City of St. Paul using "Coalition" court case to try and divide anti-RNC activists
The Coaliton to March on the RNC and Stop the War is engaged in a legal battle with the City of St. Paul and the Saint Paul Police Department over the time and route of the antiwar march scheduled for September 1, the opening day of the Republican National Convention. After the Coalition proposed a route along John Ireland and Kellogg Boulevards and encircling the Xcel Energy Center, the city responded with a far less desirable route on Cedar and West 7th Streets, turning back on itself in the space between the Xcel and the Dorothy Day Center, and terminating before the convention is anticipated to even begin. Most recently, the Coalition has proposed a compromise that combines the two routes.
A hearing on the matter is scheduled in federal court on July 9, when supporters will rally outside the courthouse at 1 pm. However, notably, the city's defense arguments to the Coalition's lawsuit are considerably less about the Coalition itself than about other anti-RNC organizing bodies. The arguments and affidavits filed by officials, most notably assistant chief of police Matt Bostrom, include numerous articles and statements from the websites of the RNC Welcoming Committee and Unconventional Action.
In addition to starkly putting the city's position in view, the arguments and affidavits contain some significant information potentially useful to anti-RNC organizers, including some information about street closures and bussing plans, and so they are now available for review on the Twin Cities Indymedia site:
****
City defense arguments:
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/rnc/city-defense.pdf
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/rnc/city-defense-argument.pdf
Affidavit and attachments from Assistant Chief Matt Bostrom:
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/rnc/bostrom_aff_B.pdf
http://tc.indymedia.org/files/rnc/bostrom_affidavit_index.pdf
Affidavit from Assitant Fire Chief Michael Hogan: http://tc.indymedia.org/files/rnc/hogan-aff.pdf
Affidavit from RNC Secret Service coordinator John Koleno: http://tc.indymedia.org/files/rnc/koleno-aff.pdf
****
City, police, media try to connect march with blockades, blockades with "calamities"
A recent Minneapolis Star Tribune article by Randy Furst about possible anti-convention activities lifts almost word-for-word a statement from the affidavit of John Koleno, 2008 RNC Coordinator for the Secret Service. Koleno writes, "the Secret Service is considering a wide array of potential security threats, including terrorist attacks, lone gunmen, fire, environmental hazards, chemical or biological attacks, structural safety concerns, and suicide bombers." To the litany of potentialities, the Star Tribune added, "blockades that could shut down the RNC." (Read the Protest RNC 2008 Coalition's response to the article here.)
Matt Bostrom's affidavit contains several attached documents, but few are directly related to the September 1st antiwar march. One document is the Call to Action from the RNC Welcoming Committee, which makes no mention of the September 1st march. Another is a description of lockboxes and other blockading tactics found through an Unconventional Action website; the article does not mention the RNC at all, much less the march. And, obviously, blockading - a typically nonviolent activity - is a long way from the "calamities" warned of by Koleno.
By attempting to connect the "Swarm, Seize and Stay" blockading strategy (which came out of a Welcoming Committee-organized national spokescouncil in May) to the September 1st march, the city, aided by Randy Furst's Star Tribune article and recent sensational TV reports, is likely attempting to create divisions amongst anti-RNC activists. Such a divide-and-conquer strategy has historically been a favorite tactic of those in power; however, a set of agreements known as the St. Paul Principles are helping to unite activists across boundaries of tactics and ideology. The principles were drafted this February and agreed to by the Coalition to March, the Welcoming Committee, groups organizing under the Unconventional Action name, and many others. They commit these groups to maintaining a separation of time and space amongst actions, which, if folllowed, would make the city's argument about the September 1st unfounded. The Principles further commit their signers to respecting a diversity of tactics, keeping debates and criticisms internal to the movement, and refusing to assist in any law enforcement actions against activists and others. (Link: St. Paul Principles)
Arguments shed light on free speech and movement restrictions
The arguments in the Coalition's court case also reveal the City's attempt to pacify protesters through the use of a so-called "Public Viewing Area" - essentially a protest pen, which the city had previously said they would not erect. According to the defense argument, "In order to further facilitate First Amendment activity, the City will equip the Public Viewing Area with a stage, a sound system, restroom facilities, and water. The stage will be available for one-hour allotments between the hours of 7:00AM and 11:00PM from Monday, September 1, through Thursday, September 4, 2009. The city will develop and conduct a lottery system to allocate time slots for use of the stage and sound system."
The so-called PVA be located at the triangle on West 7th and 5th Streets near the Xcel, which the city touts as an "exemplary location," noting that "the chain-link style fencing used ... will be transparent." They do not understand - or perhaps they understand perfectly well - that after eight years of a Republican administration and countless years of unresponsive politicians from both parties, people will no longer be content with simply expressing a message. "Plaintiff [the Coalition] ignores the availability of the PVA by which Plaintiff can express its message at anytime," the city's lawyers write, as if holding signs in what is essentially a traffic island would satisfy anyone.
The documents also include information on likely street closures, including plans for busses on Kellogg, 7th and 5th Streets and Smith Avenue. Busses will each have at least one police officer on board and will run several abreast.
In trying to pre-emptively frame the debate around anti-convention activities, the arguments also repeatedly mention the Democratic National Convention in Los Angeles in 2000, when protesters at one point defended themselves against the police with small projectiles (to which the police responded with beatings and chemical weapons), as well as the 1999 WTO protests, when the police rioted in response to protesters' acts of nonviolent civil disobedience. Predictably, the arguments nonetheless frame protesters as the ones likely to be violent.
It is no secret that the city's priorities have less to do with maintaining any more than a facade of free speech, and more to do with scaring residents away from the protests and especially away from taking direct action during the RNC. In his argument, seven years after the fact, Bostrom invokes September 11, 2001, writing, "In a post-9/11 world, security is especially crucial during a high profile NSSE [National Special Security Event] like the RNC."
Will the state and corporate media succeed in dividing and repressing anti-RNC organizing, or can activists maintain a united front by using a diversity of tactics in solidarity with each other? Time will tell. Meanwhile, one thing is clear: while radical activists are moving beyond beyond the legend of Seattle and beyond the politics of division, the agents of repression are not moving beyond the specter of 9/11, nor the same tired intimidation tactics of the past.
Twin Cities Indymedia
tc.indymedia.org


Corrected Link to St. Paul Principles
The link above doesn't work. Here's the correct one:
http://www.nornc.org/st-paul-principles/
Words of warning regarding permit marches
- At any given permit march there will be hundreds of police both in uniform and undercover.
- HLS, DIA, FBI and other federal agencies will also be there to monitor and gather intelligence.
- Every square foot of the parade routes typically granted permits are covered by video surveillance cameras.
- Anyone who stays in the street after the permit time expires will be subject to arrest.
- Corporate media coverage will be poor. Corporate media may be there but mostly likely to distort the message
- The organizers of the event may side with the police if there are any incidents of police violence.
In the city of Los Angeles for example it costs $312 to apply for the permit and permit holders must also be bonded meaning they need close 1/4 million in funds to back up the bond. In addition applicants must sign an indemnification and hold harmless agreement, which means the applicant signs away to the right to sue the city for claims related to the event. The applicant also needs to provide proof of insurance. This insurance can cost 1,000s of dollars.
The high cost of permits effectively shuts out true grassroots groups from getting permits and allows only larger national organizations with connections to well funded political parties to be granted permits.
Activists should recognize that the permit requirement for protests is a violation of the first amendment of the US constitution in that it abridges the right to peaceable assembly. The permit process does precisely what it is designed to do: render authentic spontaneous protest illegal.
True grassroots activists should never take out a permit or “work with the authorities” in any manner. There are some important reasons for this: first, permit marches are not protests, a protest is when you do something in protest, something not approved by the person or institution you are protesting against. The idea of asking for permission to protest is absurd. Permit marches are police controlled parades from start to finish. To ask for a permit to march and to follow the police approved route is to say the police have the power over the protest not the protesters.
By adhering to the permit process the protest is rendered impotent and ineffective before it even occurs. If you have to ask for a permit to exercise a right, you have already lost that right.
If the police feel for any reason they are not in control of the event they will attack it. The police define control has the capacity to deploy overwhelming force and end the event if so ordered.
Those who truly want to protest should consider NEVER attending any police controlled permit marches. Instead they should work within their local community to organize and prepare for meaningful authentic protests at sites where the policy they are protesting against is being instituted.
Symbolic protests at government buildings or heavily policed commercial sections of the city do not develop community solidarity the way local vigils and demonstrations can. (There are many tactically and logistical reasons why these are bad places for demonstrations.) National organizations who seek the formation of a mass movement for peace and social justice should consider changing their tactics and stop repeating themselves by continuing to plan protests at the same sites and same seasons of the year.
Non-aligned independent activists should consider forming their own community based protests and never attending permit marches organized by others who are working with the very authorities they claim to be protesting against.
Activists need to be more creative in identifying and organizing protests at sites that pose the greatest potential for preventing or impeding the government/corporate policy they are protesting against. To be effective a protest needs to work in some way to directly negate the injustice at hand otherwise the protest is merely symbolic protest and should not be considered an effective or worthwhile action.