Menino Blinks, Leaving a Uncertain Moment for the Occupy Movement

Last night, Occupy Boston proved it still has widespread enthusiastic support. The mayor and police were apparently not prepared to deal with that eventuality, and now have egg on their faces. Naturally protestors were ebullient. The next move for the movement, though, will be a tough and hazardous one.

The mayor is trapped between a rock and a hard place. Over the last ten weeks, he has behaved like a man who wishes this movement would just go away so he doesn't need to deal with the political ramifications of supporting or opposing it. Hence, e.g, his earlier vague statements that "a time will come" when they have to leave, but they are fine as they are for right now. Now however he has been openly defied. Over the long term leaving the protestors in place would threaten to erode the mayor's credibility past the point of endurance. It is possible he will simply concede the point quietly and hope winter does it's work, but I doubt it. More likely, Occupy will have a choice to make. Here are the two main choices as I see them.

Option I. Make a physical retreat from literal occupation, but continue the movement. Use the groundswell of support received last night to claim a moral victory and create momentum for a different model of protest. Hopefully, this would shift media and public attention back to the issues the protestors care about and away from endless debate about tactics. The risk, of course, is that the mainstream would simply dismiss Occupy as having admitted defeat.

Option II. Go out with a confrontation. This move would be a high-risk, high reward gamble. If a raid came soon, the public support generated by last night's deadline showdown might lead to sympathy with protestors who non-violently resisted arrest. The victory would only be meaningful if Occupy could again muster a large number of protestors.  Occupy cannot engage successfully in civil disobedience with a low turnout, since its complaints are against systematic political and economic unfairness, rather than violation of the rights of individuals.

A failure of either tactic would lead to the death of the movement. A success in I might lead to a renaissance and mainstreaming of the movement, which may have the side effect of moderating demands. The results of a successful application of II would lead to further civil unrest, though the extent and form it takes is impossible to predict, and could potentially be impossible to control.

It'll be a heck of a GA tonight.

Interesting Censorship Incident at the Occupy Rally Today

An unsettling act of censorship occurred at the Occupy event in Copley Square today. Prior to the main rally, a number of political and advocacy organizations set up tables to distribute printed materials. Amongst these groups was the International Socialist Organization.

After about an hour, a police captain visited the Socialists and told them that they had to leave unless they had a permit. The protestors refused, citing Supreme Court case law which establishes the right to distribute printed material in public spaces without a permit. The captain left.

About twenty minutes later, a police lieutenant returned to the area, and told a nearby table of social workers that "you need to pack that stuff up, they're(the Socialists) about to." After another ten minutes, the lieutenant returned, confirmed with the protestors that they did not have a permit, and told them that if they did not immediately remove their literature, it would be confiscated.

Here's the interesting part. The protestors were absolutely correct about the legal rights they had. The police had no authority to force them to disperse or to confiscate their materials. However, the police are perfectly free to lie. This freedom extends to giving "orders" they actually have no authority to enforce.

Anyone who watches cop shows knows that lying to suspects and witnesses is a standard tactic in investigating crime. It is unclear, however, what purpose is served by law enforcement lying to the public outside of that context. It certainly does serve to undermine trust in the police. Today, it also served to erect a de facto barrier to the exercise of a Constitutional right.

Sinkgate

As the official Occupy Boston blog notes (at http://www.occupyboston.org/) the police have now literally taken the kitchen sink. Amusing as that is on its face, though, the satiric treatment does not address the police department's explanation for the decision. So far, no explanation has been forthcoming.

Officers at the park declined to comment. A call to the media relations office of the Boston Police department led me to speak with officer James Kennealy. He told me that no single person could be identified as having made the decision to confiscate the sink. He did say, however, that the general policy of keeping building materials out was policy made by the mayor, the police commissioner, and "various health inspectors," and that the ban on new building materials was known to the protestors. 

Complicating the problem for the city is the timing of the event­­­­. Mere hours before, Occupy Boston had won an extension on the temporary injunction to maintain the encampment. The concerns the City cited in it's case to lift the injunction concerned safety and sanitation. Several protestors I spoke with expressed frustration that attempts to improve camp conditions were being blocked by the materials ban.

 

Hello and Welcome!

Hi, this is Nat Lathrop. I've created this blog to be a clearing house for news, opinion, and fiction and poetry for young journalists and writers. You'll find political commentary, philosophy, and reporting in the weeks and months ahead, along with glimpses at my writing process and works in progress. I hope to recruit a variety of contributors, so if you would like to submit a a piece for publishing, let me know!