flynn23 wrote:
] specialK wrote:
] ] As someone who works in New York City, I take very seriously
]
] ] the almost daily stories about security concerns. New York
] has
] ] been on terror alert level orange since September 11.
] Please,
] ] protestors who are planning civil disobedience or other
] ] actions that will cause havoc during the RNC, stay home. New
]
] ] Yorkers don't need this kind of stress in their lives.
] Getting
] ] to work that week will be stressful enough without people
] like
] ] this woman insisting on her illegal march to Times Square.
] ]
] ] From MSNBC.com:
] ]
] ] Cheri Honkala, a welfare mother from Philadelphia, who says
] ] she expects to bring in 5,000 rural and urban folks for a
] ] purposefully illegal march across town to Times Square. "The
]
] ] police told us there was no way in hell they were going to
] ] give us a permit to march," she said. Honkala, who led a
] ] similar march at the Republican convention in Philadelphia
] in
] ] 2000, shrugged. "We have to mess it all up. . . . Poor
] people
] ] have been living with terror every day."
]
] You're kidding right?
]
] You're more concerned about your daily commute versus this
] woman's right to protest? Why did the 'authorities' refuse her
] request for a permit? Why are 'protesters' being wrangled up
] in a barbed-wire fenced off area, jokingly referred to as the
] 'free-speech zone'? Why does the RNC require 3x the amount of
] security detail than the DNC does? Not to say that the DNC
] somehow earned a repreive from this kinda stuff, but you've
] got to expect a bit more vitrial against the RNC considering
] that millions of people rioted and protested worldwide when
] our current administration decided to invade a non-threatening
] country.
]
] I find it atrocious that people will use inclement weather as
] an excuse to telecommute in a second, but when we've actually
] got something *important* going on, like exercising our
] democratic right to voice our opinions, then it somehow
] becomes an inconvenience.
]
] And no, it doesn't matter whether most of these people are
] there just to wreak havoc. If we only allowed 'legal' protest
] and 'non-disturbing' signs of discord, then we would've never
] had the civil rights movement or women's suffridge. Especially
] considering that this administration has found it absolutely
] necessary to trample on your civil rights, invade your
] privacy, re-write fundamental pieces of the constitution, and
] use lies and subterfudge to counter its enemies (including its
] own citizens), I'd say that pretty much _anything_ will be
] considered illegal if they were left to continue their current
] course.

Why does the convention require three times the amount of security? Because it's number 1 terror target in the country, ranking 49th in terms of per-person funding.

Not to discount your argument, because I can certainly see that this woman should be allowed to protest. But it does matter if she's coming here--like other protestors--to wreck havoc on the city. Newsflash: New York City isn't some bumblefuck town in the middle of nowhere with no worries in the world. While some may not like it, the rules have to be different here.

RE: New York Braces for Protests