Dear Council Speaker Christine Quinn:                                    download letter (word.document)

We write to you with grave concerns about an assault on our First Amendment rights occurring right here in New York City. The new anti-assembly rules, written by the NYPD and embraced by you, make New Yorkers subject to arrest if they gather and process through the City with 50 or more people, without first asking for and receiving permission from the police (Official Compilation of Rules of the City of New York Title 38 Chapter 19 Sections 1 & 2).

We call on you to:
  1. act immediately to repudiate these rules and the undemocratic process by which they were written, and
  2. conduct open hearings on public assembly and how it can be best facilitated in the City.

The streets of New York are our bulletin boards. From the struggles for the eight-hour workday to LGBT rights, we have used these streets to air grievances and create social change. It is unfortunate that, instead of safeguarding our streets for public assembly, you betrayed the political legacy that gave you—an out lesbian—the power you enjoy today.

We acknowledge that you have requested a meeting with the Radical Homosexual Agenda. But, with all due respect, you have made your position on the new rules perfectly clear and so have we, and, unless you’ve changed your position, we are puzzled about what we would have to discuss.

However, in an effort to further explain why we believe you are the elected official most responsible for the anti-assembly rules, we’ve included a review of how these rules were drafted and accepted, and the specific objections to them that groups have already raised with you.

NYPD WRITES THE RULES?
During 2006, in multiple cases, the courts struck down the City’s regulations on public processions as unconstitutionally vague. Because City Council is the governing body charged with drafting rules about assembly, you, as its leader, should have conducted public hearings and held City Council votes to democratically correct the fundamental flaws that the courts found. But instead, you abdicated these legislative responsibilities and allowed the NYPD to draft rules governing how we gather in the City.

In July 2006, the NYPD offered their first proposal, which stated that people were subject to arrest if they did not ask the police for a permit and gathered among:
  1. any group of two or more proceeding on any street in a manner not complying with all traffic laws;
  2. any group of 20 or more proceeding on any street regardless of whether they comply with the traffic laws;
  3. any group of 35 or more proceeding on a sidewalk.

On August 17, 2006, grassroots groups held a community forum to educate people about the implications of this proposal (most notoriously, under the proposal, a mother pushing a baby stroller across a street against a traffic light could be arrested for parading without a permit).

You were invited to participate in this forum and chose not to. Luckily, Councilors Rosie Mendez, Alan Gerson, and Gale Brewer had the courage to speak out publicly against this attack on our First Amendment rights. Countless grassroots groups, including Assemble for Rights, United for Peace and Justice, Judson Memorial Church, Time’s Up and Transportation Alternatives, voiced their opposition as well. The forum exposed the flaws of the police proposal to media and the public, and the results were immediate: the next day, amidst widespread criticism, Police Commissioner Ray Kelly withdrew this proposal.

Afterwards, you said in the media, ''[The City Council is] pleased the Police Department has withdrawn this proposal.'' That gave us some hope that maybe you would realize it is your job, along with the rest of the City Council, to draft rules dealing with fundamental democratic rights.

NYPD RULES VERSION 2.0
But then, two months later, in October 2006, the NYPD launched their second proposal, which stated that people were subject to arrest if they were in:
      1. any group of 10 or more proceeding on any street for two or more blocks in a manner
          not complying with all traffic laws;
      2. any “recognizable group” of 30 or more proceeding on any street regardless of whether
          they comply with the traffic laws.

The police announced that they would be accepting public comments on this proposal at 1 Police Plaza on November 27, 2006, the Monday after Thanksgiving, at 11 a.m. If the NYPD truly wanted to include the general public in this process, they could scarcely have picked a worse time: most people either had to work or were away due to the holiday weekend. While hundreds attended, at least that many were surely shut out of the process all together by the timing, let alone the fear about testifying against the police at police headquarters.

Just like at the community forum, Speaker Quinn, you did not attend this meeting and publicly state your position. Councilors Gale Brewer, Bill DeBlasio, Alan Gerson, Rosie Mendez, Melissa Mark-Viverito, Letitia James and a representative for Jessica Lappinx attended and testified against the police proposal. Council members Tony Avella, Dan Garodnick, and David Weprin submitted testimony opposing the proposed rules, as did Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer. Not a single elected official attended this forum to express their support of the police proposal.

Of course, in a democracy with a healthy separation of powers, the “public hearing” would be entirely reversed: the police would be forced to testify at City Hall about a proposal drafted by our elected officials. Your fellow Councilors stated as much to the police and the people in attendance.

Many groups, including the New York City Bar Association, the New York Civil Liberties Union, 100 Blacks in Law Enforcement Who Care, Assemble for Rights NYC, 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 members of the Radical Homosexual Agenda stated quite clearly our collective opposition to the police proposal. Many of these groups forwarded their objections directly to you as well.

NYPD RULES TRUMP 1ST AMENDMENT
After the hearing at Police Plaza, the NYPD drafted a third proposal stating that people will be subject to arrest if they participate in a “parade” without first asking for and receiving permission from the police. They defined a parade as the following:

“A parade is any procession or race which consists of a recognizable group of 50 or more pedestrians, vehicles, bicycles or other devices moved by human power, or ridden or herded animals proceeding together upon any public street or roadway.”

In February 2007, the NYPD’s third proposal became an enforceable rule. On the Brian Lehrer Show, you stated that this new rule was “fair and appropriate” and that it “allowed people to express their First Amendment rights” while giving the police the ability to “keep control of situations.”

RHA OBJECTIONS TO POLICE RULES
While the following objections were already sent directly to you by some of the groups speaking out at Police Plaza, we are restating them below, so that it is clear that they are also the objections of the Radical Homosexual Agenda:

1. As leader of City Council, you declined the opportunity to debate these rules, and the public was never given an opportunity to comment on them, at a real public hearing, conducted by elected officials who are accountable to their constituents. You have the power to repudiate these rules and initiate a far more democratic process to consider our right to freely assemble. You should not have abdicated your legislative duty to the police. We didn’t vote for Police Commissioner Ray Kelly, and he should not be drafting rules, especially about something as integral to democracy as free expression.

2. Under the anti-assembly rules, spontaneous processions of 50 or more people are never acceptable, under any circumstances. The underlying premise is that unplanned gatherings and processions are bad. But the history of our City and the struggle for LGBT rights proves that this could not be further from the truth. Under these rules, even the people who gathered in and around Union Square after the September 11th attacks would be subject to arrest.

These rules justify the police suppression of spontaneous crowds. In 1998, after the murder of Mathew Shepard, queer people gathered and marched down Fifth Avenue in an un-permitted parade. Organizers expected hundreds of participants, but instead, collective grief and outrage led to 5,000 attendees. Rather than facilitate the safe passage of this spontaneous crowd, the police beat them with clubs, charged them with horses and arrested at least 96 participants. Speaker Quinn, by embracing these rules, you are saying that the police should have dispersed that crowd and should disperse all spontaneous crowds of marginal people in the future. You have criminalized our ability to come together in times of crisis as well as celebration.

3. The rules give police broad discretionary powers.

• The rules state that the police will determine who is a “recognizable” member of the parade. Recognition is in the eyes of a police officer. But during the 2004 Republican National Convention protests, the NYPD arrested 1,800 people, all of whom they claimed were recognizable protestors breaking various laws. Over 80% of the cases were dismissed or reduced to Adjournment Contemplating Dismissal, a category that is neither an admission of guilt nor a repudiation of it.

• If 35 people are processing and inspire 15 more people to join, the whole group is then in violation of the law. That destroys one of the most fundamental aspects of political parades—the open invitation to participate.

• If one person steps from the sidewalk onto the street, as the law is written, all 50 or more participants can be arrested for parading without a permit.

4. The rules are clearly being selectively enforced—it won’t be difficult to prove that, while congregations of youth of color and monthly Critical Mass bike rides are being targeted, funeral processions, walking tours and 5 Boro Bike Rides are not.

5. If somebody is in the street in a way that impedes the flow of traffic, the police already have offenses they can punish that person with: obstruction of traffic, jaywalking, etc. There is no need to compromise our rights of assembly when prior regulations already govern public areas.

The NYC Gay Pride festivities of 2007 were marred by violations of our right to freely assemble. The Trans Day of Action happened this year not because the NYPD did the right thing by granting them a permit, but because a federal court over-ruled the NYPD’s denial and said the organizers had a right to march. In addition, we learned, thanks to the work of I-Witness Video, that the NYPD has secretly been writing permits for the Dyke March for years (unbeknownst to organizers, who continued to plan for what they thought was the 15th Annual Un-permitted Dyke March). These incidents clearly show just how unaccountable and political the entire permitting process, including this new anti-assembly rule, has become.

It is on your watch as City Council Speaker that our right to public assembly has become endangered. But we’re not giving it up without a fight.

Sincerely,
The Radical Homosexual Agenda
www.radicalhomosexualagenda.org
wewantyou@riseup.net