A Law Unto Themselves

The other day, I wrote about the odd double standard the city of Saint Paul observes when it comes to civil liberties; a law that was enacted to protect Planned Parenthood on Ford Parkway is, according to City Council prez Dave Thune’s channelling of the City Attorney, possibly unconstitutional.

Just like, y’know, a bunch of us actual civil libertarians – the ones that cared about civil liberties before John Ashkkkroft was sworn into office – said at the time. “Oh, Pshaw” responded Saint Paul’s liberals at the time – until (in their opinion) it was their ox hypothetically being gored.

Tom Swift covers Thune’s statement much more thoroughly:

imagine your city leaders publicly announcing their readiness to spark a “charter crises” to do it.

I expect the council will have to override our permit process. ifthis is challenged by anyone we could have a charter crisis over whether thecouncil can unilaterally do it.

A city’s charter is its constitution.

What Thune is saying is that he is prepared to attack the founding document of the city he was elected to protect and to serve. He is telling us that he puts his own political agenda ahead of the law.

He is telling us that he puts the best interests and wishes of those constituents that do not wish to have their homes, lives and livelihoods put in jeopardy second to those of the constituents who will be providing the havoc.

If you think I am overstating the facts, or that I am reading intentions into Thune’s words that do not exist I encourage you to read the following paragraph very carefully.

I am counting on mutual cooperation from local free speech folks and cityofficials to not only advance the speech part but also to protect the residentsand small businesses here in my downtown area ward from chaos or danger. So farour city atty has been great and police very calm. the ramsey county sheriff’soffice is not in any lead planning role. The MCLU and Lawyers Guild have beengreat in keeping this in play by their presence as well as opinions.

dave

city council

ward 2

“So far our city atty has been great and police very calm. the ramsey county sheriff’s
office is not in any lead planning role.”

People who do not live in St. Paul, or who are not familiar with the city might not know that the police officers union (and the fire fighters union) is heavily invested in the left wing politics that dominate the place.

I’m not suggesting that they do not catch Democrat shop lifters, but what Thune is suggesting to the chaos crew is that the police department is playing ball with them.

The bed-wetters and fair-weather civil libertarians of the St. Paul DFL are terrified, of course, of Sheriff Fletcher; he’s rumored to be somewhere right of center – probably the only elected official in Ramsey County to qualify as “Center” – and is thus the target of an incessant smear campaign from lefty politicians and activists in the county.

Thune assures me in an offline communication that he’s committed to lawful, peaceful demonstrations, and claims to have opposed the ordinance in question when it first went on the books (I’d have to check that out) – but the question remains, why is this ordinance suddenly receiving attention from the City Government?

Where was the MCLU when it was the rights of law-abiding anti-abortion protesters who were being squashed?

Where were Dave Thune and Randy Helgen and Jay Benanav and the rest of the crypto-Maoists on the City Council when it was a bunch of mere pro-lifers who faced jail time for expressing their views, in accordance with their First Amendment rights…

…that the rest of the USA honors?

I’ll be asking the City Attorney tomorrow, personally. Anyone want to place odds on whether I get a call back?

Posted

August 20, 2007

Convention ’08, Liberty, St. Paul

Mitch Berg

Tags:

Comments

12 responses to “A Law Unto Themselves”

angryclown

August 20, 2007

Mitch pondered: “Where was the MCLU when it was the rights of law-abiding anti-abortion protestors who were being squashed?”

Gee, I guess that’s one of those questions that answers itself. I’m sure the MCLU opposes the free speech rights of abortion protesters.

Or not.

http://www.minnesotamonitor.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=2198

“Charles Samuelson, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota, hailed the ruling.

“‘Fundamentally, that is a free and political speech case,” Samuelson told the Minnesota Monitor. He cited the “ongoing problem” of police “busting people, especially over the interstate, who have signs that say, ‘Vote for Joe Schmoe,’ or ‘Vote Against Proposition 101.’”

“‘We’re happy about this ruling,’ he said.”

Of course that story is by Jeff Fecke, so there’s little doubt the quotes are fabricated. Samuelson had a similar response in the Star-Tribune, of course.
Mitch

August 20, 2007

No, Clown, I’m sure they do “favor” pro-life protesters…

…at least intellectually.

So where was the outrage on their part when the original law was enacted, many years ago? Where was the litigation? Where was the engagement with Saint Paul’s city government?

I’ll actually be finding out for myself.
Chuck

August 20, 2007

Mitch, has anyone in the downtown business community or convention promoters commented on Thune? Imagine that when the Final Four or Super Bowl were being held in Mpls, that the Mpls city council would be doing everything they could to bring in hate filled bigots and make the 10’s of thousands of out of town visiters feel very unwelcome. That the national/internation media attention would be on the wackjobs and the virtual prison that the visitors have to be in to protect themselves.
Mitch

August 20, 2007

Clown,

The MinMon story was about a completely different issue, in a completely different city (it’s about a case in Anoka, which is about 25 miles NW of St. Paul).

Saint Paul passed an ordinance that allowed the city to put HIGHLY restrictive conditions on pro-life protesters at the Planned Parenthood clinic in Highland Park, several years ago.

Let me clarify:

As someone who was a Big-L “Libertarian” long before John Ashcroft took office, I’m very familiar with the ACLU of MN. I interviewed Chuck Samuelson’s predecessor, Randy Tighe, a number of times over the years. And I KNOW the ACLU of MN “supports” the First Amendment rights of pro-lifers. Just the same as they “support” the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans.

It’s just that, for whatever reason, they never, ever seem to get that “support” out of the intellectual arena and into the courtroom.

I have calls in to both the St. Paul City Attorney’s Civil Division (which handles these sorts of things) and to the ACLU of MN.

And as re Fecke’s quote, “Checke the Fecke” is the rule of thumb.
angryclown

August 20, 2007

I understand that it’s a different case, though a similar issue. Your backhanded swipe at the MCLU suggested they oppose free speech when the speaker happens to be an opponent of abortion. Not true.

“It’s just that, for whatever reason, they never, ever seem to get that “support” out of the intellectual arena and into the courtroom.”

Maybe because the well-funded anti-choice movement typically has those bases covered. The protestors in the Anoka case were represented by the Thomas More Society, which bills itself as the “conservative equivalent” of the ACLU. I doubt they were begging for an amicus brief from the real ACLU. But you’d probably know all about it. What with being an *actual* civil libertarian and all.
Mitch

August 20, 2007

Actual civil libertarian? Yes.

Lawyer? Not so much. Although I know enough not to confuse the two.
swiftee

August 20, 2007

The question, from my perspective is not wht the ACLU does or does not do, it is what the elected city councilboob in question does or does not do.

As I pointed out, the real outrage is that Thune has made it clear that he is ready, willing and able to spark a charter crisis to clear the way for his troops.

Mitch’s correspondence is a real thigh slapper too:

“Thune assures me in an offline communication that he’s committed to lawful, peaceful demonstrations..”

Oh, I’m sure “Bucky” would rather that 7th Street not go up in flames, but I doubt he’s losing any sleep over the very real possibility that it will, thanks to his efforts to ensure the mob is allowed to get within phlegm range.

The fact that he, and the rest of the barking moonbats at city hall didn’t give a rip about “the constitution” when it worked in their favor is just a given..it’s how the left rolls.

I can’t wait until the Sheriff’s deputies drag Thune off in flex cuffs…”Hey, you CAN’T be here…I didn’t involve you involved in planning sessions!!”
angryclown

August 20, 2007

Thanks for the astute analysis Mary, but Angryclown wonders if you wingnuts have any settings on the hysteria meter lower than 11. Of course the law is wrong, but the hand-wringing about watching 7th Street go “up in flames” at the hands of the hacky-sack brigade is a little pathetic.
Bill C

August 21, 2007

but the hand-wringing about watching 7th Street go “up in flames” at the hands of the hacky-sack brigade is a little pathetic.

I do believe ac misunderestimates the capabilities and motivations of his fellow, if not more aerobically exercised, political companions.
angryclown

August 21, 2007

Then stay home in the double-wide, Bill. You’ll only have tornadoes to worry about.
Mitch

August 21, 2007

But my “double-wide” – at least, my metaphorical one – is IN Saint Paul. I get tornadoes, bridge collapses AND the prospect of hordes of hacky-sacking, patchouli-reeking, IPod-and-hemp-clad Oberlin and Carleton trash vandalizing MY city.

Now, I’m not worried. Indeed, I don’t know anyone who actually is. Remember – we’re the ones with the F-250s and the power tools and the blowtorches and pliers.

No, it’s democracy itself that I worry about.
Lady Logician

September 1, 2007

Critical Mass…

This is what we have to look forward to next year when the GOP comes to town.

About 200 bicyclists were riding on La Salle Avenue, with two officers monitoring the protest that called for reduced reliance on automobile transportation. The ride……