Powered by Google
Home
Listings
Editors' Picks
News
Music
Movies
Food
Life
Arts + Books
Rec Room
Moonsigns
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Personals
Adult Personals
Classifieds
Adult Classifieds
- - - - - - - - - - - -
stuff@night
FNX Radio
Band Guide
MassWeb Printing
- - - - - - - - - - - -
About Us
Contact Us
Advertise With Us
Work For Us
Newsletter
RSS Feeds
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Webmaster
Archives



sponsored links
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
PassionShop.com
Sex Toys - Adult  DVDs - Sexy  Lingerie


   
  E-Mail This Article to a Friend

Wanted: Leadership
The DNC’s protest pen is an affront to free speech. Plus, the 9/11 Commission’s report.

WE HAVE BEEN barreling toward this moment since September 11, 2001 — the moment when we officially trade basic freedoms for security. Not that we haven’t already given up certain freedoms for security in thousands of ways since the terrorist attacks, from passage of the USA Patriot Act to random bag searches on the MBTA — supposedly put in place because of DNC security concerns, but quickly revealed as a permanent measure that will be kept in place long after the DNC leaves town. But it’s hard to think of an example that is as transparent as last Friday’s ruling by District Court judge Douglas Woodlock that the city could confine convention protests to a demonstration zone (DZ) on Canal Street.

"Let me be clear: the design of the DZ is an offense to the spirit of the First Amendment," Woodlock writes. "It is a brutish and potentially unsafe place for citizens who wish to exercise their First Amendment rights. But, given the constraints present at the location and the [Boston Police Department’s] reasonable safety concerns, there is no injunctive relief that I could fashion that would vindicate plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights ..."

The trend toward herding protesters into designated protest zones was born out of the chaos of the 1999 World Trade Organization protests in Seattle, when the city was essentially overrun with rioting demonstrators. The following year saw unprecedented crackdowns on free speech at the Democratic and Republican National Conventions — most notably the demonstration zone set up in Los Angeles from which the Rage Against the Machine melee began, resulting in police firing rubber bullets into the crowd of protesters. Demonstration zones have even been mandated for anti-war protests; in 2003, New York City confined people wanting to participate in an anti-war march before the United Nations to a plaza where the march was supposed to begin.

But we have seen nothing like the aptly nicknamed protest pen erected for the DNC. Woodlock himself describes it as an "internment camp." And city inspectors, upon questioning from Woodlock, had to admit that it didn’t meet the building code for enclosed structures. "Internment" is indeed the right word, given that, as Woodlock points out, "it is enclosed by netting, fencing, and razor wire."

The pen in question is located on Canal Street near the intersection with Causeway Street. It’s about 300 by 90 feet, two-thirds of which is located under Green Line tracks that were supposed to have been dismantled by now. One end of the pen that’s directly under the tracks leaves only about six feet of clearance, making it impossible, as Woodlock notes, for a demonstrator to carry a sign. Meanwhile, netting over the fence prevents demonstrators from leafleting passers-by.

The pen is hemmed in by a chain-link fence topped with barbed wire above two rows of concrete Jersey barriers. A mesh netting encloses the pen from above — ostensibly to prevent protesters from throwing things over the fence and out of the pen. A sign outside the pen warns against bringing in "guns, knives, wrist rockets, etc." or "facsimile weapons" such as "super soakers." Inside the pen, above a wooden platform erected for speakers, someone has scrawled, "How is this free?" Woodlock, who personally visited the demonstration zone before issuing his ruling, notes that a "written description cannot begin to convey the ambience of the DZ site," which he goes on to describe as "a grim, mean, and oppressive space."

That Woodlock could rule against the Bl(A)ck Tea Society — which sought to prevent the city from using the pen — despite his obvious reservations about the demonstration zone, is baffling. That he did so out of fear that some of the protests could turn violent is astonishing. "[R]ecent experience has shown that there is a reasonable likelihood that an aggressive few will insist on expressing themselves through the use of violence," Woodlock writes. As Suffolk Law School professor Michael Avery points out in a commentary for Truthout.com (which you can read at BostonPhoenix.com), "Those who would protest close to the site of the Convention have already been convicted of being up to no good."

This country was founded on free speech and political protest. The trampling of these traditions by police and security "experts," and the court’s refusal to intervene, is indeed a sad, sickening, and shameful moment in our history.

THIS WEEK, the 9/11 Commission — at long last — issued its report investigating the timeline of events that led to the terrorist attacks and their immediate aftermath. Although some have criticized the report for pulling its punches, careful readers will find that the bipartisan report is surprisingly candid — especially coming, as it does, from a government committee — in placing blame and pointing out failures of leadership, as Gail Sheehy’s review makes clear (see "Who’s in Charge Here?", page 26).

Take George W. Bush’s claims to the commission that he — and he alone — had authorized a military shootdown of hijacked planes in a phone call to Dick Cheney. Without coming to any conclusions, the report simply notes that "there is no documentary evidence for this call."

Most disturbing, though, are the commission’s extensive recommendations for governmental changes to make the country safer. If, after engaging in two wars post-9/11, we are still so unsafe, what does that mean for the future? Bush resisted calls to form the commission and only agreed to authorize its creation after pressure was applied by the families of the 9/11 victims — as New York senator Hillary Clinton reminded us from the convention floor Monday night.

Bush probably won’t bother to read the report. But we can. And if Bush refuses to heed the commission’s recommendations for reform, we can. The first step toward that goal, of course, is to get a real leader in the White House. At a moment of historic definition, our president failed us. It’s time to replace him with John Kerry.

What do you think? Send an e-mail to letters[a]phx.com


Issue Date: July 30 - August 5, 2004
Back to the News & Features table of contents
Click here for an archive of our past editorials.

  E-Mail This Article to a Friend
 









about the phoenix |  advertising info |  Webmaster |  work for us
Copyright © 2005 Phoenix Media/Communications Group