[*BCM*] NYC [Fwd: A(n important) triviality?]
jym at econet.org
Tue Mar 1 18:18:41 EST 2005
> ... you'd be hard pressed not to call it a parade.
=v= What's relevant here is New York City law. This law defines
a parade as something requiring a permit. Another subsection
of the same section of law defines a demonstration and makes no
mention of permits. The idea has something to do with the Bill
of Rights. Remember that thing? It's supposedly important.
> In the interests of public safety the cities have seen fit to
> regulate it ...
=v= Let me be blunt here: you clearly don't know what's going
on for real in NYC. The behavior of the NYPD in this regard
have no relationship to the interests of public safety.
Piloting motorcycles into groups of demonstrators is not safe.
Using undercover cops to attempt to direct bicyclists onto
freeways and the wrong way on one-way streets is not safe.
Sending fire engines and ambulances through Critical Mass when
there's no emergency happening is not safe.
=v= Critical Mass in NYC has been going on for almost 12 years
without even a single injury. There is no public safety issue.
> ... the inconvenience of some people at having traffic blocked
> and the safety issues of people running red lights etc is
> considered a legitimate state interest.
=v= False presumption. CM and other demonstration rides can
occur without these going on. The NYPD arrest people anyway.
More information about the Bostoncriticalmass