Civil Rights and OR Demonstrators [re: Eric Hunt]
HAL...@murray.fordham.edu
and rhetoric is its willingness to use the oppressive police
power of the state to suppress opposition to pro-choice
beliefs.
I do not support Operation Rescue, and positively detest its
leaders.
However, I am an queer activist and benefit from the rights to
assembly and speech provided by the US Constitution. Thus the
whole idea that the state can stop demonstrators congregatiing
and praying, that permits have to be given for demonstrations, that
Rico laws can be applied to political activity - all this appalls
me.
Even more appalling is the sight of prochoicers cheering on the
police with "arrest them" and so on. We now have just had a law
passed which will forbid Prolife demonstrators from being near
abortion clinics: the same bill prohibits demonstrators from blocking access to
a church. Let me say that Cardinal O'Connor is probably very happy
about this.
The fact that so many pro-choicers are happy to see a suspension
of civil liberties when it is *their* opponents who are
being deprived is chilling.
Civil rights are basic to gay political activity: we are always
likely to be a minority and to need some protection from the
majority [at least in the forseable future]. Any challenge to
rights of speech, assembly, or demonstration hit us harder than
almost any other group.
I might point to Canada where limitations on free publication
promoted by certain feminists have empowered the police to
stage raid after raid on LGBTO bookstores. And some of the
same feminists have said "Don't blame us; this was not what
we intended". Well I do blame them for being so fucking
stupid and naive about how those in power will use power
if its given to them.
Prochoicers' support of restrictions on the free activity
of OR people, whose opinions they disagree with, have
a positively fascistic tinge, and will rebound on LGBTO
activists.
And if anyone argues that OR was "acting up" to much: let
me remind you that current laws of trespass when
applied were perfectly effective in stopping OR. Some
OR people broke the law in any case: so do many of
our people.
Eric's refusal to condemn the removal of OR civil rights
is thus really upsetting.
Whenit comes to power struggles, the one power you do not
ever want to give more power to is the police.
Paul Halsall
Hal...@murray.fordham.edu
HAL...@murray.fordham.edu
request, I am forwarding it to the list - Paul Halsall]
Date: Sat, 07 May 94 21:42:43 EDT
From: KEith Elston <LLBE...@UKCC.uky.edu>
Organization: University of Kentucky
Subject: Re: Civil Rights and OR Demonstrators [re: Eric Hunt]
To: Paul Halsall <HAL...@MURRAY.FORDHAM.EDU>
In-Reply-To: Your message of Sat, 7 May 1994 13:11:31 -0400 (EDT)
X-Acknowledge-To: <LLBE...@UKCC.uky.edu>
On Sat, 7 May 1994 13:11:31 -0400 (EDT) you said:
>One of the most problematic aspect of current pro-choice activity
>and rhetoric is its willingness to use the oppressive police
>power of the state to suppress opposition to pro-choice
>beliefs.
>
>[portions omitted for brevity's sake]
>
>However, I am an queer activist and benefit from the rights to
>assembly and speech provided by the US Constitution. Thus the
>whole idea that the state can stop demonstrators congregatiing
>and praying, that permits have to be given for demonstrations, that
>Rico laws can be applied to political activity - all this appalls
>me.
>[ ]
>The fact that so many pro-choicers are happy to see a suspension
>of civil liberties when it is *their* opponents who are
>being deprived is chilling.
>
>Civil rights are basic to gay political activity: we are always
>likely to be a minority and to need some protection from the
>majority [at least in the forseable future]. Any challenge to
>rights of speech, assembly, or demonstration hit us harder than
>almost any other group.
>[ ]
>Whenit comes to power struggles, the one power you do not
>ever want to give more power to is the police.
>
>Paul Halsall
>Hal...@murray.fordham.edu
As those who have followed this thread for some time may remember, Paul and I
have agreed to disagree about the issue of abortion rights from personal
perspectives. However, on this issue, I cannot agree more wholeheartedly
with my friend, Paul.
If Operation Rescue or other similar groups, or for that matter, Act Up or
similar groups violate current trespass laws, they should be prosecuted and
if they are found guilty, they should be punished. BUT, to add another layer
of laws which blatantly disregard the limitations imposed on us by the Bill
of Rights is a two-edged sword which I fear will eventually swing back and cut
our own lesbian and gay civil rights movement.
Liberals are just as prone to attacking their enemies in this fashion as are
conservatives--maybe even moreso. What we must never forget is that neither
liberal nor conservative, nor indeed any political ideology across the
spectrum, have a franchise on "THE TRUTH" or can say for sure what is morally
right or wrong. That is why we have different advocacy groups and ideological
foci: if we all knew the same things to be true, believed the same ideas,
operated from the same paradigms, then there would be no arguments.
As much as we may disagree with another's opinion, we should try to at least
be respectful of the differences and not try to batter each other just for
the sake of one-upmanship.
And one other thing that we should probably keep in mind: just because
an issue is so burning at this moment in time, or in this small part of the
planet, doesn't make it universally a burning issue. Remember that great wars
were started over differences of ideas no less troublesome to their times
as abortion is to ours. How many would today go to war for the cause of
defending the notion that the earth is flat and at the center of the
universe? Many have died over that singular issue.
*************************************************************************
* KEITH D. ELSTON, PROJECT DIRECTOR * LLBE...@UKCC.UKY.EDU *
* ACLU BILL OF RIGHTS EDUCATION PROJECT * WORK PHONE: (606) 281-1482 *
*************************************************************************
* "ETERNAL VIGILANCE IS THE PRICE OF LIBERTY." *
* - THOMAS JEFFERSON *
*************************************************************************
Eric Hunt
> assembly and speech provided by the US Constitution. Thus the
> whole idea that the state can stop demonstrators congregatiing
> and praying, that permits have to be given for demonstrations, that
> Rico laws can be applied to political activity - all this appalls
> me.
How would you respond to 1000 demonstrators stopping and praying around a
women's clinic, completely and totally blocking access to that clinic by its
patients? That's the real motivation factor behind the pro-life forces stopping
and praying. Not to mention the incredible traffic snarls that would ensue.
I understand your points and am concerned about them. But when I take them to
logical extremes, I cannot see how anyone can support a mob's right to take
over public streets and sidewalks for the sole means of blocking access to a
clinic, no matter how non-violent this blockade may be. Is this the position you
are willing to support?
I am fully in support of applying these situations to QN/ACT-UP demonstrations
as well. Blocking access to property while not trespassing is not an expression
of 1st amendment rights.
--
Eric Hunt __ eh...@bsc.edu (preferred)
Birmingham-Southern College \/ eric...@the-matrix.com
Birmingham, Alabama 35254 eh...@scsnet.com