Sherry Conable flashes a peace sign to supporters after addressing the The Santa Cruz City Council as it considered a measure asking Congress to impeach President Bush inside City Hall in Santa Cruz on Tuesday, September 9, 2003. The council passed the measure. City leaders say Bush violated international treaties by going to war in Iraq, and that the president manipulated public fears to justify the war and undercut Constitutional rights. Santa Cruz is the first community in the country calling for Bush's ouster.
Photo by Marcio Jose Sanchez


- - -


As citizens of the United States, we are living at a time when we all know that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are under attack. And we are concerned. Santa Cruz is a community hailed and known for its relatively progressive and liberal positions, for often being a beacon of hope, and a seed pod for initiating change and action about very important issues. I want to share some information and thoughts about discrepancies that I see here at home, and farther away, in our commitment to the Constitution. I believe they need serious attention and redress.

We have done well as a community in expressing right action about issues far away - we took the first action opposing the invasion of Iraq, which was not only unconstitutional but criminal; we called for the investigation and impeachment of the Bush Administration for constitutional reasons among others; we opposed the Patriot Act as a violation of constitutional rights; and we opposed discrimination against the gay community by calling for marriage equality (which does have a local component in the attempt to issue marriage licenses right here!). The question for me is about abuses of the Constitution, and particularly the First Amendment, right here at home, and what I believe is a lack of adequate concern, leadership, and response.

The assaults have been many over this past decade. They have also been costly for the city of Santa Cruz, defending laws or actions in court and losing.*

In 1994, the first version of the Downtown Ordinances was passed limiting the freedom of assembly and of speech in many ways, despite well organized opposition in the progressive community. The sitting section of those laws was challenged with an intentional civil disobedience action resulting in arrests, and was ruled unconstitutional when the defendants came to trial. In 2002, the city council passed more stringent variations on the Downtown Ordinances, further restricting expression of the First Amendment, again with very vocal and widespread opposition, including from the Downtown Commission. The one hour "move along" for street performers and political tablers that was passed has just been successfully challenged in court by Steve Argue, and declared unconstitutional. Defending these cases in court is very costly to the city, a cost we all bear at times when jobs and services are being slashed!* And the likely "unconstitutionality" had been pointed out repeatedly during the debate over these laws.

In the meantime, more and more space on Pacific Avenue is privatized, turned into cafe seating or simply fenced off, which further restricts First Amendment activities, since all distance regulations are measured from the farthest point of the fencing. The pleas of activists about very obvious selective enforcement of these ordinances against certain classes of people, which is a violation of State Law and the US Constitution, go, for the most part, unheeded. And many folks believe that the enforcement of the sleeping ban itself violates the principle of "the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

But there have been other, recent assaults and/or gaps as well. Though the City Council and the Board of Supervisors passed resolutions opposing the Patriot Act, neither have taken action to prohibit local law enforcement agents form ENFORCING the Patriot Act - this leaves that choice in their hands. Many folks believe that is a dangerous and unacceptable situation. Despite a very well organized effort to get clear prohibitions in place regarding local enforcement, nothing has happened at the government level, nor have local officials been willing to take the lead in resolving this matter.

In February and March of 2003, there was regular, undercover photo surveillance of the Friday Peace Vigil at the corner of Ocean and Water Streets - no one will take responsibility for having done this action.

Last fall, the First Amendment came under attack at the Civic Auditorium when Michael Moore came to town. People engaged in free speech activities, like signature gathering or passing out leaflets, were told by the staff that they had to move across the street from the Civic, at least 200 feet from the face of the building. Some folks complied, but some of us refused, citing free speech rights. We were then threatened with arrest, told that the police had been called and were on their way! They never came. We stayed. The assistant city manger, when later contacted, said that this had been done in error, and that the staff would be informed and educated on the issue. No written information about any resolution or action has been released yet. Others have reported being chased away at other previous events.

Most recently, the Silenced Hearts event was on the hot seat. This was a day and action dedicated to the memory and honor of those who have died in Iraq. One part of the event was a planned march through downtown, a simulated funeral procession carrying coffins draped with American and Iraqui flags. In a meeting with representatives of the police department, the organizers of the march agreed to try to keep the marchers on the sidewalks, and obeying traffic signals. But then they were told that, if they failed to do so, and folks went into the street, the applicant organization, the Resource Center for Nonviolence, would be charged $3500.!! This is highly egregious. Threats of exorbitant charges, in fact what seems actually like a fine, can have a very chilling effect on free speech. Of course, no organizing group can absolutely control the behavior of every person who comes to a public event. There is no legal authority yet found for the police department to levy a fine or post event charge.

The police have guns, clubs, mace, tear gas, and the ability to arrest people - now they apparently are using money as another form of control. As in the rest of our society, money seems to be the bottom line, and if it costs enough, maybe people will do what they are told, or will decide not to do what they really want to! (One of the most prohibitive costs to organizing events in Santa Cruz is the assignment of extra police personnel, which is left entirely to the discretion of the department.) City council members and staff have been contacted, but so far, the police have been defended and no concrete, written information has been released about this behavior being challenged. (It is fair to note, however, that on the day of the event, the police were helpful and friendly and did hold traffic signals for the procession which they had not agreed to do - all marchers stayed on the sidewalks, as they were asked to do by the event sponsors.)

Though we have not filed suit, both of these actions, at the Michael Moore event and concerning the Silenced Hearts march, could be challenged in court as violations of constitutional rights. The threats made could have greatly discouraged folks from exercising the protected expression of the First Amendment, called having "a chilling effect" on free speech rights. Again, this would be a very costly litigation for the city.*

It is the larger issues posed here that I believe we need to address. The first is the failure to have the greatest commitment possible to the Constitution. I think regulations and restrictions governing the expression of the First Amendment should be applied in the smallest way possible, not in the maximum, as seems to be the direction being taken here in Santa Cruz.

The second is the failure to be diligent and consistent here at home, which we all must struggle with, whatever our role! As an activist, my own experience has been that it is much easier to disagree with the things we object to far away, like the Bush Administration or the WTO, than to disagree with local officials and institutions. Because we are human - we like people, we want them to like us, we know they are basically good folks, as are we. We see each other on thestreet, and in meetings, and we want everything to be smooth and non-confrontational. And so, we don't want to take issue with each other. On the one hand, I really do believe we are all trying to do the best thing possible as we understand it, but on the other, any of us can lose our way, and we are called first to speak for truth, for justice, and for equality.

I feel that we have failed locally to adequately defend the Constitution, and particularly the First Amendment, both as officials and as common citizens.

Every elected official, every appointed official, and every law enforcement agent, upon assuming their duties, swears first of all, to defend and uphold the Constitution of the United States of America, and secondly the Constitution of the State of California. I think they would do well to reassess their commitment to those principles.

On our side, as citizens, organizers, and activists, it is our task to speak truth to power - hopefully with a certain grace and understanding, which is not always easy, but also with commitment to the transformational level of social and societal change that we must create in the years to come. Thich Nhat Hanh, the Vietnamese monk, has said that we cannot create peace until we are peaceful within. I believe the same about justice. We cannot create a lasting justice far away until we have created it right here at home. We must think globally AND locally, and act with equal conscience and intention in both arenas.


*the City of Santa Cruz also recently lost in litigation with a local nightclub, the Blue Lagoon. The Blue Lagoon filed suit because of regular, repeated police harassment and surveillance of their business, and won a large settlement. Estimates of the total cost of the case to the city are hundreds of thousands of dollars. At the time of the police activity, many people in the community objected and said it was unwarranted and illegal. It is sad to see our precious funds being spent in these ways.

- - - - -

Sherry Conable has been an activist in Santa Cruz for 20 years, working on a broad spectrum of issues, and organizing special events. Most recently, she organized the effort to call for the impeachment of the Bush Administration and helped produce the Silenced Hearts Event.