Wartime ‘Democracy’ In Action
From The Boston Globe…
“More than a dozen members of an antiwar veterans group were arrested yesterday as they protested the exclusion of their message from Boston’s Veterans Day parade.Members of Veterans for Peace lined up in front of a podium at City Hall Plaza holding antiwar placards, as color guards from Massachusetts military units and JROTC bands from across the state filed into Government Center for a ceremony, sponsored by the American Legion, to honor veterans after the parade. Some protesters wore gags, which they later said symbolized the fact that, while they were permitted to march in the parade, they were prevented from carrying signs opposing the war in Iraq.
“We were exercising our First Amendment rights,” said Winston Warfield of Dorchester, a member of the group. “The First Amendment protects free speech, even when you don’t agree with what’s being said.”
When Boston police asked the demonstrators to move from the front of the podium so that the Veterans Day services could continue, they refused. As the Boston Firemen’s Band played The Marine Hymn, several protesters were placed in plastic handcuffs and led away.
“Our free speech and civil rights are being abridged here,” said Nate Goldschlag, a Vietnam-era veteran who was among those standing in front of the podium. “We are veterans, too, and we should be allowed to express our opposition to this war.”
It is important to recognize the distinction between dissent in a democracy and dissent in a militarized society. The former ensures the protection of rights under the law; the latter ensures the protection of whatever mythology exists to safeguard its power. Both cannot exist simultaneously. One must ultimately have control over the other.
Want to bookmark or share this entry?
This entry was posted on Monday, November 12th, 2007 at 6:14 pm. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
November 12th, 2007 at 6:37 pm
I’ve been reading a lot in my University class about Political Philosophy and the theory surrounding Justice and Freedom of Individual rights.
It has been stated many times that there are certain things about individual choice and rights that a government can or should not be able to intrude upon.
I have written a short post about POLICE STATE at the community forums, I urge you to take a look at it. Comment if you will. I think it in someway reflects what I would have written, here.
I think the most disrespectful thing you could do to someone who fought in any war, is take away their right for free speech. These veterans were in similar situations, they understand the agreements, they know what kind of methods and tactics wars have utilized, and they are very aware of the impact. To take away their right to speak out against it is immoral and just plain ignorant. If that’s not a slap in the face, what is?
Would a feminist like it if she was told she could not voice her opinion on feminism, when feminism is the issue at hand? Would that go over very well with the public? I would think…NOT!
But that’s just me…
November 12th, 2007 at 8:23 pm
It’s hard to just sit back while the US keeps contradicting itself at every turn…especially when they are in such a position of power regarding the UN, and are constantly pushing an ideal they cannot practise themselves…sit back and watch their house of cards fall; freedom of speech doesn’t exist for all.
**EDIT: woops…didn’t mean to go all Dr. Seuss there…
November 12th, 2007 at 8:26 pm
BTW…what’s up with the “plastic handcuffs”?”
November 12th, 2007 at 8:33 pm
Zip-ties. Weigh less, cheaper, don’t need a key to get off….
November 12th, 2007 at 9:43 pm
[quote comment="32731"]It’s hard to just sit back while the US keeps contradicting itself at every turn…especially when they are in such a position of power regarding the UN, and are constantly pushing an ideal they cannot practise themselves…sit back and watch their house of cards fall; freedom of speech doesn’t exist for all.
**EDIT: woops…didn’t mean to go all Dr. Seuss there…[/quote]
You got the idea, Ashleigh. In the US you only have “freedom of speech” if you go along with the majority. Unfortunately, I don’t think that will be changing any time soon.
November 12th, 2007 at 10:24 pm
Um… didn’t the Veterans risk their lives to protect the right of free speech?
November 12th, 2007 at 10:50 pm
[quote comment="32738"]Um… didn’t the Veterans risk their lives to protect the right of free speech?[/quote]
well, yes, but you see, in America you’re only aloud to publicly speak out for what you believe in if your beliefs are aligned with those of the powers that be.
We call what these veterans did activism…and they call it treason.
Sick thing is that they (meaning the jackass in power plus x amount of minions) have really all along committed treason against all the soldiers they send out there to die for one thing (Democracy, Human Rights, Justice) when really its for something else that only a very few rich asshole politicians are going to reap the benefits from (money, oil, powerrrr).
November 12th, 2007 at 11:04 pm
“When even one “American” — who has done nothing wrong — is forced by fear to shut his mind and close his mouth, then all Americans are in peril.” — Harry S. Truman - (1884-1972), 33rd US President August 14, 1951 Source: Address at the Dedication of the New Washington Headquarters of the American Legion
November 12th, 2007 at 11:19 pm
[quote comment="32734"]Zip-ties. Weigh less, cheaper, don’t need a key to get off….[/quote]
Really? :( I’ve never seen or heard of that before. Hmph, messed up!
November 12th, 2007 at 11:55 pm
Isn’t there a show tonite in Kel town? I noticed Matty boy posted this tonite… Man, that guy is a multitasker ahight.
November 13th, 2007 at 12:29 am
[quote comment="32740"]…”When even one “American” — who has done nothing wrong — is forced by fear to shut his mind and close his mouth, then all Americans are in peril.” — Harry S. Truman[/quote]
Or furthermore, when even one person of the world is forced by fear to shut their mind and close their mouth, then all people should be weary of peril…
November 13th, 2007 at 5:32 am
[quote comment="32743"]Isn’t there a show tonite in Kel town? I noticed Matty boy posted this tonite… Man, that guy is a multitasker ahight.[/quote]
Damn right, he takes care of his fans.
November 13th, 2007 at 5:49 am
I don’t want to be accused of being pro-war, because this war in particular is an awful abuse of human rights in general (particularly Iraqis’) and of the U.S. constitution. However, as a general proposition, your free speech is only guaranteed against the government, and not against other private groups or organizations. In other words, you can’t force your message to be included in a parade held by a private organization, even if the city (i.e., government) has issued a permit for or sanctioned the private parade. Private parade sounds funny, I know. It is not too clear from this article who sponsored the Parade: the City of Boston or the American Legion, which sponseored the “after-party” at which the veterans were arrested. I am assuming, of course, that the American Legion is a private organization, and not a government actor, but I could be wrong, and, if I am, please point it out.
If it was the American Legion’s parade, there is no violation of free speech by excluding the veterans’ anti-war message. The city would just as easily issue a permit for the veterans to hold an anti-war parade. Since at least we know for sure the “after-party’ was sponsored by the American Legion, for that reason free speech is not violated by the police arresting the veterans for interfering with the event. You cannot force your message to be included with another private organization’s message. If it weren’t anti-war veterans, it might be easier to see the distinction. I don’t think we would allow, say, the KKK, to force its message into another private organization’s parade, for example, a parade of the ACLU. The KKK could get a city license to hold its own parade.
That’s just my opinion, and you are free to disagree with it or say that it is not correct.
P. Martini
November 13th, 2007 at 7:07 am
P. Martini, there is also the question of the veterans blocking the podium to prevent the events from continuing. Could they not have simply remained in the crowd to protest? They were causing something of a disruption.
My knowledge of these sorts of affairs is limited, however. Anyone is welcome to put me in my place!
November 13th, 2007 at 8:23 am
Yeah, Shawnmeat, I think you’re right. The sidewalk, from what I know, is actually a very important place in American constitutional law, and they had every right to say whatever they wanted from there. I don’t think there was any problem until they obstructed the podium at the “after-party”.
And, it should be pointed out, at least in my insignificant opinion, that if the City of Boston actually sponsored the entire parade (we know from the article that the “after-party” was sponsored by the American Legion, which I still assume is not a government actor), then it probably would have infringed the veterans’ free speech because the City is obviously the “government”.
I’ll stop interfering in a private forum, myself. And, Matt, you would be justified in excluding my lengthy “messages” here: Whatever the law is, it is nonetheless true that the Constitution and the most fundamental elements of freedom and American democracy have been rolled back greatly under Bush. I’m obviously interested in this issue, but I’m here to thank Matt for the music and the activism more than anything, since I have not had the opportunity to do it before I joined his site.
Best regards,
P. Martini
November 13th, 2007 at 11:13 am
Support The Troops. Fuck The War.
That’s my philosophy.
Apparently you’re not allowed to have that philosophy.
Particularly if you are or ever were a troop.
November 13th, 2007 at 11:22 am
I feel like we are debating moot points here. Whether they were on the sidewalk or not, should anyone be arrested for wanting to say out loud that they are against war?
What a ludicrous thing to arrest someone for… I mean really, with all of the things we could be worried about… why be worried about some veterans who, having lived through war, want to share with others that, from their experience, war SUCKS and is maybe not such a good thing.
It isn’t relevant whether they were on the sidewalk or in front of the podium. They were arrested because we wouldn’t want that kind of message corrupting anyone’s minds… heck no, that might encourage MORE people to question things and perhaps not like how things are going…
And we just wouldn’t want that, now would we.
November 13th, 2007 at 11:56 am
“It is important to recognize the distinction between dissent in a democracy and dissent in a militarized society. The former ensures the protection of rights under the law; the latter ensures the protection of whatever mythology exists to safeguard its power.”
ZING!
Seriously though, very well-put.
November 13th, 2007 at 1:05 pm
After the 2000 election the US stopped being a democracy, why do people have such a hard time accepting that fact?
November 13th, 2007 at 4:20 pm
I’m pretty sure they were not arrested for what they were saying, rather the fact they were disrupting the planned podium programme.
Generally speaking, I do not think it is productive to go around disrupting meetings or ceremonies to get your point across. The risk is that the mainstream will regard you as troublemakers and your message, as important as it may be, will be lost in the resulting melee.
The whole point of protesting should be to draw attention to a particluar point of view with the goal of enlightening some or convincing others.
I believe that they are still free to say whatever they want, but don’t interfere with other people’s rights while you do it.
In any case, they got a whole lot more publicity for their cause because they got arrested, so maybe that was their goal to start with…