March 22, 2003
City Council Reacts to M20
What follows in the next several posts is a brief tour through today's Oregonian coverage of the M20 protests and its reactions. Up first is the range of responses of City Council to how the Portland Police Bureau handled the day's events:
While Portland Mayor Vera Katz on Friday praised police for showing restraint during Thursday's protests, the police chief acknowledged that police resources could not match the huge crowd. Others questioned whether officers stepped in too late to regain control.
...
Katz said police made "professional" and "sound" decisions and acted only when splinter groups broke off who "quite frankly wanted to be arrested and were an embarrassment."
This continues to perplex me. While there were, obviously, some incidents of overt confrontation, there were also incidents of legitimate civil disobedience which cannot and should not be simply dismissed as "an embarrassment" of any kind. Civil disobedience is always performed with the understanding that it requires the breaking of laws. Perhaps such protests might, eventually, prove to be an embarrassment to Mayor Katz's mainstream political standing, but they are not an embarrassment in any larger sense.
Moving on to other members of the City Council:
Commissioner Randy Leonard thought police were too restrained.
"I wonder if it enabled the crowd," Leonard said. "You have protesters shutting down major arterials. That's not just a transportation issue. It's a public safety issue."
...
Commissioner Erik Sten praised police for their "balanced" approach. But Commissioners Jim Francesconi and Dan Saltzman said they think more should be done to prevent traffic obstructions.
"I'm not going to sit here and second-guess, but the public is right to expect its road to be open," Francesconi said. "Blocking roads doesn't seem an appropriate way to express personal feelings."
Of course, Francesconi, as we already understand, is in the political pocket of the Portland Business Alliance. So it's unsurprising that he takes such a dismissive tone. But one is left to wonder if the commissioner also considers those who followed, say, Ghandi and King into civil disobedience were merely expressing "personal feelings."
Opposition to this war is not merely some rhetorical exercise. Perhaps to Francesconi, verbally stating an opinion is as far as one can or should go, but then he has the interests of downtown commerce first and foremost in his heart, which desires so much to be Mayor.
But for some, opposition to this war is a gut-wrenching and nerve-wracking fever. There are people throughout Portland, and across the country, who haven't slept well for days. Not just because they get trapped in front of television coverage of the war, but because the entire disaster makes them feel existentialy ill, and both ashamed of and afraid for their country.
If to exercise their right to oppose what they consider to be an immoral act of war they need to, for example, shut down one of Portland's many bridges for nine hours, so be it. Perhaps Francesconi might be Mayor material somewhere else. But not here.
Posted at 02:28 PM | PermalinkComments (9) | TrackBacks (1)
More In Local Activism, Metro-Area Politics
Trackbacks (1)
-
...both ashamed of and afraid for their country on 22 Mar 2003
Another entry on a blog I keep up on that really drives the point home. I really couldn't agree more. ...For some, opposition to this war is a gut-wrenching and nerve-wracking fever. There are people throughout Portland, and across the
Comments (9)
alwin on 22 Mar 2003
There were nurses and doctors trying to get into hospitals to take care of the sick and injured when the arterials were shut down. People working the night shift had to short themselves sleep in order to make it to work. Nurses and other health care workers who don't get enough rest are a more than just annoyed; they can be dangerous as the night turns to morning.
And when I need a specialist physician or nurse to come in for a patient that needs attention right away, it's frustrating to be told over the phone that they are stuck in traffic and that it will be an unknown amount of time until we can get them the definitive care they need.
Yes, everybody has the right to assemble and to demonstrate. But there is a legitimate concern for public safety here, as well as a negative reaction to the protests. A lot of folks in the anti-war effort have worried about the untinteded consequences of our actions overseas. They should be aware that the same problem can come back to haunt them, as well. Bad PR from a death caused by protests could bring about a much more restrictive policy in the future.
The One True b!X on 22 Mar 2003
I find it hard to believe that there could be significant interference with freedom of movement when a single bridge is shut down by protestors in a city with more than several bridges spanning the river.
myrln on 22 Mar 2003
Yeah, like there were no alternative routes. Sometimes sustaining freedom is inconvenient (isn't that what we ask of our troops?) Get used to it, and stop making up phoneyassed rationales for trying to get rid of something you don't like.
alwin on 22 Mar 2003
Taking out one bridge doesn't just alter traffic flow to that one bridge, it alters traffic patterns all over town. And once you are caught in the gridlock, you become part of the collective of automobiles trying to route around the problem.
Look, this isn't just theory. Traffic at rush hour in Portland nears gridlock at peak commute times as it is. Screwing with balances of flow during those periods is a real problem. Watch the ODOT cameras to see what happens when a single car crash ties up a major thoroughfare. Like any ecology, everything affects everything else.
Anecdotally, inn the last couple of years I've had to temporize with heart attack patients waiting for a cardiologist to break out of a jam on a freeway and for a urologist to find a way in to stop a somebody from bleeding out. Those traffic problems weren't caused by protesters, but by single-point failures in the traffic grid that caused major snarls. I think that it's valid to draw parallels.
I'm just pointing out a potential public safety problem. I commute in to my hospital via a route that has a low probability of being affected by protests. But two of the nurses on my unit were affected this time, and it got me to thinking about the potential problems with this civil disobedience technique. Whether you choose to pay attention to the problem or ignore it is up to you.
alwin on 22 Mar 2003
Sorry, one last point: once you are stuck on a freeway or bridge, you *can't* find another route around until traffic advances to an exit ramp.
I'm not trying to damp your enthusiasm or criticize your attempts at civil disobedience. But attacking public thoroughfares, whether it be the internet, drinking water systems, or transportation grids carries an inherent public safety risk. I just thought that doing it in an informed manner and making plans in the future to, say, pass emergency vehicles like firetrucks and ambulances might be worth considering.
Sorry if it seemed like I was taking a dump in your DG.
myrln on 23 Mar 2003
Mayhap you've noticed that 11 time zones away, people are being killed in the name of this oily war, killed because of a megalomaniacal administration that is able to click off the fact that millions worldwide oppose the war in favor of other means. In the face of that kind of mindset, only civil disobedience will get attention...as it got yours, didn't it?...and perhaps increase the numbers of those in opposition, as happened with Vietnam and finally got that idiocy stopped. Minor inconveniences don't measure up to the above. Maybe the hospitals involved need to keep cardiologists et al on duty 24/7. There's always a solution.
The One True b!X on 24 Mar 2003
Personally, I have no objection to the idea that protestors might want to establish a contingency plan in which they let emergency vehicles pass. Of course, the issue there (for the protestors) is that once they open up a lane of traffic, the police will likely just oust them altogether. I'm not sure this is workable as a compromise, although it's at least worth having a conversation about.
There's some degree of precedent here in town, since marches have lately been adopting the tactic of allowing public transportion to pass at intersections the march has approached.
Angel Kelly on 25 Mar 2003
I agree that it would be great if we could agree on a strategy that allowed for the passage of public transportation and emergency vehicles, although I would like to note that there has been at least one occasion I heard about where an ambulance was allowed through and then a whole bunch of riot cops poured out the back.
To be honest, I don't really feel blocking traffic is as potentially powerful as other types of more specific disruptions, shut down the federal building or gas stations or a major corporation or something that is in someway more directly linked to the issues.
If I am going to get arrested, (and I have not but am willing to) I want to feel like it is significant and has the power to make a statement that will influence people, not just that I delayed someone just like myself who is trying to get home to thier kids or to their job so they don't get fired or whatever.
peace!--Angel
The One True b!X on 25 Mar 2003
There needs to be some diversifying within the protest community. For example, when there is a central rally, from which some groups will be splintering off for marching or direct action, there shold very specifically be activites planned for the rally location -- postcard campaigns, teach-ins, whatever. Give people who don't want to engage in permit-less marches or civil dosobedience some way to continue contributing.
Direct actions themselves need to diversify as well. In addition to any mass blockades, for example, smaller groups should engage in smaller actions. Say, 20-25 people engaging in a Federal Building sit-in, die-in, blockade whatever -- but (and this is the key to the diversification) they should all take a cue from the civil rights era and be dressed in the "Sunday best." Make the police, in front of the cameras, cart off 25 unresisting people who appear to be respectable Middle America in their suits and dresses.