Hey, there! Log in / Register
McCrea would stop paying for police, fire coverage of Southie parade over gay ban
By adamg on Wed, 06/03/2009 - 10:39am
Kevin McCrea acknowledges that Tom Menino has done a good job supporting Boston's GLBT community, but says MassEquality never even talked to him before endorsing Menino and that there's still more a mayor could do:
... For example, the Mayor still pays for the police and fire overtime for the South Boston Parade which he refuses to do for the Tall Ships. As Mayor, I would use that leverage of hundreds of thousands of dollars to breaking down that last vestige of discrimination. ...
Neighborhoods:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Exactly
McCrae gets it. He's the only true ally in the race.
That sounds like a very good
That sounds like a very good thing. I have just been anti-Menino until now--hadn't been able to form much of an opinion of any of the contenders and this goes a long way in helping me do so.
Whit
Indeed. He's been my choice
Indeed. He's been my choice candidate from the start.
Too bad he's a liar, not one
Too bad he's a liar, not one red cent in O.T. for fire.
9-0
The above title refers to the vote of the US Supreme Court in the case involving the Allied War Veterans and their right to run the South Boston Parade as they see fit. This includes inviting (or leaving out) those they choose.
I find it interesting that there are some out there that don't understand what this means.
Live with it!
I think it means that
public tax money is paying for a private event. When the Harpoon fest opens up this weekend, the private Harpoon company pays for the extra police at the event. The private parade doesn't pay for all the extra police at their event in Southie (on a public street nonetheless)
I think this topic at least deserves some discussion.
Hey, Buddy. I don't have to
Hey, Buddy. I don't have to live with it.
Whit
What Pete said
Yes, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that Wacko and his pals can ban anybody they want. The Supreme Court, however, did NOT rule that the city has to use taxpayer funds to provide support services. Menino says that's why he can demand a security deposit up front from Sail Boston and why McCrea says the same principle should apply to the South Boston parade.
McCrea you idiot: Freedom of assembly does not have a price tag
Last time I checked, the First Amendment did not say "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging . . the right of the people peaceably to assemble except for local mayoral diktats imposing a price tag for police protection and "services."
People have a right to assemble in public for any expressive purpose they want. Government can't try to control free speech by back-dooring censorship and content restrictions by demanding $$$ for police protection.
Menino has tried this several times over the years, for example with the MassCANN rally on the Common (and the St. Patrick's Day Parade), and has lost every time. Boston taxpayers pay the lawyer's fees and costs.
The St. Patrick's Day parade stands in the same stead as any other parade, indeed any large protest rally: if city government has to do anything, it has to provide police to preserve public order. Providing police does not require and should not imply an endorsement of the message.
McCrea's an idiot who obviously has no respect for the Constitution. I'll strike him off of my list.
so i can do whatever i want
wherever i want, and if it costs the city money, then that's OK?
What if a group wanted to hold a parade every week?
are there no checks on what kinds of tabs we can run up against government's accounts? Is that a possible strategy that could destroy a government? and if so, why hasn't it been tried and succeeded yet? There must be some checks and balances in there somewhere, eh?
Short answer
Yes.
You can have a parade (or a protest, which is legally about the same thing) every week, or every day. The parade or protest is only subject to other laws prohibiting violence.
There can be some restrictions imposed on "time place and manner," but of course enforcing them requires police, and not at the cost to the protestor.
Those of us who remember the frequent massive demonstrations against the Vietnam War (example: The Moratorium in 1970, where there were a half million or so on the Common and no money was paid to police for the right) understand what freedom of assembly means.
As far as examples of groups holding parades or protests frequently and toppling government systems, I think you could look at Selma and Montgomery as good examples. I think some of the great freedom of assembly vs. police permit cases came out of the Civil Rights Movement.
There was also a white supremacist group (the National Alliance?) leader who used to collect $$$ in fees and costs when his permits were denied and money demanded for his parades. I forget the name - he came to Boston years ago.
I think you are incorrect
I went to Georgetown in the 1980's. As a Catholic school they wanted to prohibit official recognition (and equal funding) for the Gay/Lesbian group. I believe the case went all the way up to the Supremes - I believe the end result years later was they gave Georgetown a choice - fund equally if you want to continue to receive federal grants. If you choose not to as a private institution, that's fine - but an institution that chooses to discriminate can't get federal funds. The school caved and gave them official recognition so they could get federal benefits.
Wacko and the party boys are free to assemble as they choose. But if they discriminate against any groups i believe the city is within its rights and right to refuse funding for the gathering - it makes it a private affair - not a public event.
I agree with all of the above and I'm a big supporter of gay rights (raised Catholic, straight and married here). However I will say I've never understood why the gay community wants to march in a parade where they are most unwelcome. Happy to hear anyone weigh in on that.
are you also wondering...
... why a black person would want to ride a bus or eat in a restaurant where they are not welcome (after all, they could set up their own, right?)... or why people in wheelchairs insist that cities slice up sidewalks with expensive curb cuts and other "amenities" for THAT "special interest" when obviously the sidewalks were not designed for wheelchairs (or maybe it's even the other way around, and wheelchair makers are creating expenses for cities by not designing chairs that don't require special accommodation).
No
I'm wondering why anyone would want to go to a party where nobody likes them - no matter the reason.
Parties in public aren't the same as parties in private
when the party takes place on public property and uses public resources, it's not the same as a racist or homo-hating party you might hold at your privately owned condo.
The basic idea that you're missing is that we're not really supposed to be holding exclusionist events in public spaces. Public spaces are for everyone... more or less all the time, with very few exceptions... even in those exceptions, some segment of "the public" without regard to any individual characteristics (color, religion, orientation) is generally still permitted to be there.
The Boston Common is, i believe, the oldest or one of the oldest public gathering spaces in the nation. it's a shame that these basic principles of freedom and sharing of public property have been forgotten right here in Boston.
I'm not arguing your right
I agree that anyone should have the RIGHT to march (or it's a private event and they should pay for security etc. as I believe Wacko and the gang should start doing next year now that Sail Boston is the precedent - and that IS a public event) That's not the argument.
I just don't understand why someone would have a DESIRE to march in a parade where they are not welcome by the host (and like it or not, insults the moral beliefs of the host). As a matter of etiquette I would defer just as if I were on the other side I wouldn't put together a group supporting DOMA and march in the Pride Parade.
I have the right to do all kinds of things. It doesn't make it right to be rude to the hosts of an event whether you like what they stand for or not. It's an issue of civility, not constitutional rights.
It's about equal access and rights in PUBLIC events, i suppose
i can't speak for those who want to march in the parade. i think parades are goofy.
So to answer this I refer you back to a cousin of my prior question and ask you to seek the answer to that instead.
Why would someone want to sit at a lunch counter and pay money to a restaurant owner, or ride in a bus and pay money to a bus company, when that restaurant owner or bus company driver does not want that person in their restaurant or bus?
Can you understand why a person would want to do such "rude" things and why it might be right that they do?
But you can't have steak if it's not on the menu
But here's the difference - you can't get on the bus and insist on the bus stopping where there is no stop and you can't go in the lunch counter and demand that they make you something not on the menu. Nobody's saying that if you are black or gay or Jewish you're not allowed to march. They are just saying that the "theme" of your group has to be acceptable to the organizers. If you wanted to organize a group of Gay Irish Stepdancers with no mention of the fact they were gay - there would probably be no problem. Again, I agree with the courts - the organizers can refuse to allow certain groups to march. I agree with Kevin McCrea - that makes it a private event and the city can then insist on payment for security like at Fenway Park and the Garden. However, I think that there are better and more civil fights to fight (like allowing gays to live openly in the military). I've personally distanced myself from the church, but I can understand and respect that if my devoutly Catholic parents took my nieces and nephews to a St. Patrick's day parade they would be insulted by a gay themed group/float etc. I think it is in the best interest of gay activists to stay away from events like this - you're not going to win converts or friends that way. It's personal advice - not legal.
Not sure
Obligatory Onion (possibly NSFW): http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28491
However, there is a place for outreach and ambassadors. Not all Irish Catholics let Rome and traditional prejudices tell them what to think. Older parade organizers and some others might be biased against gays, but many other people could use some gentle exposure, to see that gays exist close to home and can be just normal, decent folks. And who's to say someone can't celebrate Boston Irish heritage because they're gay. Where's the Irish fighting spirit?
Flaming Leprechauns
Bring on the gay Irish stepdancing troupe. I might even go to Southie to see that.
That doesn't sound very pleasant
Stepping back and looking at your patient explanation of why all this exclusion and rage is necessary, really, sitting here with my coffee, looking out at people walking down the street, I really have only one thought:
why in the world would any city want to do ANYTHING to facilitate the sort of angry, hateful behaviour put forth by bigots?
i would further say that neither you nor i have standing to dictate the actions other fully-grown free-standing adults might take to assert their civil rights, though we can certainly watch and ponder their effectiveness. Sometimes breaking down doors is the only way to make things change, and when it comes to civil rights, there is a tradition of success borne of necessity there.
the city of Boston has CREATED and SUSTAINED this problem by allowing it to be a quasi-public event even though, in practice, it is a private event.
For those keeping score at home, this is another situation that could have been headed off, but that has been habitually mismanaged to the point of making life worse for everyone, rather than better for everyone, under the watchful eye and guiding hand of Tom Menino.
There's an even simpler question
why should people throwing a party in a public space have the right to bill the costs for the party to people they don't like, and forcibly exclude?
You have slain the scarecrow!
Too bad nobody's saying he has to include them. You might have had a point.
The word "private"
It usually means "not on public spaces, using public resources".
They can go find a private estate for their parade, and pay for security with private funds then. Right? If not, they can't complain when the city yanks the pot of gold out from under them, being private and all ...
Can't have it both ways PLT ... live with it!
No litigation
The fact that the city's contribution of police, fire and DPW resources for this "private" event hasn't been litigated suggests that it's legal. If it weren't, you know GLAD would have been all over it by now.
So maybe Mayor McCrea couldn't withhold such support, but I appreciate the thought and I'd like to know more.
I think....
the city can probably charge a private parade/protest/march a reasonable fee for closing a street though. Marching on the common is different that closing a main public street and blocking other public streets.
And actually "reasonable" might be one cop for each street, and one DPW worker for every 3 streets, or something like that. Of course, that kind of stuff adds up....
Many parades and protests
The city has many parades, some of which have few spectators but a large constituency.
How many people watch the Greek Independence Day parade around the Common? Few, from what I've seen.
The Boston Veteran's Day parade in November is also sparsely attended by spectators - it's cold!
For a recent example, look at the "June Day" parade of the Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company, which closes off Beacon, Charles, Tremont and Park Streets for several hours in the middle of a work day and has few dedicated spectators.
Then there are the neighborhood parades - Allston-Brighton, Roslindale, etc. These parades are organized by volunteers and don't have money to pay the city $$$ for police details and clean up.
Legally, non-profit parades are in the same stead as political protest marches. The government can't attempt to suppress either protest or parades by imposing heavy fees.
Public areas like parks, streets and sidewalks are open to parades and protests, hence "public fora." There are some limited restrictions allowed for traffic purposes, but a parade or protest has the right to determine the content of its own program in the public forum. The government cannot control a group's message in a public forum. If NARAL has a rally on the Common, they don't have to let Citizens for Life on the Parkman Bandstand for equal access during their rally, even though the Parkman Bandstand is public property. Like a protest, the government can't edit a group's parade program based on content. That is what the Hurley St. Patrick's Day parade U.S. Supreme Court case stands for.
Of course, counterprotesters can also attend in the vicinity of the parade and protest the parade or protest.
And, the government certainly can't discriminate in imposing fees based on the content of the parade or protest.
Strange desire of homosexual activists to be in everyone's face
Oh please, why can't homosexual activists have their own damn parade? Why must they insert themselves into everyone else's parade? Oh, that's right- they already DO have their own parade, which enjoys the protection and services of Boston cops and firemen.
Oh Margaret!
Come down from that cross and spend some time in the real world. The homos are all around you! Watch out!!!!
This is a Muppet News Flash
GLBTQ(continueacronymhere) people have a parade in Boston every year! And that's the ONLY TIME THEY EXIST WHY CAN'T THEY JUST BE NORMAL?
Hold on...this just in. Huh. It turns out that you...yes, you!...already interact with GLBT people every single day. It's just that most of the time, we're not bedecked in rainbow boas and sequins and thongs and leather. We're too busy sweeping streets and teaching children and serving coffee and treating illnesses and raising families (among other things) to have time for that more than once a year.
In short: don't want to see "homosexual activists"? Don't go to Pride. Don't want to see any non-straight people ever? Stay home, don't watch TV or movies (even if all the actors are heterosexual, you just don't know about the crew, and how many American Idols are out and proud now?), don't listen to NPR (David Sedaris shows up at the oddest times) and whatever you do, don't listen to WBUR...they play the Tchaikovsky Piano Concerto. All the time.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled slippery slope.
Hey Margaret--I can just see
Hey Margaret--I can just see your face--the face I am in as a "homosexual activist". That face is toothless and devoid of intelligence. That face has blank eyes and a considerable mustache. You're right--I think I will get out of it.
With Love,
Whit
9-0
I gather from some of the comments that it would be alright to charge the organizers of the St. Patrick's Day the cost of police, ems and other city services. Well, using that criteria, charge every entity that runs an event. This means everyone. Doing this I guarantee this city will have virtually no parades, festivals etc.
Again, 9-0. Have a Happy St. Pat's!
Now you're catching on!
Menino shouldn't be charging the tall ship organizers or any other groups either! That's exactly McCrea's point! Glad you finally came around!