November 28, 2006
Protesting the NYPD's Parade Permit Proposal
Yesterday, bicyclists and politicians protested the NYPD's attempt to change parade permits. The NY Times explains the police proposal:
The proposal, up for debate at a public hearing yesterday, would define a parade, which requires a permit, as a procession or race of 30 or more “vehicles, bicycles or other devices moved by human power, or ridden or herded animals proceeding together upon any public street or roadway.”By that reasoning, it might mean that many gatherings would require permits, like rallies, funeral processions and bike tours of the city. Of course, the proposal seems to be targeted at Critical Mass, which police have made its number one target on the last Friday of the month. Civil rights lawyer Norman Siegal said, "The NYPD is attempting to define ‘parade’ and the circumstances under which New Yorkers need to obtain a permit simply to ‘get’ Critical Mass. What is most likely to occur is the rules will be selectively enforced. Favored groups that engage in favored activities would be subject to minimal enforcement. But for the disfavored ... like the Critical Mass bike riders, the new rules will stifle, or seriously impair, their activities."Under the proposal, if the procession continued for more than two city blocks and if the group did not follow all traffic regulations, the threshold for a permit would drop to 10 people. Recent court rulings have said the rules are too vague.
am New York reports that the NYPD denies that funerals or wedding processions would require permits - so far! And here's a statement from City Councilwoman Gale Brewer about the permit proposal:
The proposed changes by the NYPD would still place an onerous responsibility on the daily lives of New Yorkers. In effect, they promise to discourage New Yorkers from engaging in ordinary, everyday and universally accepted practices of bicycling and walking by installing fear of arrest; these proposed regulations have a chilling effect on completely innocuous and non-disruptive traditional activities, such as walking and cycling tours. We know that these proposed regulations are a response to the challenges posed by the Critical Mass bicycle rides during the Republican Convention and on-going. But, as a result, is it really necessary that New York be the only city in the world requiring a parade permit to organize a walking or cycling tour? It will not be a benefit if groups of visitors decline to use the walking and cycling tours of our City in favor of vehicles, simply to avoid obtaining the required permits and route approval.Stay tuned to see what happens next - the NYPD doesn't need mayoral or City Council approval to change the rule.
Photograph by skidder via Contribute
|
Advertisement: Gothamist Continues Below!
Post a comment (Comment Policy)
something stinks when see yourself reading about politicians protesting police actions.
drama queens on bikes
people need to realize that this is a first amendment issue and NOT some traffic control issue. It's really not about whether or not you think it's stupid for a bunch of people to ride around together once a month, but whether a bunch of people should be able to get together and do something without asking for permission first.
ok. the flamers can start flaming now.
I don't understand why they don't need approval to change the law. Seems odd to me.
And I agree that while you may not agree with Critical Mass, this is a very important issue.
For example, even if you could care less about protests and demonstrations, if you were at a bachelor/ette party with 20 people, you could potentially be arrested for not having a permit if this is allowed to go through.
These changes would just give the police more power than they really need, especially given that they seem to do whatever they want anyway.
if you're at a bachelor/ette party with 20 people, the police don't have enough ammo to stop you (@50ish bullets per person)
"people need to realize that this is a first amendment issue and NOT some traffic control issue."
right. or that the traffic control issue is a secondary issue from the first. slippery slopes, etc.
the critical massers often come off as sanctimonious douchebags, but that's not the point here. will that become the point? probably.
First of all, FINALLY you guys post something on this extremely important issue
secondly, how could you end the posting providing the NY Post's take and make the statement appear to be a statement of fact. you should edit it and say something along the lines of "according to the NY Post and NYPD...."
the fact is that they believe that they have legal ability to change the rule(s). the reality is that they MAY NOT change any rules. this is simply because they only have the power to enforce rules/laws and not legislate. legislation belongs in the hands of the legislature!! Kelly, et al (and that includes Chris Quinn!!!) better look back at their elementary school texts about our government - there is a reason why we have a three part division of government (executive, legislative and judiciary!!!!). the division serves to provide a modicum of check and balance. the nypd cannot keep trying to give itself more power than it deserves. sheesh, they are doing enough damage as it is.
So, as I understand the definition of 'parade' cited at the beginning of this post, I would need a permit to take a Friday bike ride with 29 other people, but would -not- need a permit to herd 28 sheep in a race across Manhattan?
I find myself in favor of this new policy.
i'm unclear about this. how is riding your bike or bikes in a group of more than 10 or 30 people a first amendment right?
please explain.
I'm unclear about this. How is riding your bike or bikes in a group of more than 10 or 30 people a crime?
Below is the press release from the Assemble For Rights NYC coalition. It is more than bikes, it is basic Freedom to Assemble being taken away.
PRESS RELEASE: PRESS CONF NOVEMBER 27 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: November 21, 2006
ASSEMBLE FOR RIGHTS NYC OPPOSES NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly Restrictions on Political Speech in the Public Spaces
WHAT: Rally to voice opposition to recent New York Police Department proposals that would restrict public gatherings
WHO: Assemble for Rights NYC
DATE: Monday, November 27, 2006
TIME: 10AM to 11AM
WHERE: NYPD Headquarters, One Police Plaza
CONTACT: Mark Taylor: (646) 338-5643; mark@a4rnyc.org
Adrienne Wheeler: (917) 734-6696 www.assembleforrightsnyc.org
NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly has again proposed undue and constitutionally questionable limits on political speech in New York City. The proposal represents a narrow retreat from a similar proposition that NYPD withdrew two months ago after vociferous opposition from members of the City Council and the public.
The current proposal, which would prohibit public gatherings of as few as ten people who do not first apply for and obtain a permit from the police, will be the subject of public hearings at Police Headquarters on November 27th from 11am to 2pm.
Opposition to the proposal is lead by Assemble for Rights NYC, a coalition joined in this quest by City Council members Rose Mendez, Charles Barron, Letitia James, and Alan Gerson. Assemble for Rights represents a diversity of groups which support free speech or which directly use peaceful assembly either for political speech or recreation. The Center for Constitutional Rights, the National Lawyers Guild, United for Peace and Justice, Housing Works, the Five Boro Bike Club, the New York City Bicycle Coalition, and the Birth Control Project are among the members of the coalition. (See www.assembleforrightsnyc.org for additional members.)
The public hearing is being held only because it is required by the city charter before the police can implement such rules. In an attempt to minimize public input the hearing is being held the Monday after the Thanksgiving holiday in the middle of the work day.
Assemble for Rights NYC has denounced the Police hearing as a mockery of the democratic process, and will be holding a rally outside of One Police Plaza during the hearing to allow members of the public to gather and express their opposition to Police rulemaking without being forced to endure the indignity of asking the Police Commissioner to reconsider his own proposal from within NYPD headquarters.
City Council member Rosie Mendez stated, “New Yorkers should not have to compromise their right to free assembly for the sake of preserving the ‘public peace.’” and has stated her intention to attend the Police hearings. The prospect of elected representatives being forced to lobby the Police Commissioner as to how the law should be written has raised serious questions about the unchecked power of the NYPD.
The Assemble For Rights Coalition believes that only the New York City Council, as the elected legislative representatives of the people, have the authority to make laws affecting fundamental rights.
Assemble for Rights Director, Mark Taylor stated, “The most shocking thing about this is the City Council is letting the NYPD write the new parade permitting rules. Particularly because this is an area that deals with civil liberties, this is an area we need the New York City Police to be enforcing the rules, not to be writing the law.”
Members of Assemble For Rights NYC coalition will be available for comments before and after the hearing.
-30-
ed-ex,
the first amendment includes the right to assemble. that is what bikers, walkers, tourists, skaters, runners, herders, audiences etc. sometimes do. being allowed to assemble in public is a first amendament right.
since the parade rule changes are an attempt to take away the right to assemble in public, they violate the first amendment.
edEx, It's not about the bikes. It's about the right to gather with or without bikes without permission. Basically to protest, to march, without having to jump through beurocratic loopholes. If this passes it is people sacrificing basic civil rights to stop a once-a-month annoying bike fest.
i do not mind the buike-fest once a month or every day... i know the right to assemble, but pernits have always been nec for large groups for crowd control... this is nothing new. now i cannot imagine that 10 or 30 bikes is excessive, but over 100 in one spot i think is. the cool thing about the bikes is that they're forever moving...
The idea that we need permission from the system to protest the system is completely un-American. Let's say the police do some unthinkable thing like pump 50 bullets into an young unarmed black man. If we want to organize to show the police and the world that we have a problem with what they've done, we have to ask their permission organize first. I don't see how that is good for any of us.
Ed-ex, I'm going to try to refrain from name calling, but your comments are both idiotic and scary. "Crowd control"? 100 bikes need "crowd control" simply to be together? What about 100 cars? What about 1,000 cars? I see hundreds of cars moving around together here in Manhattan all the time. Should the drivers have to get permits? What are you talking about? Think a little bit more deeply and consider reading the US Constitution.
The cars stop for lights (mostly).
It is funny to hear people that presumably never went to law school talk about the first amendment. It is a magical glass that you can fill with anything you want. What you don't fully understand can mean anything at all. Throw in a few buzz words like un-American and a current event issue about police power and viola: you are a constitutional scholar.
Hey will.xls, have you actually read any of the legal documents associated with this issue? It seems not. If you did, you'd know that there are indeed constitutional issues involved. Please read up before opening your mouth.
I echo jack oneil's comment: Cars usually stop for lights. THe problem with critical mass in particular that seems to wrangle the cops is that the bikes DON'T stop for red lights... which, under CURRENT and LONG-EXISTING law, is ILLEGAL. A vehicle must abide by traffic rules, or it risks a ticket. The only way to get around this traffic rule is.. a parade permit, of course.
Critical Mass does not pay attention to traffic lights or stop signs. Large groups of tourists, large bachelor parties, bike tours, and other such groups DO pay attention to red lights, etc. That is how the two groups are different.
I have not researched the legal documents, that would be a waste of my time. I understand that there are constitutional issues involved, as there are with almost any government action. Unlike above, however, I can refer you to a source: Erwin Chemerinsky, Constitutional Law: Principals and Policies (2nd ed.) sec. 11.4.2.2 (outlining the public forum places available for speech, specifically the constitutionality of licensing and permit systems). Usually, the equal application of licensing requirements makes requirements such as these constitutional. However, it has been a few years since const. law and I’d have to do some research to formulate an accurate statement of the law. That’s what I mean when I make fun of laymen using the first amendment as a simplistic rhetorical tool. They know the words to the song, but they don’t understand the music.
Kristin -- this is not about the right of cops to ticket Critical Massers or cyclists or motorists who run lights. If that's the problem, then simply have cops issue tickets for people already breaking the law.
The new rules say that cyclists or pedestrians who otherwise are obeying the law can be ticketed or even arrested simply for being in a large group. That's baloney and a dangerous precedent.
Please, look more closely at this issue.
I'm not talking about this proposed issue. What i'm saying is that Critical Mass brought this on themselves by repeatedly breaking the law. They were practically begging the NYPD to do something to prevent it.
That said, I do think that the nypd's proposal is not reasonable and is a direct, desperate attack on CM. But maybe if CM didn't defy the law every single month this wouldn't be happening....
The main point of my comment was that Critical Mass is not an innocent party. I've seen them ride. They igore all traffic regulations, thereby putting hundreds of lives in danger, including their own. No one seems to recognize this.
I'm sure this would be great for tourism. The cops can now, in theory, ticket large tourist groups.
#22 JT: *Kristin -- this is not about the right of cops to ticket Critical Massers or cyclists or motorists who run lights. If that's the problem, then simply have cops issue tickets for people already breaking the law.
The new rules say that cyclists or pedestrians who otherwise are obeying the law can be ticketed or even arrested simply for being in a large group. That's baloney and a dangerous precedent.*
JT: It must be pretty scary when someone like yourself knows nothing about Constitutional Law and the laws that govern. Thanks for your kind words of political extremism (at least you’re trying to be normal)... You should brush up on the US Constitution and Law... you barely know a thing.
A permit to drive? It's been done, it's called a State Drivers License. Maybe bikes need them too, not a bad idea, keeping tabs on bikes and riders—not so different from driving a car.
Freedom of speech: Thankfully, we all have this right. But it's against the law to scream "FIRE!" in a theater or incite a riot from your soapbox.
Freedom of assembly also coincides with the same type of local laws, which it's clear you are not familiar with:
*The freedom of assembly in order to protest sometimes conflicts with laws intended to protect public safety, even in democratic countries: in many cities, the police are authorized by law to disperse any crowd (including a crowd of political protesters) which threatens public safety, or which the police cannot control. The idea is to prevent rioting. Often local law requires that a permit must be obtained in advance by protest organizers if a protest march is anticipated; the permit application can be denied. And then, when issued, time and location restrictions are sometimes added.*
will.xls, opinions aren't only the domain of lawyers and scholars. Plus, you're not allowed to conflate multiple posts from different sources into one post (I said un-American, someone else said 1st amendment) that you tear down (I happen to be an expert on blogging, which is how I know you're not allowed to do that). Lastly, since you are an expert at law arguments, you should know that it's a stronger argument to refute a position with facts, not with the opposition's lack of facts (which, I'll admit, is sorta what I'm doing here).
b-dog,
True, I am no 'expert on blogging.' However, can I, with the gracious permission of an 'expert on blogging,' comment on the discourse as a whole? I would then be aggregating, not conflating. Not to mention that it would be difficult for you to argue that the subtext of your argument (unlike my comment) was anything but the right to peaceably assemble contained in the 1st amendment of the constitution. Also, if you would like me to make an argument you will have to pay me a great deal more than nothing.
Do you have 'expert on blogging' on business cards? That would be awesome.
will.xls: Mostly I take exception to your attempt to stuff words in my mouth from your high horse (Please read the last sentence in your first post). My argument is a simple one that refers, not to the Constitution of the United States, but to the essential philosophy and culture of liberty, rationalism, and dissent in America... Do I believe the NYPD's attempt to quell dissent is un-American? Yes. It's not a buzz-word. It's something I think about and worry about.
*Do I believe the NYPD's attempt to quell dissent is un-American? Yes.*
well, i will have to presume you have no respect for police anywhere. laws govern the constitutuion, not the other way around.
I have witnessed several Critical Mass demonstrations and in my opinion the point was simply anarchy and mob rule. They didn't obey traffic laws and caused gridlock and congestion.
"Under the proposal, if the procession continued for more than two city blocks and if the group did not follow all traffic regulations, the threshold for a permit would drop to 10 people. "
Based upon what I have seen firsthand, the Critical Mass riders don't follow traffic regulations. Obviously the proposal is targeting them. However, why do people think Critical Mass's behavior is defensible? Can't they find a more reasonable, legal way to demonstrate?
I can't see how you make the jump from my statement to "no respect for police anywhere." What purpose does it serve (other than to frustrate me and make me think that you're dumb), distorting what I've said into something completely different?
"Can't they find a more reasonable, legal way to demonstrate?"
Perhaps. But for years (and still in Brooklyn) Critical Mass occured without incident once a month, with the aide of the police and the support of just about everyone who saw the ride. The feud between the bikers and the police occured during the RNC. It is true that the ride that month was just too big. But the police reacted in a frightening way and the trust that the two groups had for each other was lost. It escalated from there.
The purpose of the ride is to be disruptive. Hopefully it generates debate, which it has, and not anger, as it also has. The context, though, should be made clear. Automobiles and their drivers polute, create conjestion, break laws, are unsafe, and diminish the quality of life for every citizen in this city every day of the month. Critical mass is disruptive once a month. For years it was a small thing that the city accepted. Now the NYPD has turned it into a multi-million dollar problem.
Samsam: Just because CM *used to* be safe and community supported doesn't mean that doing something illegal is ok. That's like saying that you've always driven your car w/o a seatbelt and nothing has happened, so why obey the seatbelt law. The way CM operates is dangerous and illegal.
The seatbelt analogy is wrong. Thousands of people across the world ride in critical mass every month w/ very few incidents. If driving w/o a seatbelt had the same safety record as CM, then there would be no seatbelt law. It is less dangerous than regular automobile traffic. And, it is not illegal--the most recent judicial ruling was in favor of the ride and the issue at hand is an attempt by the NYPD to make it illegal.
In Manhattan, the police have been very aggressive, using their scooters to cut up the group and intimidate the riders. But for any skeptic, I sincerely suggest riding in the Brooklyn Critical Mass, the 2nd Friday of every month. You'll find a safe, lawful ride where there is mutual respect between the riders and the police and you'll wonder what all the fuss in Manhattan is about.
people's opinions about critical mass are only marginally relevant to the debate over the proposed changes to the parade permit rules. In fact, the police department would love for everyone to believe that this just about critical mass. that way none of the annoying constitutional issues will need to be addressed.
to will.xls: I would suggest that you not immediately assume that people who post comments are all "lay" people or lacking in understanding of the issues. There are very many sophisticated activists and concerned citizens out there who, with or without the benefit of an overpriced legal education, can sing the song and play the music. True there is a long history of legal precedents around the freedom to assemble (and every other constitutional protection enshrined in the bill of rights), but underlying the legal constitutional debate is a fundamental analysis of the social contract which each and every citizen can and should participate in. the issues involved in this little change in the parade rules are no exception.
to lay some of them out (in lay terms): should the police have the power to alter the landscape of public assembly unilaterally? true the supreme court has long recognized that governments have a right and responsibility to regulate the use of public spce for political ans commercial activity, but truly there are many activities that have never been tested, for example, non-political, non-commercial social activities.
Where is the limit on the government's right to regulate? saying that the government has some right to regualte the use of public space is not the same as allowing the government absolute or unlimited power to regulate public space.
Finally, (not a question but a statement), there is a constitutional catch-22 here: to avoid insinuations that the new rules are overbroad, police have all but announced that this new rule is aimed at and will be enforced (exclusively) against Critical Mass. this sort of singling out of a group or activity is unconstitutional at its core. I could cite precedent, but I don't think that it's really necessary. as they say in the law: res ipsa loquitur (the thing speaks for itself)...
Samsam,
You naïveté is alarming. Do you seriously think that a CM ride every month is going to do anything to diminish the usage of automobiles in NYC?
I think the purpose of staging this disruptive event is for bike riders to get back at someone - anyone - and blow off steam because you have to deal with cars and trucks and buses everyday.
It's like lashing out at the closest kid on the playground because a bully beat you up and then left. Even worse, it's like waiting until your friends show up after the fact and then whaling on the closest kid, because that will teach the WHOLE SCHOOL not to mess with your posse. In essence, it is retaliation against perceived bullying behavior, however the retaliation itself is a form of bullying. That's what makes people angry, and, to put it simply, it is cowardly.
CM is disruptive to a variety of people, including pedestrians and people riding to the hospital in ambulances, and quite often those affected are not the perpetrators of the heinous crime of operating or riding in a moterized vehicle on a usual basis. Most of those folks are long gone by Friday night. CM is a classic form of group punishment and it doesn't work.
You said, "Automobiles and their drivers polute[sic], create conjestion[sic], break laws, are unsafe, and diminish the quality of life for every citizen in this city every day of the month." However, automobiles are permitted by law to be operated in the city. Drivers of automobiles that break the law are subject to enforcement. A horde of unruly bicyclists taking over a street, disregarding traffic laws, and creating congestion (something you yourself cited as a quality of life issue) for people lawfully operating and riding in motor vehicles or otherwise going about their business should be against the law. You will never win respect for your cause by behaving as badly as your enemy, especially when you need to break the law to do it.
This whole - "how do you like it when someone does it to you" mentality is juvenile, negative and unproductive. Why doesn't CM organize and try to do something productive like establish more bike lanes or create a system to help police identify drivers who routinely violate bicyclists' right to share the road? Try working within the system instead of merely railing against it once a month.
And if it's not about anarchy, then why doesn't CM just apply for a permit?
stewart: CM is about whatever you want it to be about. Go on a ride and then decide what it's about. Talk to other riders and find out what it is about for them. For many it's just an excuse to ride. But Really. Go on a ride.
*I can't see how you make the jump from my statement to "no respect for police anywhere." What purpose does it serve (other than to frustrate me and make me think that you're dumb), distorting what I've said into something completely different?*
you made a blanket statement about the nypd being unamerican for enforcing the law, the very law(s) that govern the consitution which you say you respect, as do i... all police depts across the nation do the same thing... they govern the laws... big deal, it's their job... if they stop governing laws, well anarchy and i'm sure you'd be the first to bitch and moan that they;'re not doing their job.
name calling (presuming i'm dumb because i made a valid point against yours) makes your point or opinion sound juvenile and makes me less respectful to your point/opinion.
"stewart: CM is about whatever you want it to be about. Go on a ride and then decide what it's about. Talk to other riders and find out what it is about for them. For many it's just an excuse to ride. But Really. Go on a ride."
What! You don't even stand for anything! Then it really is just bullsh1t anarchy.
I like bikes (I have two) and I love to ride, and I'll keep riding my bike, in a legal manner, and try not to inconvenience anyone in the process.
Each time I get on a bike I have a choice: I can act like a jerk or not. Again, you will never win respect for your cause by behaving as badly as your enemy.
More...
"Do you seriously think that a CM ride every month is going to do anything to diminish the usage of automobiles in NYC?"
No. I never said or implied that. My point was that CM is a largely peaceful thing and has been for years and that, although it is disruptive, it is considerably less disruptive than daily, "lawful" (haha), automobile use.
Also, it truthfully doesn't, shouldn't, and historically hasn't stood for anything in particular. Groups like Transportation Alternatives and Times-Up work within the system and many CM riders actively participate in those groups. But yes, the very nature of CM is anarchic.
CM riders, like cars, also work within the confines of the law. During rides, the running of red lights is often facilitated by the police (again, check out a ride and see) who "cork" the streets for the riders.
Now, as I said, the RNC lead to an escalation which has lead to a few unruly rides... but not many. But mostly I'm curious about why you seem to think CM is so harmful, so unruly, and so unlawful. Is it really THAT big of a deal? My thought is that you must not have any first hand experience with CM which is why I suggest you go on a ride.