Land of the free?

[Larrison]

Originally Posted by jBirch

And you have no problem with this...why? That's what's great about the Canadian Parliamentary system (which is modelled after the British one)...if you say something stupid, the rest of the House shouts stuff back! No PR white washing for us. Just good ol' fashioned mud slingin'.

*grin*

James.

If you're on the floor yes -- but does the Parliment allow such shouting from the public in the galleries? The issue is not what people say on the floor, but if you allow random shouts and demonstrations from the public galleries.

And I'll say that since the 50's, they do enforce a bit of decorum and security in the public access galleries. (In the 50's some terrorists attacked the floor of Congress, wounding around 5 Congressfolks). In the Clinton impeachment trial, several protestors were also removed (not sure which side they were on..). You can still show up and go up to the gallery and watch, but you are cautioned to not make a scene or cause a disruption.

Of course, if you're on the floor of Congress, you can make as much of a scene as you want....

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by Larrison

If you're on the floor yes -- but does the Parliment allow such shouting from the public in the galleries? The issue is not what people say on the floor, but if you allow random shouts and demonstrations from the public galleries.

Actually...yes. Kinda.

You can do it, but some polite people usually show up and ask you to leave after you've gone on for a bit. Generally they take you to the official "b.tching post" and help you set up shop. Never heard of a Commissionaire tackling anyone in the gallery.

The tolerated level is usually higher then the US, and the sanctions are NEVER proactive (though there is a dress code in effect, which I thought kind of quaint). Maybe Ms.Sheehan would have failed the decorum requirement at the security check for the shirt? *grin* Most likely, no one would have cared unless she actually started yelling stuff.

http://www.hypocrites.com/article16635.html (Britain)

*snip*
Of course, if you're on the floor of Congress, you can make as much of a scene as you want....

LOL!

[Larrison]

As it is, it looks like the Capital Police are getting black eye on this. According to the Associated Press

"Capitol Police dropped a charge of unlawful conduct against anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan on Wednesday and apologized for ejecting her and a congressman's wife from President Bush's State of the Union address for wearing T-shirts with war messages.

"The officers made a good faith, but mistaken effort to enforce an old unwritten interpretation of the prohibitions about demonstrating in the Capitol," Capitol Police Chief Terrance Gainer said in a statement late Wednesday.

"The policy and procedures were too vague," he added. "The failure to adequately prepare the officers is mine."

The extraordinary statement came a day after police removed Sheehan and Beverly Young, wife of Rep. C.W. "Bill" Young, R-Fla., from the visitors gallery Tuesday night. Sheehan was taken away in handcuffs before Bush's arrival at the Capitol and charged with a misdemeanor, while Young left the gallery and therefore was not arrested, Gainer said.

"Neither guest should have been confronted about the expressive T- shirts," Gainer's statement said.

The key statement seems to be hidden in the bottom of the news article..

The two women appeared to have offended tradition if not the law, according to several law enforcement and congressional officials. By custom, the annual address is to be a dignified affair in which the president reports on the state of the nation. Guests in the gallery who wear shirts deemed political in nature have, in past years, been asked to change or cover them up.

Rules dealing mainly with what people can bring and telling them to refrain from reading, writing, smoking, eating, drinking, applauding or taking photographs are outlined on the back of gallery passes given to tourists every day.

However, State of the Union guests don't receive any guidelines, according to Deputy House Sergeant at Arms Kerri Hanley. "You would assume that if you were coming to an event like the State of the Union address you would be dressed in appropriate attire," she said.

[esskreemr]

Originally Posted by Epee_Pox

It has been reported that sources within the Democrat party are saying Sheehan was invited with the intent that she disrupt the speech with an outburst of her own, which would take media attention away from the President's message. Too bad for her that she lacked the self-control to dress appropriately, otherwise she might have been able to do just that. (And get arrested as well, that apparently being a foregone result.)

The two women were arrested for breaking the law. Each from opposing camps. Can't say the law was beng enforced selectively or arbitrarily, Ess. And it's not the same law as the strange amendment Specter tucked into the pending legislation, which you first reference.

As Larrison points out:

The Capitol Police, who on Wednesday dropped the charges against Sheehan, have acknowledged in an official statement that: "While officers acted in a manner consistent with the rules of decorum enforced by the department in the House Gallery for years, neither Mrs. Sheehan's manner of dress or initial conduct warranted law enforcement intervention."

What they have not acknowledged, and what is truly troubling, is the evidence that Sheehan was singled out for rough justice.

Beverly Young, the wife of Representative C.W. Bill Young, a Florida Republican who chairs the House Defense Appropriations subcommittee, showed for the State of the Union address up sporting a T-shirt that read, "Support the Troops--Defending Our Freedom." When Capitol Police asked her to leave the gallery because she was wearing clothing that featured a political message, Mrs. Young says, she argued loudly with officers and called one of them "an idiot."

But Mrs. Young was not handcuffed. She was not dragged from the Capitol. She was not arrested. She was not jailed.

Sheehan, who caused no ruckus, was arrested not because she engaged in "unlawful conduct." Rather, by every evidence, she was arrested because of what her T-shirt said--and, by extension, because of what she believes.

It now sounds as if the enforcement of the law WAS selective and arbitrary. The Congressman's wife raised a ruckus, while Sheehan went quietly.

I wonder if she was in a high security zone, in a couple months, they'll be able to charge her with a felony and won't have to worry about the pesky neccessity of her having to break a law first.

[Have At You]

Back to the original topic of the thread, here's an interesting exchange of differing viewpoints: http://www.fed-soc.org/pdf/domesticsurveillance.pdf

[umbrella]

Originally Posted by esskreemr

As Larrison points out:



It now sounds as if the enforcement of the law WAS selective and arbitrary. The Congressman's wife raised a ruckus, while Sheehan went quietly.

I wonder if she was in a high security zone, in a couple months, they'll be able to charge her with a felony and won't have to worry about the pesky neccessity of her having to break a law first.

Freedom is limited at this time; between the everyday 'moral majorities' that try to determine your political stance by the color of your clothing; to the weirdo japanese girls wearing woolen ski scarfs in 90 degree weather; to the thought police who let terrorists blow up tour buses and arrest women in T-shirts; you have to be blind no to see that the country is slowly being taken over by people who want the end of society so they can build their own stuff. But, what I do know is this; even should they establish their own world; they will eventually fall on each other like wolves based on another pecking order. See, for example Rawanda, african against african, it was the motive all based on a pecking order that is slowing percoloated and filtered through many many years.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by esskreemr

It now sounds as if the enforcement of the law WAS selective and arbitrary. The Congressman's wife raised a ruckus, while Sheehan went quietly.

I just did a search on this story. Apart from a terse statement attributed to one of the Capitol Police, the only first-hand account of Sheehan's encounter and arrest available seems to be...Sheehan's. ( Naturally, in it she was a perfect angel. )

I wonder why no other spectators have ventured statements about the incident. Have any even been interviewed? Usually on stories like this there is a plethora of people commenting within hours, in the blogs if not in the mainstream press. This time? Nothing.

Strange.

[keith]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Strange.

.... if someone causes a ruckus and no-one notices.....