Re: sfpj

New Message Reply Date view Thread view Subject view Author view
Nowlan, Robert A. (RANOWLAN@uwec.edu)
Tue, 1 Mar 2005 21:54:44 -0600



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!



New Message Reply Date view Thread view Subject view Author view
This archive was generated on Tue Mar 01 2005 - 21:54:48 Central Standard Time