Unchastened by their coverage in the service of the Bush Administration’s lead up to the Iraq War, the editors of the New York Times have seen fit to undercut Iraq War protesters with an appalling editorial. The Times editors now endorse increasing restrictions on what we once called “Freedom of Speech” in this country. They should be ashamed.
How dare the editorial board of the Times criticize the group United for Peace and Justice because they backed out of an ultimatum from the New York City Police Department after months and months of the city’s bad faith “negotiations” (when they even negotiated) over a place to peacefully protest during the Republican National Convention in the city. The bad faith “negotiations” recently featured Mayor Michael Bloomberg intimating that a permit that the group sent in June 2003 had not yet been sent.
What are the reasons United for Peace and Justice has now rejected the offer of a sun-baked highway extending miles in the middle of nowhere as a protest venue? Leslie Cagan, United for Peace and Justice’s national coordinator said that in accepting the city’s highway site for their rally, the group wanted the city to supply drinking water, bathrooms and free transportation to and from the event - all reasonable demands given the location the group was forced into (and demands the Times is kind enough to cede have merit). She said the group had “gotten nowhere” after two meetings with police. Additional reasons for the ultimate rejection include fear for the health of the elderly and young in the location and poor sound quality.
Leslie Cagan is right to say that the offer of the highway, and I would say the whole process, has been “a mockery of the right to assemble.” Given a year’s opportunity to deal with the protest group, which filed the paperwork and doesn’t even demand to be within hearing or sight of the actual convention while the convention is happening shows how much we have lost in this country. Far from suggesting, as the Times does that “[c]ivil disobedience should be used rarely, and a disagreement with the city over a protest venue does not warrant it” - I would say the right to assemble and freedom of speech, two core rights in our Constitution, do merit peaceful civil disobedience. It is the right of the New York Times to publish this rubbish, thanks to the freedom of the press, and let us hope that they do not lose that right - but let us hope in the future that they value our other Constitutional rights too. It used to be what made America special.
Post a Comment