top
US
US
Indybay
Indybay
Indybay
Regions
Indybay Regions North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area California United States International Americas Haiti Iraq Palestine Afghanistan
Topics
Newswire
Features
From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature

City Denies Anti-War Group Second Protest Permit

by repost
United for Peace and Justice is likely to take the matter before a federal judge rather than tell demonstrators to rally without a permit, leaders say.
City Denies Anti-War Group Second Protest Permit

POSTED: 5:33 pm EDT August 10, 2004
UPDATED: 10:14 am EDT August 11, 2004
NEW YORK -- Hours after an anti-war group broke an agreement with the city on Tuesday and renewed its fight to protest in Central Park the day before the GOP convention, officials denied the park permit request and accused the group of engaging in "theatrics," likely sending the matter into court.

FeedRoom


Park Protest
Park Anti-War Rally Denied Again
FeedRoom
United for Peace and Justice announced it was backing out of the compromise reached with the city last month to stage the massive Aug. 29 rally on a west Manhattan highway, and it submitted a second application to gather in the park -- this time spread out over more space.

The Department of Parks & Recreation turned down the group's original application in April, saying that crowds of activists -- which could exceed 250,000 -- were too large for the Great Lawn and would trample and damage the grass.

The parks department, in denying the second application Tuesday, said in a letter that the new permit request was for "essentially the same event" and therefore the department "must deny your application for the same reasons."

"With less than three weeks to go, the organizers need to concentrate their efforts on making the necessary arrangements and working with the city to ensure a safe event and stop the theatrics," said Ed Skyler, a spokesman for Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

Leslie Cagan, head of the anti-war organization, said it would meet with its lawyers Wednesday morning "to see if there's a lawsuit we should pursue."

"I'm not totally surprised by the answer because the city seems to have dug its heels in a long time ago," she said.

Leaders said they had reluctantly agreed to the West Side Highway last month but changed their minds after city officials allegedly refused to discuss their concerns about access to drinking water, sound projection and crowd flow on the shadeless road.

The new Central Park application proposed allowing the crowd to gather in three areas of the park -- the Great Lawn, North Meadow and East Meadow.

The parks department has maintained that the 55-acre Great Lawn can hold 80,000 people and the smaller East Meadow has a 30,000-person capacity. The 20-acre North Meadow, which features 12 ballfields, does not host gatherings other than athletic events, the department said.

The battle between city officials and United for Peace and Justice has prompted other groups to urge anti-war activists to gather in the park that day without a permit.

But while many activists are planning to stage demonstrations without permits during the convention and risk arrest, United for Peace and Justice has maintained since last year that it wants to hold a family-friendly anti-war rally at which participants would not have to worry about being arrested.

"We want it to be as safe as it can be," Cagan said. "That means having a permit, so that a clear message can go out to families, elderly people, immigrants, people with disabilities, people who feel more comfortable coming to something if they know arrangements have been worked out."

For that reason, United for Peace and Justice is likely to take the matter before a federal judge rather than tell demonstrators to rally without a permit, leaders say.

The group has gone to court before, unsuccessfully: It sued in February 2003, when police denied an application to march past the United Nations and granted instead a permit for a stationary rally.

A federal judge said the city did not violate the First Amendment, citing heightened security at the United Nations. An appeals court agreed three days before the rally, which drew tens of thousands of people.

Separately Tuesday, lawyers for the anti-war ANSWER coalition and the National Council of Arab Americans were preparing legal papers to challenge the city's denial for a permit to hold a civil rights rally on the Great Lawn on Aug. 28.

Mara Verheyden-Hilliard, a lawyer for the Partnership for Civil Justice and the National Lawyers Guild, said the city "has tried to turn Manhattan into a welcoming place for the Republican delegates and a threatening place for everybody with an opposing point of view."

"We believe that's illegal and unconstitutional, and we're seeking to remedy that," she said.

She said the lawsuit would be filed later this week in federal court. It would seek to overturn the permit denial.

© 2004 by The Associated Press.
Add Your Comments

Comments (Hide Comments)
by Robert Sprye (beowulf [at] affv.nu)
Have you people lost your minds? The cities administration, at a time when american citizen-soldiers are daily committing murder against the innocent which now number tens of thousands of civilians in the sovereign state of Iraq --

(NOT connected to 911!)
(NOT connected to Al Qaeda!)
(NOT possessing ANY american made and sold WMD´s!)
(The 6TH largest oil reserves holder!)

-- and you bother to give a seconds notice to their imbecilic statements concerning their "lawns"?

A more natural reaction should perhaps have been to inform them that it is, for them, a choice of lawns or they themselves and their offices for deliberately attempting to obstruct the peoples right to assemble, petition, and speak?

I ask you again, have you people completely lost your minds?

What do you think the worlds people think when you are concerned about some public lawns at this ... juncture ... in global and american events?

Who told you that your rights as stated in your Constitution and Bill of Rights required you to get a "local permit" from some public stooge for hire?

Who you gonna follow? The local stooge for hire or your own precepts as laid down and died for by the founders of the republic?

We need at least several million willing american citizens in WADC until such time as the regime turns itself over to the Hague for trial regarding it´s well proven crimes against humanity. Thats right. Until such time.

No permits are required in order for justice to be served.

The people rule.
by be back soon
Those who ask for permission (to protest) from the state deserve to be told no.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!

Donate

$210.00 donated
in the past month

Get Involved

If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.

Publish

Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.

IMC Network