Zoning "Free Speech"
Jan. 9th, 2004 01:56 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
snarkymanSometimes, I'm amazed when people I usually disagree with come up with something admirable. Kim du Toit is one of those people - who wrote about The Pussification Of The Western Male mentioned in ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
metahacker's journal a few months ago. Now Kim's come out on free speech issues.
Zoning "Free Speech"
January 08,2004
Kim du Toit
As a general rule, I don't have much time for Pat Buchanan and his ilk, but even a blind pig will occasionally find a diamond in the rough [metaphor mixing alert].
Bullshit like this just drives me absolutely fucking crazy -- and I'll tell you why in a minute. But first, try this little exerpt:
"Protest zones"???? Here's the money quote out of the article:
"As far as I’m concerned, the whole country is a free speech zone." Precisely. Now let me tell you why this nonsense sets my teeth on edge.
Back the early days of apartheid in South Africa, the ruling Afrikaner National Party decided (correctly) that freedom of assembly and freedom of speech were antithetical to the system of repression they were trying to implement. Accordingly, they passed a series of laws forbidding same, and the one I'm going to concentrate on was called the "Riotous Assemblies Act" of 1952. (The Nationalists had an overwhelming Parliamentary majority, mainly because Blacks couldn't vote, and there were more White Afrikaners than White anyone else, so whatever they decided became law, with little opposition.)
The Riotous Assemblies Act basically forbade any non-sanctioned gathering of "more than three persons" in any public place. In other words, if you wanted to demonstrate against the government, you had to apply for a permit, which defined narrowly where you could demonstrate, and what you could say.
There was a loophole, which stated that you could demonstrate on private property -- but "private" was defined as being any area which received no State funding of any kind. Excluded from this definition, of course, were the universities and schools, which all received funding of some kind from the State.
(If any of this is starting to sound familiar, it gets worse.)
Basically, if you wanted to rant against the government, you could do so in the privacy of your own home, to your spouse, or to a friend (but no more than the two together). If you held a party in your house, and ranted about how the Nationalists were a bunch of fuckheads, you didn't fall foul of the Riotous Assemblies Act, of course -- but you could be arrested under the "Suppression of Terrorism Act", under the "conspiracy" clause.
In 1972, I was a freshman at the University of the Witwatersrand in Johannesburg, at the tender age of 17 (I actually turned 18 in 1972, but only after my final exams).
The country was in a state of turmoil -- actually, Africa south of the equator was pretty tumultuous. The Portuguese were pulling out of Angola and Mozambique (which meant new Marxist states appeared like magic on South Africa's borders), the Rhodesians were fighting their own little War on Terrorism against Robert Mugabe and his ilk, and the United Nations had just declared that South Africa's government of the former German province of South West Africa (now Namibia) was illegal (South Africa had set up Namibia as a buffer state, under a League of Nations mandate dating back to the post-WWI period.)
The major South African Commies (Nelson Mandela, Thabo Mbeki, Joe Slovo etc.) had either been imprisoned, exiled, or assassinated by this time.
What was left was the Black trade unions, and White "liberals" such as myself. (We were only liberals compared to the Afrikaners -- even the most progressive White liberals believed in a "qualified" franchise.)
Needless to say, the English-speaking universities were hotbeds of opposition to apartheid and Nationalist Party policies -- mass meetings, student Press criticism (frequently banned under the Press Act of 1954), and, starting in about 1969, protest marches and protest gatherings on university property. The marches were generally permitted (although broken up by police baton charges several times), but the protests on university grounds weren't, if they were close to any streets.
Then two Black student leaders, Steve Biko and Achmed Timol, were killed while in police custody, and all over the country, the English-speaking student body erupted in protest.
It was all heady stuff, and in my stupid youthful innocence I thought I was actually achieving something. I wasn't -- nobody was -- even though in the grander scheme of things, maybe some international notice came of it.
So in August of 1972, there I was, standing by the side of the road (not on the sidewalk -- that wasn't private property), enmeshed in a peaceful, albeit noisy protest against yet another horrible action of the Nationalist government (this time, the introduction of National State Education system), when a line of plainclothes policemen formed an ominous line on the traffic island opposite us.
A uniformed policeman used a loud-hailer to inform us that we were, in terms of the law, a riotous assembly, and that we had three minutes to disperse. Three minutes later, the police drew batons from under their coats, and charged.
I turned and ran, but when I heard a girl being beaten by a policeman behind me, I turned and pulled him off, whereupon the asshole started beating me up. So I put him down, whereupon another few of his buddies finished the job, and I woke up in the back of a police paddywagon.
About fifty of us had been arrested. We spent the weekend in the maximum security wing of the major Johannesburg police station (it was called John Vorster Square back then), and were freed on bond after being charged under the Riotous Assemblies Act. Later, we spent three months in court, and were subsequently all acquitted, on a technicality.
I was asked, several years later, whether I regretted participating in the student protests. I didn't then, even though it pretty much cost me a whole year at university (I never did graduate). I still don't regret it, even after all this time. In fact, I wish I'd been more active, and knocked out three fucking cops, rather than just one.
I was seventeen then. I'm nearly fifty now, and I still feel strongly about this.
I'm too old for public demonstrations -- I have to work and raise a family, for one thing -- but my opposition to oppressive government is as strong as it ever was, probably even stronger.
So here's my public statement to any government official:
Kim du Toit
Anyone may feel free to read whatever they want into this statement. I'm that angry that I don't care anymore, and I don't care whether the Administration is Republican, Democrat, Clintonian or Marxist.
Enough is enough.
metahacker's journal a few months ago. Now Kim's come out on free speech issues.Zoning "Free Speech"
January 08,2004
Kim du Toit
As a general rule, I don't have much time for Pat Buchanan and his ilk, but even a blind pig will occasionally find a diamond in the rough [metaphor mixing alert].
Bullshit like this just drives me absolutely fucking crazy -- and I'll tell you why in a minute. But first, try this little exerpt:
When Bush travels around the United States, the Secret Service visits the location ahead of time and orders local police to set up "free speech zones" or "protest zones" where people opposed to Bush policies (and sometimes sign-carrying supporters) are quarantined. These zones routinely succeed in keeping protesters out of presidential sight and outside the view of media covering the event.
When Bush came to the Pittsburgh area on Labor Day 2002, 65-year-old retired steel worker Bill Neel was there to greet him with a sign proclaiming, "The Bush family must surely love the poor, they made so many of us."
The local police, at the Secret Service’s behest, set up a "designated free-speech zone" on a baseball field surrounded by a chain-link fence a third of a mile from the location of Bush’s speech. The police cleared the path of the motorcade of all critical signs, though folks with pro-Bush signs were permitted to line the president’s path. Neel refused to go to the designated area and was arrested for disorderly conduct; the police also confiscated his sign. Neel later commented, "As far as I’m concerned, the whole country is a free speech zone. If the Bush administration has its way, anyone who criticizes them will be out of sight and out of mind."
"Protest zones"???? Here's the money quote out of the article:
"As far as I’m concerned, the whole country is a free speech zone." Precisely. Now let me tell you why this nonsense sets my teeth on edge.
Back the early days of apartheid in South Africa, the ruling Afrikaner National Party decided (correctly) that freedom of assembly and freedom of speech were antithetical to the system of repression they were trying to implement. Accordingly, they passed a series of laws forbidding same, and the one I'm going to concentrate on was called the "Riotous Assemblies Act" of 1952. (The Nationalists had an overwhelming Parliamentary majority, mainly because Blacks couldn't vote, and there were more White Afrikaners than White anyone else, so whatever they decided became law, with little opposition.)
The Riotous Assemblies Act basically forbade any non-sanctioned gathering of "more than three persons" in any public place. In other words, if you wanted to demonstrate against the government, you had to apply for a permit, which defined narrowly where you could demonstrate, and what you could say.
There was a loophole, which stated that you could demonstrate on private property -- but "private" was defined as being any area which received no State funding of any kind. Excluded from this definition, of course, were the universities and schools, which all received funding of some kind from the State.
(If any of this is starting to sound familiar, it gets worse.)
Basically, if you wanted to rant against the government, you could do so in the privacy of your own home, to your spouse, or to a friend (but no more than the two together). If you held a party in your house, and ranted about how the Nationalists were a bunch of fuckheads, you didn't fall foul of the Riotous Assemblies Act, of course -- but you could be arrested under the "Suppression of Terrorism Act", under the "conspiracy" clause.
In 1972, I was a freshman at the University of the Witwatersrand in Johannesburg, at the tender age of 17 (I actually turned 18 in 1972, but only after my final exams).
The country was in a state of turmoil -- actually, Africa south of the equator was pretty tumultuous. The Portuguese were pulling out of Angola and Mozambique (which meant new Marxist states appeared like magic on South Africa's borders), the Rhodesians were fighting their own little War on Terrorism against Robert Mugabe and his ilk, and the United Nations had just declared that South Africa's government of the former German province of South West Africa (now Namibia) was illegal (South Africa had set up Namibia as a buffer state, under a League of Nations mandate dating back to the post-WWI period.)
The major South African Commies (Nelson Mandela, Thabo Mbeki, Joe Slovo etc.) had either been imprisoned, exiled, or assassinated by this time.
What was left was the Black trade unions, and White "liberals" such as myself. (We were only liberals compared to the Afrikaners -- even the most progressive White liberals believed in a "qualified" franchise.)
Needless to say, the English-speaking universities were hotbeds of opposition to apartheid and Nationalist Party policies -- mass meetings, student Press criticism (frequently banned under the Press Act of 1954), and, starting in about 1969, protest marches and protest gatherings on university property. The marches were generally permitted (although broken up by police baton charges several times), but the protests on university grounds weren't, if they were close to any streets.
Then two Black student leaders, Steve Biko and Achmed Timol, were killed while in police custody, and all over the country, the English-speaking student body erupted in protest.
It was all heady stuff, and in my stupid youthful innocence I thought I was actually achieving something. I wasn't -- nobody was -- even though in the grander scheme of things, maybe some international notice came of it.
So in August of 1972, there I was, standing by the side of the road (not on the sidewalk -- that wasn't private property), enmeshed in a peaceful, albeit noisy protest against yet another horrible action of the Nationalist government (this time, the introduction of National State Education system), when a line of plainclothes policemen formed an ominous line on the traffic island opposite us.
A uniformed policeman used a loud-hailer to inform us that we were, in terms of the law, a riotous assembly, and that we had three minutes to disperse. Three minutes later, the police drew batons from under their coats, and charged.
I turned and ran, but when I heard a girl being beaten by a policeman behind me, I turned and pulled him off, whereupon the asshole started beating me up. So I put him down, whereupon another few of his buddies finished the job, and I woke up in the back of a police paddywagon.
About fifty of us had been arrested. We spent the weekend in the maximum security wing of the major Johannesburg police station (it was called John Vorster Square back then), and were freed on bond after being charged under the Riotous Assemblies Act. Later, we spent three months in court, and were subsequently all acquitted, on a technicality.
I was asked, several years later, whether I regretted participating in the student protests. I didn't then, even though it pretty much cost me a whole year at university (I never did graduate). I still don't regret it, even after all this time. In fact, I wish I'd been more active, and knocked out three fucking cops, rather than just one.
I was seventeen then. I'm nearly fifty now, and I still feel strongly about this.
I'm too old for public demonstrations -- I have to work and raise a family, for one thing -- but my opposition to oppressive government is as strong as it ever was, probably even stronger.
So here's my public statement to any government official:
If I feel strongly enough about the actions of any government body that I feel the need to make a public protestation of my opposition, I'll do so. I won't ask permission, and I won't protest where you say I should, nor will I allow you to dictate what I may or may not say. I will protest as I've always done -- peaceably -- so if you wish to prevent me from doing this, do not even think about using violence against me. I may have allowed myself to be arrested once before, but I won't do that again.
I represent no physical threat to anyone, no matter how bitterly I may disagree with them, so whatever I say (or write) is about as far as it goes. I'll exercise my First Amendment rights as I do all my Constitutional rights -- responsibly -- and under these circumstances, I bitterly resent any and all attempts by government or its agents to infringe them.
However, be aware that if I've faced down the loathsome apartheid goons before, I'm sure as hell not going to be afraid of or intimidated by you, either. I don't care about all your silly reasons for trying to abridge my right to speak, or to assemble peaceably. If I feel that strongly, I will demonstrate my opposition, and there's not a single fucking thing you can do about it. That's my own, personal line in the sand, and it's called the First Amendment. Step over it at your own peril.
And a pox on your "free speech zones".
Kim du Toit
Anyone may feel free to read whatever they want into this statement. I'm that angry that I don't care anymore, and I don't care whether the Administration is Republican, Democrat, Clintonian or Marxist.
Enough is enough.
