Subject: FW: sfpj Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2005 21:54:44 -0600 Message-ID: <BDD0A3EABE40F04A8C7200805EDE5A6A0219EF94@PEPSI.uwec.edu> From: "Nowlan, Robert A." <RANOWLAN@uwec.edu>
Brandon Buchanan requested this message be sent on to sfpj.
________________________________
From: Buchanan, Brandon Michael
Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 9:04 PM
To: Grossman, Zoltan C.; Nowlan, Robert A.
Subject: sfpj
I need this email to get out to SFPJ ASAP. Thank you very much, Brandon
Buchanan.
Greetings SFPJ, this is Brandon Buchanan with PSA, and I am writing this
to tell you that WE NEED YOUR HELP. Do you believe that we should have
the RIGHT to hold protests in the city? Well, if the City Council has
its way, that right will be taken from us! We need your help to stop
this, but do not worry because this will be VERY EASY.
All we need is for SFPJ to have 5 of its members write a short letter
addressed to the City Council expressing your concern and disapproval of
the upcoming ordinances (specifically ordinance proposals 9.59 and
9.60). Even just a short 200 word letter will go a long way in stopping
this.
What do I mean by stopping all protests? Can you afford to pay for a $1
million insurance policy in case your standing on a sidewalk breaks it?
Well, you had better be able to if you plan to host any protest in the
city (oh, and you will need 45 day advance notice). Now a short 200
word letter to stop this isn't an unreasonable.
I NEED the letter to be put in the PSA mailbox by noon on Friday so I
can get them out.
If you are unsure of what to write about, I have below some suggested
talking points. Don't be overwhelmed, you don't need to put any or all
of them in your letter.
Possible talking points for letters are as follows (for ordinance 5.59):
1) 45 day advance notice makes it illegal to protest any event that
will occur that the government gives less than a 45 day notice for.
2) Requiring a $1 million dollar insurance policy will actively prevent
the poor from being able to hold protests. We are forcing the poor into
silence, and this is wrong.
3) The definition of a 'special event' is too broad. It is wrong to
prevent citizens from standing on a public sidewalk to hold signs in
protest if they are not being destructive or preventing the normal flow
of traffic. Also, our parks are for public use, and a gathering of
people to just stand on public ground in a show of solidarity to a cause
(not having bands, or cook-outs or the like, just standing) would fall
under this definition and it should not.
(ordinance 9.60)
4) The original ordinance labeled an assembly as a gathering 'reasonably
expecting' 5,000 people. This wording has been stricken; thus, what was
once meant to apply to 5,000 people could not apply to 100.
5) The new proposed ordinance has the Police Chief great say in if the
assembly takes place. Since assemblies (protests) are naturally more
chaotic in nature and the police are naturally for order, there is a
conflict of interest. The Police Chief's own job makes it so that it is
to the advantage of the police force to deny the application.
6) Providing Sanitation stations is unnecessary for a small assembly (35
people), but is VERY necessary for a large group of people (say 5,000).
Again, the new ordinance doesn't have the 5,000 person minimum but the
language of the ordinance is such that it can but should NOT affect
small gatherings.
-The Revolution is now! To help out, join PSA.
-Vote for KLENZ for City Council on April 5th if you live ON CAMPUS or
in the 3rd Ward!