It is a time of fear in the face of freedom, a time for the widening of previous roads and the opening of new paths, a time of an emptying country and swelling cities, yet a time when these paths are mined by knowing algorithms of the all-seeing eye. It is the time of the warrior's peace and the miser's charity, when the planting of a seed is an act of conscientious objection.
 | Time to Revoke Bloomberg’s Permit |
Who could have imagined a few years ago that New York City would become a no protest zone? Self-expression is at the heart of New York City’s identity - or rather, it was, until Michael Bloomberg plopped his well-tailored little seat in the mayor’s chair.
Over the last few years, Bloomberg has become infamous for refusing to grant permits to large and important demonstrations. He banned a huge anti-war protest before the invasion of Iraq. He banned another huge protest during the time of the Republican Presidential convention. Now Bloomberg has banned yet another large protest, this one scheduled for May 1st. In the meantime, many smaller protests have been forbidden as well.
Michael Bloomberg says that protests are disruptive, and so it’s better for New York City if they just don’t occur at all. Imagine for a second what the implications of this are for New York City’s identity. In this great center of American art and literature, only non-disruptive ideas are to be given special free-speech permits, doled out by Michael Bloomberg. Writing a book? Better check with Bloomberg’s office first. Only non-disruptive themes are allowed. Creating a painting or sculpture? Stick to the still life of a bowl of fruit and the war hero on a horse. No disruptive art will be given a permit.
You want disruptive? How about that ghastly football stadium that Michael Bloomberg is having built in Manhattan. Now that’s disruptive - and it’s disruptive without a cause.
It’s shameful to see that New York City is led by such a wimp. Yes, Michael Bloomberg is a wimp, afraid of allowing anybody to present an opinion in a strong voice. Bloomberg’s New York City is a New York City full of Anne Geddes posters and Care Bears and little unicorn figurines, where the essential mature adult activity of open debate is not permitted.
That said, I also think that any group that applies for one of Michael Bloomberg’s free speech protest permits is being shamefully wimpy. Since when do we in the United States of America need to file papers for government approval before we protest? The idea is clearly unconstitutional, violating the right to free speech and the right to peaceably assemble. The idea that a protest in a public space needs special government permission reminds me of the Chinese government’s attitude toward assemblies in Tiananmen Square.
You want to protest in New York? Then protest. Don’t ask for permission - you don’t need it. Go. Protest, and if you really think that your cause is a worthy one, then you’ll be willing to let the police haul you off to jail. Let Michael Bloomberg charge you with the crime of peaceably protesting in public. Then take the case all the way to the Supreme Court. That’s the way that protests get attention and make real change, not by asking “Please?“
Contact Us
That’s pretty disgusting…
I mean, much as I don’t support violent protest, the word “protest” does imply a sort of violent and aggressive mindset, even if it’s presented in a non-violent way.
And if they need his permission, how’s someone going to protest against him? Sounds like a dirty excuse to claim extra power.
Comment by HareTrinity — 4/20/2005 @ 8:01 pm
Protest does not imply a violent mindset. Protest does not violate anything. Protest is organized opposition.
Comment by J. Matthew — 4/20/2005 @ 8:12 pm
Okay, “violent” wasn’t a good choice of words, how about “determined”?
I mean, protest generally includes people getting together and DOING something, rather than just filing a small letter of complaint. It’s a gesture that serves to remind people that they’re more than a statistic and that they want results…
Comment by HareTrinity — 4/21/2005 @ 10:55 am
Unfortunately, protest has a tendency to evoke vioence. Even “peaceful protest”, J.Matthew. Though the violent bent usually seems to erupt from the police…usually on orders from “on High”. It’s not right. It violates not only the letter, but the spirit of the 1st amendment. And it happens anyway. I will carry a scar on my head til my dying day from a police nightstick, from being at the wrong place at the wrong time.
Comment by Mike — 4/21/2005 @ 9:50 pm
I don’t think it’s so much the protests to blame for that as the way that violence really DOES get attention.
Whoever heard of the Suffrages? They started up years before the Suffragettes, with similar intentions, but they were the peaceful group, and they got ignored.
Makes you wonder if Martin Luther King would have been nearly so successful without Malcolm X and the Black Panthers being around at the same time.
Again, I’m not supporting violence as a method of getting what one wants, but the government hardly sets a good example, and they also tend to ignore requests until they become demands.
Comment by HareTrinity — 4/22/2005 @ 5:14 am
There’s a “selection” problem here. I’ve been to over a hundred public protests in my life, and in not a one of them have I seen any violence. Not a one. I’ve seen police keep a march from proceeding on its permitted route and otherwise engage in intimidation. I’ve seen wannabe anarchist posers keep walking into traffic even though everybody fit on the sidewalk: “Whose streets? Our streets!” Yeah, yeah, blah, blah. But I’ve never seen violence at a protest.
I’m not denying at all that there have been violent protests. But in my experience, they’re overwhelmed by the number of thoroughly peaceful protests. So why this notion that protest and violence go together? Well, there’s the NYC phenomenon: police fabricate it. But there’s also the selection problem; when the very occasional protest has an incident of violence in it, it gets reported everywhere. And when we’ve been in a protest that had violence in it, we remember that one (sorry about the scar, Mike).
On a separate note, it always seemed to me that MLK (and the SCLC, always more than MLK) succeeded so well (and they did so before the rise of MX and the BP) because they publicly elicited undeniable violence on the part of their oppressors, who otherwise were pretty good at keeping their violence hidden, private and systemic. Think Bull Connor.
Comment by J. Matthew — 4/22/2005 @ 5:45 am
Indeed, J. Matthew. And, if a peaceful protest ends in the police getting violent and beating people up, the problem is not with the protest. The problem is with the police.
The real issue here is that Mayor Bloomberg is using his governing power to try to make free speech and the right to assemble exist only when he declares that it can be allowed.
Comment by Junga — 4/22/2005 @ 6:59 am