http://www.newsday.com/news/local/newyork/politics/ny-nyprot263942613aug26,0,3119462.story?coll=ny-nycpolitics-headlines
Lawn order: Nope
Judge rules against rally in Central Park, which could imperil entire protest plan for 250,000 people
Email this story
Printer friendly format
Enter a Category
View List
BY DARYL KHAN
STAFF WRITER
August 26, 2004
A State Supreme Court judge ruled yesterday that the anti-Bush group organizing the largest protest around the Republican National Convention could not hold a rally on the Great Lawn of Central Park.
The decision casts uncertainty on whether United for Peace and Justice will protest Sunday. As of last night, the group did not have a permit from the city for either a march or a rally.
Although the group's representatives have said for weeks that they plan to at least hold a march for an estimated 250,000 people - unless the Police Department grants them a permit to also rally in Central Park - that too could be scuttled.
"There's been no permit issued yet," said Deputy Commissioner Paul Browne, the department's chief spokesman. "For anything."
A police official said United for Peace and Justice has been mischaracterizing the department's position by insisting there will be a march on Sunday.
"When they rejected the West Side Highway, they rejected everything," a police source said, referring to a prior agreement for a march by Madison Square Garden and a rally on the West Side Highway that the group accepted, then declined.
Christopher Dunn, an attorney for United for Peace and Justice, said he left a meeting with police officials last night confident there would be a march.
"There was nothing said in the meeting to suggest there was any question about a march taking place," he said.
Leslie Cagan, United for Peace and Justice's national director, said the group has an agreement for the march with the department but no permit, but will have finalized the details by today.
"We are unhappy with the decision," Cagan said. "But that does not stop us. Our voices will be heard."
Cagan has said repeatedly that her organization refuses to assemble on the West Side Highway, the only location the city offered as a a viable site.
Administrative Judge Jacqueline Silberman in Manhattan yesterday cited two main reasons for ruling to close the Great Lawn to protesters. In her written decision, she said United for Peace and Justice waited too long to file its suit.
And she said the city's choice of the West Side Highway did not violate the organization's right to speech or assembly.
She ruled: "The Parks Department appropriately applied content-neutral regulations while leaving plaintiff [UFPJ] with a reasonable alternate site suitable with ample means of communication."
Dunn said Silberman's decision does not have any bearing on the argument they made in court or the facts of the case.
"I think she might be the only New Yorker who cannot tell the difference between the two sites," he said.
At the heart of United for Peace and Justice's argument is the idea that Central Park serves the traditional role of a public square for New York City and offers the only open space large enough to accommodate a quarter of a million people.
But Silberman disagreed, saying in her decision that the two locations "cannot reasonably be viewed" as different from a constitutional perspective.
While the city officially applauded Silberman's ruling, a number of police officials remained dissatisfied and voiced concerns that it will create conflict rather than ameliorate it.
"That makes it much more difficult on us," a police source said. "They're going to go to the park. We know they're going to go. If they had just let them go, we could have left them alone. Now it means we're going to have to arrest people."
Lawn order: Nope
Judge rules against rally in Central Park, which could imperil entire protest plan for 250,000 people
Email this story
Printer friendly format
Enter a Category
View List
BY DARYL KHAN
STAFF WRITER
August 26, 2004
A State Supreme Court judge ruled yesterday that the anti-Bush group organizing the largest protest around the Republican National Convention could not hold a rally on the Great Lawn of Central Park.
The decision casts uncertainty on whether United for Peace and Justice will protest Sunday. As of last night, the group did not have a permit from the city for either a march or a rally.
Although the group's representatives have said for weeks that they plan to at least hold a march for an estimated 250,000 people - unless the Police Department grants them a permit to also rally in Central Park - that too could be scuttled.
"There's been no permit issued yet," said Deputy Commissioner Paul Browne, the department's chief spokesman. "For anything."
A police official said United for Peace and Justice has been mischaracterizing the department's position by insisting there will be a march on Sunday.
"When they rejected the West Side Highway, they rejected everything," a police source said, referring to a prior agreement for a march by Madison Square Garden and a rally on the West Side Highway that the group accepted, then declined.
Christopher Dunn, an attorney for United for Peace and Justice, said he left a meeting with police officials last night confident there would be a march.
"There was nothing said in the meeting to suggest there was any question about a march taking place," he said.
Leslie Cagan, United for Peace and Justice's national director, said the group has an agreement for the march with the department but no permit, but will have finalized the details by today.
"We are unhappy with the decision," Cagan said. "But that does not stop us. Our voices will be heard."
Cagan has said repeatedly that her organization refuses to assemble on the West Side Highway, the only location the city offered as a a viable site.
Administrative Judge Jacqueline Silberman in Manhattan yesterday cited two main reasons for ruling to close the Great Lawn to protesters. In her written decision, she said United for Peace and Justice waited too long to file its suit.
And she said the city's choice of the West Side Highway did not violate the organization's right to speech or assembly.
She ruled: "The Parks Department appropriately applied content-neutral regulations while leaving plaintiff [UFPJ] with a reasonable alternate site suitable with ample means of communication."
Dunn said Silberman's decision does not have any bearing on the argument they made in court or the facts of the case.
"I think she might be the only New Yorker who cannot tell the difference between the two sites," he said.
At the heart of United for Peace and Justice's argument is the idea that Central Park serves the traditional role of a public square for New York City and offers the only open space large enough to accommodate a quarter of a million people.
But Silberman disagreed, saying in her decision that the two locations "cannot reasonably be viewed" as different from a constitutional perspective.
While the city officially applauded Silberman's ruling, a number of police officials remained dissatisfied and voiced concerns that it will create conflict rather than ameliorate it.
"That makes it much more difficult on us," a police source said. "They're going to go to the park. We know they're going to go. If they had just let them go, we could have left them alone. Now it means we're going to have to arrest people."
Facebook
Twitter