March 18, 2003
On Police Preparations
Today's Portland Tribune (which, incidentally, lists an Associated Press crowd figure and The Oregonian crowd figure but makes no attempt at its own) offers a glance at police preparations (or at least attitudes towards preparations) for whatever happens downtown once the war begins:
Portland police are prepared to deal with illegal protests -- including attempts to block city streets -- if war starts with Iraq, according to a bureau spokesman.
"If history is any guide, there will be daily activities that we will have to respond to," Sgt. Brian Schmautz said.
Local activists plan a peaceful rally in Terry Schrunk Plaza, behind City Hall, at 4 p.m. the day war starts. But a group known as the Portland Day of Bombing Direct Action Project is calling for protesters to spread out from the rally and block key downtown intersections beginning at 5 p.m.
"They are encouraging people to engage in illegal activities," Schmautz said. "If people want to protest legally, we will give them a venue. If they protest illegally, we are prepared for that."
As usual, my position is one that tends to irk people on both sides of this issue. I have no problem with civil disobedience. Block the streets, sit in at the Federal building, whatever. What I have a problem with is that local radicals think the next step is to fight back when the police come to arrest you. That's not civil disobedience, that's rioting and assaulting a police officer.
It might make you feel powerful at the time, but in the end it doesn't do the cause much good. The entire point of performing illegal acts as a form of protest is to force them to arrest large numbers of peaceful, if criminal, protestors. If all the television cameras capture are masked anarchists fighting with police, we can forget about opposition to the war ever being taken seriously in this town again.
Now, granted, some of the groups aren't actually calling what they're planning "civil disobedience" but are instead using "direct action" which at least, I suppose, distinguishes it in a rhetorical sense. But when it comes to press coverage, that distinction could very well be lost, and radical direct action will be bundled together with peaceful civil disobedience, and basically we all lose.
Some of the actions once the war begins will make sense, some will simply be actions with which I disagree, some will be crossing the line from most perspectives, and some will just be a handful of people who are in it for the ego and not for the cause. We will see, I expect, this entire range of intentions, motivations, and characterizations.
At the same time, note the subtle tone of control in that last statement. That the police will "allow" a place for peaceful demonstrations.
While I have no particular objection to the general concept of the permitting process -- although it should be more of a notification process, so that proper arrangements on all sides can be made in advance, when this is possible or desired at any rate -- it's nonetheless improper to assert that they "allow" anyone their right to peaceably assemble. That right, of course, is protected by the Constitutions of both the United States and the State of Oregon.
Comments (1)
myrln on 18 Mar 2003
From history, we know Gandhi's civil disobedience in India brought the great British Empire to its knees, with nary a punch thrown, shot fired. Civil disobedience is immensely powerful because it focuses everyone on the heart of the issue rather than on peripheral self-satisfaction. King's similar approach did the same in the south and elsewhere in the US. To paraphrase: Give civil disobedience a chance.