All posts in the topic Barring gangs from Rondo Days (Short link)
Summary
- There are 6 posts — by 6 authors — in this topic.
- Latest post made by John Slade at Jul 02 17:14 UTC
Just read a great report from Chris Havens of the Strib - http://www.startribune.com/local/49609872.html. The City is going to court to prevent gang members from attending the festival, and a wide swath of land around it just to be sure. I like the Rondo days parade. I've marched in and watched it. I don't spend a lot of time at the festival grounds afterwards, but enough to check out the people and tables and say hi to folks. I have heard that violence is a problem later, and I'm interested to hear from others about this step. My civil liberties radar is beeping, but I am pretty sick and tired of these two gangs shooting up my neighborhood on a regular basis. Sitting on the horns of a dilemna, Steve Boland Selby/Dale
First, let me say that I am opposed to crime and gangs, but this precedent
deeply disturbs me.
My read on this of banning certain people from certain places, without
criminal charges will not pass Constitutional muster.
If we follow this logic why not simply ban "gang members" from the whole
City of St. Paul or the whole state?
Following this logic, the City Attorney could have gone to court before the
RNC and gotten an injunction against "the anarchists", sorry, the RNC
Welcoming Committee?
I read all of the comments in the Strib and it is frightening how ready and
willing some people are ready to suspend civil liberties against
"undesirables", i.e. black and latino youth.
Dann Dobson
Saint Paul
Technically, the city is not banning anyone from the event. They are simply
asking for an injunction that if approved, "the alleged gang members named in
the suit would not be allowed to associate in the safety zone with other gang
members. They also could not intimidate people, use gang signs, wear gang
clothing or recruit others." So, it appears that all of the named gang members
whom the city is trying to declare to be a public nuisance would not be
"banned" from participating in Rondo Days, they just couldn't hang out with
each other, wear gang clothing, etc.
Whether that's enough to pass constitutional muster is a good question, but the
city's argument seems to be that if the named individuals abide by certain
conditions, they are welcome to attend the event, so therefore the injunction
does not constitute an unreasonable burden on their civil liberties. The city
could also probably argue that because only certain named individuals are
identified, it is not an abuse of police powers because not all members of a
"protected class" (e.g., African American males) are being targeted, just those
who have self-identified because of alleged gang activity. I'm not a
constitutional scholar, but I'm guessing the argument in favor of the
injunction would come down this way. Dann Dobson has touched on some of the
arguments that could be used to refute the city's position.
Personally, I find the city's approach, though novel, to also be a slippery
slope, along the same lines of how police will routinely refer to someone as
being "gang-affiliated," when that affiliation may be nothing more than the
fact that someone's friend or brother happens to belong to a gang. It might not
be wise to have any associations with gang members, but the reality is that in
some neighborhoods (though not necessarily in St. Paul) it might be impossible
not to know someone who is in a gang. However, that doesn't necessarily mean
that one is involved with the gang or condoning any criminal activity that
might result. And, as Nick Khaliq of the St. Paul NAACP chapter points out, if
this isn't about race, how come an injunction wasn't also sought for Grand Old
Days, which is a much bigger event with lots of drinking that in theory would
pose even greater risks?
It will be interesting to see how the court rules, and whether the potential
violence that might occur as a result of gang members attending such an event
justifies placing the restrictions on those individuals that is sought in the
injunction. Given that the city was able to successfully win an injunction for
Cinco de Mayo, I'm not sure why the court would rule differently this time, but
I guess we'll have to wait and see whether the ACLU or another civil liberties
organization seeks to challenge the injunction.
Tom Goldstein
Hamline-Midway
Seems to me our constitution has something in there about free speech which
includes wearing what you like and jestering as you desire, as well as the
right to peaceably assemble. Mr Dobson is correct in that this "ban the
gang" logic could just as easily be used against NRC anarcists, males
wearing neck ties, socialists, union members, gays, jews, catholics, right
wingers, left wingers or any other group that the folks in power at the time
deem "undesirable".
Instead the police should be at the ready, watching , and prepared to arrest
and apprehend anyone breaking the miriad of city ordinances currently on the
books....jay walking, spitting on the sidewalks, no seat beat, indecent
exposure, loudness, obscene language, etc. I am certain they could arrest
those they find "trouble makers"
Dean Sheldon, St. A Park
You don't have free speech at private events.
Rondo Days is a private event that the public is invited to.
They take out a permit to rent the street and the park.
No catholic priests are allowed into my house wearing their collars
backwards.
Its my house. You don't have free speech in my house.
A group rents a park for a private event its their park for the day.
They don't have to let in anyone in with their heads covered.
That might offend Muslims and if they did, I wouldn't go to the event out
of solidarity, or I might protest across the street.
But, it is their park for the day.
JMONTOMEPPOF
Chuck Repke
In a message dated 7/1/2009 11:54:33 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
<email obscured> writes:
Seems to me our constitution has something in there about free speech
which
includes wearing what you like and jestering as you desire, as well as the
right to peaceably assemble. Mr Dobson is correct in that this "ban the
gang" logic could just as easily be used against NRC anarcists, males
wearing neck ties, socialists, union members, gays, jews, catholics, right
wingers, left wingers or any other group that the folks in power at the
time
deem "undesirable".
Instead the police should be at the ready, watching , and prepared to
arrest
and apprehend anyone breaking the miriad of city ordinances currently on
the
books....jay walking, spitting on the sidewalks, no seat beat, indecent
exposure, loudness, obscene language, etc. I am certain they could arrest
those they find "trouble makers"
Dean Sheldon, St. A Park
I think it's a pretty clear violation of freedom of assembly, if you can't
associate with certain people there. (Curfews which prohibit groups of larger
than four - same thing)
A long while ago, Progressive Minnesota (pre-Take Action, post-New Party) had
on it's agenda a plank to 'restore the public to public events'. They'd been
opposing public funding for ballparks, or something, and had been booted from
Taste of Minnesota, on the Capital grounds, but 'a private event'.
The Mall of America, despite having public investment, has been ruled to be a
'private' space and you don't have as many speech rights there.
I think property rights have been trumping people's rights for some time. Those
with property like it that way.
Please don't accuse me of interfering with your rights in your domicile.
(Although if you rent, you have less rights...) But large events held in
otherwise public spaces (the State Capital, a public park, Downtown Saint
Paul), or spaces which are open to the public (malls) shouldn't have speech
rights taken away.
I was bothered when the City did this at Cinco de Mayo, and I'm bothered by
Rondo Days. But I haven't asked the folks I know in Rondo what they think. (And
then there's the RNC, where the Bush/Pawlenty/Fletcher triumvirate laid down
lessons that the current Iranian regime probably took note of...)
Need help? Please contact technical support. Follow us on Facebook or Twitter.
Hosted by E-Democracy.Org. Powered by OnlineGroups.Net using GroupServer.