believe they have done exactly the opposite.
The protest march has been permitted and tens of thousands of people will participate in the march. Without declaring a state of emergency, the city of New York can not legally stop the march. By refusing to give a permit to the organizers for the rally that would have followed the march, they have set up a highly explosive situation. At the end of the March, the tens to hundreds of thousands of protesters will simply be on there own. Many will gather in Central Park and other public areas. While the peace keeping measures rally organizers would have provided might not have been sufficient to prevent a riot, they would have been better than what will happen. NYC has set up a situation where mob mentality will nearly certainly happen. Whether this was intentional or inadvertant, they haven't erred on the side of caution.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It doesn't bode well that the peace activists warn that if they don't get their permit then a "mob mentality" will develop in a smaller, unorganized gathering after the march.
Why is it that the peace protesters here of lates do so much harm to the areas where they go to peacefully protest?
And let's face it, NYC is going to have its hands full with security for the RNC already, why add this looming threat of 250,000 unhappy protesters over their heads?
Why not have the protest in another city at the same time? You'd still get the exposure and attention? I mean, it's not like the people at the RNC are actually going to be listening to you just because you're in Central Park...
And trained Peace Keeper makes me wonder, where did the training come from? Purely from the protesting groups or did you also have law enforcement officers there to show how best not to provoke them as well?
From what I've seen recently, the "peaceful" protests actively try to provoke the police into violent action. Just go back and watch anything from the WTO meeting a couple of years ago.
Why should NYC believe you that this will be peaceful? Why? And who will pay for the damages? Even the most peaceful event will produce tons of trash strewn everywhere, destruction of the grass in that area of the park, and a huge parking nightmare around Central Park.
Heck, that week, why not give the folks of NYC who just want to go to the park and relax peacefully a chance to do that?
If those 250,000 prospective attendees would spend that time instead registering voters and honestly explaining their positions, they'd have a much more positive effect on the elections than any amount of protesting, no matter how much TV coverage they will get.
I guess it comes down to, quit moaning and shouting over the "man" and actually do something tangible for once.
As the T-shirt with George Bush's face on it said, "I'll bet you vote next time, Hippy!"
It's a hard truth, but it kind of cuts to the core of the situation. Doesn't it?
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think she already answered all of your questions but the last, Dagonee. And even if the policy was changed 'legitimately', it's still quite possible that they did so in order to, one might say, unfairly prevent the protestors from protesting the RNC.
OT, this is just the latest in a long series of biased actions by a municipality against protestors.
Without an answer to the last question, this can't be called biased. Maybe the changing security environment has made them reconsider.
And Rabbit, I'm sorry, but I've got absolutely no reason to accept your judgment on this over NY authorities, especially with no links to so called experts.
Especially when you set up a false dichotomy between censorship and incompetence without acknowledging any possibility of other reasons:
quote:Are they trying to provoke a 1968 style riot in hopes that it will increase voters sympathy for the Republican agenda or are they simply so naive about crowd dynamics that they are acting like fools?
Without answers as to when the policy changed and why, you can't know what the reasons are.
posted
Sop, you're missing the point here. While the questions of "why New York? Who's going to pay for the cleanup?" etc. are valid ones, they're moot at this point. There are going to be thousands, maybe over a hundred thousand people in that march. If you've ever been in a huge march, you know what it's like. It's an extremely active situation; you're moving, chanting, cheering, talking with people around you and generally feeding off the crowd. Once you're in that high and reach the finish line... everyone goes home? It wouldn't work, you can't snap back like that, there has to be a denouement. The rally isn't a place to bring people up even further, it's where the event winds down because it *isn't* active and it's planned to be a denouement. You sit, you listen, and you cheer at appropriate moments. The crowd bleeds off naturally over time. And, as an added bonus, you know where everyone is.
Do you see why skipping that could be a recipe for disaster?
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sop, I think you are completely wqrong about getting the same exposure and attention if the march/rally were in a different city. If the rally is sufficiently far away from the "main event", the march/rally will be a footnote, UNLESS they start torching things, which I don't think anyone here (and mostly anywhere) wants.
But to say they should march/rally in, say, Jersey City, and think they will get equivalent coverage of their grievances, seems to be more obliviousness than reality.
quote:If those 250,000 prospective attendees would spend that time instead registering voters and honestly explaining their positions, they'd have a much more positive effect on the elections than any amount of protesting, no matter how much TV coverage they will get.
How many peace activists do you know? Those that I know donate hundreds of hours annually to registering voters, speaking in public forums, teaching non-violence classes, and organizing workshops or seminars. Everyone of the peace activists I know has voted in every election since they reached the age of 18. Voter registration is one of the primary activities of al the peace groups I have worked with. Most of the peace rallies I've attended, have a table where people can register to vote.
We are not just a bunch of hippies. I am a middled aged professional who has never even had a beer let alone smoked dope. The peace group I work with includes people ranging frum 6 months old to over 80, muslims, sieks, jews, christians, new agers, pagans, athiests and agnostics. We are of every race and economic group.
The peace keeping organization I work with does non-violence and anger management classes for the state prison and other groups. We are trained in dealing with police and methods for reducing tensions between police and activists. Our relationship with the local police is generally good and we are usually able to accomodate their concerns at rallies. Sometimes a police officer will attempt to unlawfully restrict our rights for public assembly, use of public right of ways and free speech. In such situations we try to resolve the issues before they turn violent.
Peace activist commonly turn to rallies and protests because more main stream means to speak out are denied them. I can give you more specific details on that if you desire.
quote:Why not have the protest in another city at the same time?
Why not have the RNC in another city at the same time? The RNC chose to have their convention in early September in New York City to capitalize of the aniversary of 9/11. Their blatant attempt to manipulate a national tragedy for political gain is one of the prime reasons that people will protest. In fact, 11% of New York residents have said they plan to join a protest during the convention. I can guarantee that far less than 11% of the republican deligates are residents of NYC.
And finally, no one involved has said that riots will develop if they don't get their way (at least not that I've heard). The idea that riots are likely is my assessment of the situation and I am not involved in anyway with this protest. If there was an organized protest in Central Park, the organizers would have spent around $250,000 (I'm sorry I can no longer find the exact number) to provide facilities for the event. They would have had a sound system, trash cans, porta-potties, information tables, and aids to help minimize the chaos. They would have had speakers, music and other organized activities. They would have a variety of internal groups working on crowd control. Now, none of that will happen, but the hundreds of thousands of protestors will still be in NYC and an awfully lot of them will be in Central Park.
This isn't a well organized cohesive group of people. These would be much more actively described as thousands of individuals who are more or less independently converging on NYC to protest the RNC. Some of them are committed pacivists, some are sincere social justice workers, some are tweenagers trying to be rebels and some are truly hoping to cause a fight. If there was an organized rally, most of them would go to it. If there isn't an organized rally they will go where they want and protest as they see fit.
The decision of NYC not to offer peace groups a permit to rally in Central park, won't keep activists from gathering there. In fact, it is the legal right of anyone to carry a 2'x3' sign around Central Park. NYC can't stop this without declaring a state of emergency. The lawns will get trampled, traffic will be snarled, trash will be strewn around and the city will have a heightened police presence there. All the city has done is too ensure that the people committed to Peace, won't be in charge.
I don't think I've proposed a false dichotomy at all. There are two more options I can come up with but they don't seem any more likely than the first two.
1. The city officials knew that their decision was likely to produce an inflammatory environment but felt following guidelines designed to protect the landscaping in central park was more important. Although they knew the many protesters would converge on the park anyway, they were afraid that permitting this event would set a precident that threaten the parks lawn far into the future.
If this is the case, the city officials are putting the health of the grass above the safety of the city which I find to be pretty recklessly irresponsible.
2. I'm completely wrong about crowd dynamics. By not granting the permit, NYC has actually reduced the chances for riots. Since the permit wasn't given, most of the people will just decide to stay home. Those who come for the march, will simply go to McDonald's for lunch or Starbucks for coffee after the march. The few hard core violent sorts who do head to central park will be much easier for police to handle without all the pacifists in the way.
I suppose it could happen that way, I just think its pretty unlikely.
If you can see any other likely possibilities, let me know.
[ August 27, 2004, 02:42 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:If nobody complained about it, I would have missed the connection completely.
Except that capitalizing on 9/11 is a stated goal of the RNC. Even if the left were to stop complaining about it, the GOP won't let it pass unnoticed once the convention begins. You can bet your booties that GW Bush etal will be posing at the former site of the World Trade Centers and bragging about the thousands they've killed wounded and tortured in their war on terror.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not that I'm a fan of Bush, never mind what I told that Irish comedian, but when was the last time a political candidate had an attack of good taste?
posted
::refrains from pointing out that every politician attempts to politicize everything possible to help themselves. doesn't say anything about John Kerry "reporting for duty" being the exact same thing::
posted
"If you can see any other likely possibilities, let me know.
Incompetence of the bureacratic CoverYourAss variety, like the type that caused the Columbia shuttle disaster.
CYA says "If protestors given permission to gather in CentralPark have a minor scuffle with the police, it'll be blamed on me" while "If I refuse to grant permisssion for a CentralPark gathering and major rioting breaks out, I can point out that I didn't have anything to do with it."
posted
Maybe it's because people who riot just because they can't protest where they want are being idiots anyway?
Sorry...I can see the practical use of doing what the protestors want, but seriously--since when is this an acceptable excuse for smashing windows?
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just don't like the bit of extortion by the protesters. Let us have the rally, where there might be trouble, or we're just gonna have an unorganized event where there definitely will be trouble.
Anyone else get this from the statements?
They've given NYC, which will already be overworked trying to provide security for the RNC, an ultimatum.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: oh good grief... The only reason that the Republicans quit running Dubya's 9/11 campaign ads is cuz they reminded swing voters that OsamaBinLaden&AlQaeda are Dubya's greatest allies.
aspectre, when I followed that link, I found a Hatrack thread where you say the exact same thing. Forgive me if I want a more reliable source before believing that Osama bin Laden and George W. are on the same side.
Posts: 4089 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Whadda ya want? The Republicans run ads proclaiming 9/11 bein' the best of Dubya's Presidency, and yer still sayin' "The only time I've seen it stated at all is when people are speaking against them."
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
aspectre -- I have seen no such ads. I make no claim as to whether they exist.
I claimed what I have personally seen.
And still the only times I've ever seen the RNC in New York connected with 9-11 in New York is when people are attacking them for opportunism.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
To the degree that choice is possible, six-month olds always prefer being around their parents.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
And by wanting to be physically closer to their parents that means they are automatically part of any group their parents have joined? Come now, you know better than that.
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
As we have heard from the RepublicanConvention speakers, 9/11 is still Dubya's finest day, still the centerpiece of his campaign. OsamaBinLaden is still the person, AlQaeda is still the organization upon whose work Dubya depends to draw votes for re-election.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
