Preparation for the G20 Summit in Pittsburgh last September was akin to locking down a castle in the face of a siege. No one could get in, and no one was brave enough to venture out. Hundreds of extra police officers were hired for the weekend, and they were armed to the teeth, expecting the worst. Stories of past G20 Summits in other cities had Pittsburgh in a tense state, waiting for the swarms of demonstrators and protestors that were expected.
Of course, those protesters came. Or they tried to. In order to protest in the City of Pittsburgh, you must be granted a permit. Sounds reasonable, doesn’t it? Sure. I think it is reasonable for the city to have some control over who is protesting and where, in order to retain some modicum of organization. So, like any law-abiding citizens, the protest groups applied for their permits to protest at the G20 Summit. The city only actually granted 2 of those permits. Why? To stave off potential destruction?

The city refused to cooperate with the demonstrators, stifling their protests by citing their law books so that they didn’t seem wrong. They were operating from the horror stories of other cities, and attempting to subtly save themselves the possible destruction the protestors would cause by conveniently not approving the permits until it was too late.
The city refused to cooperate with the demonstrators, stifling their protests by citing their law books so that they didn’t seem wrong. They were operating from the horror stories of other cities, and attempting to subtly save themselves the possible destruction the protestors would cause by conveniently not approving the permits until it was too late.
They were wrong in a big way, however. The City of Pittsburgh managed to violate the dignity of all of those protestors by denying them their rights to free expression and free assembly. Their reasoning was based solely on the “potential” for violence, which pushes this to an issue of paternalism. Did the City have the right to deny those permits just because it was the “safe” thing to do? I don’t think so.
The dignity of those protestors was violated when their freedom to express themselves was stifled, and the dignity of all of the citizens of Pittsburgh was violated when the City violated our right to choose what is best for us by stifling those protests “for our own good”.
Dignity is inherent in those freedoms, and is violated when they are infringed upon.
Resources and Articles:
City sets up protest areas, but protest groups eye lawsuits over permit delays
6 groups sue Pittsburgh for protest permits Civil Rights Groups Sue PittsburghPittsburgh deploys teargas and sirens to keep G20 demonstrators at bay
G20 Protesters Ordered to Stop March by Pittsburgh Police
6 groups sue Pittsburgh for protest permits Civil Rights Groups Sue PittsburghPittsburgh deploys teargas and sirens to keep G20 demonstrators at bay
G20 Protesters Ordered to Stop March by Pittsburgh Police
That is an intense picture. I feel like it's something we'll see in history books somewhere. It's also a huge contradiction, isn't it? Hey, we welcome you - but just in case, here are some armed soldiers.
ReplyDelete