<html>
<body>
After reading, with interest, the contribution to this forum regarding
the “free speech zones” in the U.S., I felt the need to point out a
potential point of misunderstanding about likening the Singapore’s
“speakers’ corner” to the “free speech zones” in the U.S. <br>
<br>
While they are both designated areas for expressing dissenting views, the
objectives of a "speakers' corner" is fundamentally different
from that of the "free speech zones" described in the
previously forwarded article. If I understood it correctly, the “free
speech zones” are enforced so that protestors are “quarantined” by the
police as a means of silencing them from the president. The
"speakers' corner" in Singapore, on the other hand, was set up
in September 2000 to encourage more Singaporeans to voice their views
openly and to participate more actively in policy-making processes. The
inspiration for the "speakers' corner" came from the
"speakers' corner" in Hyde Park, London. Like many modern
societies, Singapore faces the problem of an increasingly apathetic
population, and setting up the "speakers' corner" is one of the
ways to address this concern. (For more about the Singapore “speakers’
corner” and why the experiment is not doing so well, a simple Google
search will provide several useful links. You’ll also find links to
several alternative “speaker’s corners” for/by Singaporeans on the
web.)<br>
<br>
On another point, contrary to what was suggested in the email, people in
Singapore do not get arrested for “expressing any dissent whatsoever,” be
it now or before. Singaporeans are free to disagree with any point
of view at least from a legal standpoint. But like in any country, those
who can not back their arguments with appropriate facts or who make
defamatory remarks will face possible rebuttals. Arguments that involve
political parties would understandably attain higher media profile
(including being reported in international media). Many of these cases
were eventually brought to court. I would like to stress that the
verdicts in these court cases were not necessarily favorable to the
dominant party. There has been a judicial system in place in Singapore
since its independence in 1965, and its fairness and independence is no
lesser than that in other modern societies.<br>
<br>
I am aware that Singapore is being represented in popular media and some
academic circles as more oppressive than other modern societies. As a
Singaporean studying in the U.S., I have, in my own work, made criticisms
of certain social engineering practices during Singapore’s
nation-building process. However, I cannot agree with a representation of
Singaporeans as a powerless people living under a tyrant government that
dictates what can and cannot be said. <br>
<br>
As far as public opinions are concerned, they are taken seriously by the
general public, maybe more so than in many other countries, and
especially so by the leaders (political or not). Topics about race and
religion are very sensitive due to historical, geographical, political
and social factors. What are seen as political jokes and comedic
performances in other countries may provoke strong reactions if similar
comments are made in Singapore.<br>
<br>
I have probably sounded overly defensive by now, but my intention in
writing this response is to offer a “native” Singaporean point of view. I
welcome any comments, which can be sent to me directly at
<a href="mailto:wfchiang@mail.utexas.edu">wfchiang@mail.utexas.edu</a> as
I think my comments here may be tangential to the intended and important
point of the original email.<br>
<br>
<br>
Wai Fong Chiang<br>
Ph.D. student<br>
Department of Anthropology<br>
University of Texas at Austin<br>
wfchiang@mail.utexas.edu<br><br>
<br><br>
At 02:24 PM 1/6/2004, you wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>Below is an article from the San
Francisco Chronicle documenting <br>
changes in the rights of American's to express dissenting views in
<br>
public. It is useful to read the article in the context of this
post:<br><br>
<<a href="http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/%202003_10_19_dneiwert_archive.html#106704010346083053" eudora="autourl">http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/
2003_10_19_dneiwert_archive.html#106704010346083053</a>><br><br>
Which explains the history of the use of "free speech zones"
in <br>
America, and traces them back to the Nixon era. Interestingly, I
<br>
personally first heard of "free speech zones" in the context
of <br>
Singapore, where it was taken as a sign of a thaw in a regime that
had <br>
previously arrested people for expressing any dissent
whatsoever.<br><br>
Apologies for cross-posting, but I felt this issue important enough
to <br>
warrant wide distribution. (To reduce SPAM, please remove my e-mail
<br>
address if you forward this message on to others. Thanks!)<br><br>
- kerim<br><br>
-----------------------<br><br>
Quarantining dissent<br>
How the Secret Service protects Bush from free speech<br>
James Bovard<br>
Sunday, January 4, 2004<br><br>
URL: <br>
sfgate.com/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/01/04/
INGPQ40MB81.DTL<br><br>
When President Bush travels around the United States, the Secret
<br>
Service visits the location ahead of time and orders local police
to <br>
set up "free speech zones" or "protest zones," where
people opposed to <br>
Bush policies (and sometimes sign-carrying supporters) are
quarantined. <br>
These zones routinely succeed in keeping protesters out of
presidential <br>
sight and outside the view of media covering the event.<br><br>
When Bush went to the Pittsburgh area on Labor Day 2002,
65-year-old <br>
retired steel worker Bill Neel was there to greet him with a sign
<br>
proclaiming, "The Bush family must surely love the poor, they made
so <br>
many of us."<br><br>
The local police, at the Secret Service's behest, set up a
"designated <br>
free-speech zone" on a baseball field surrounded by a chain-link
fence <br>
a third of a mile from the location of Bush's speech.<br><br>
The police cleared the path of the motorcade of all critical signs,
but <br>
folks with pro-Bush signs were permitted to line the president's
path. <br>
Neel refused to go to the designated area and was arrested for
<br>
disorderly conduct; the police also confiscated his sign.<br><br>
Neel later commented, "As far as I'm concerned, the whole country is
a <br>
free-speech zone. If the Bush administration has its way, anyone
who <br>
criticizes them will be out of sight and out of mind."<br><br>
At Neel's trial, police Detective John Ianachione testified that
the <br>
Secret Service told local police to confine "people that were
there <br>
making a statement pretty much against the president and his views"
in <br>
a so-called free- speech area.<br><br>
Paul Wolf, one of the top officials in the Allegheny County Police
<br>
Department, told Salon that the Secret Service "come in and do a
site <br>
survey, and say, 'Here's a place where the people can be, and we'd
like <br>
to have any protesters put in a place that is able to be secured.'
"<br><br>
Pennsylvania District Judge Shirley Rowe Trkula threw out the
<br>
disorderly conduct charge against Neel, declaring, "I believe this
is <br>
America. Whatever happened to 'I don't agree with you, but I'll
defend <br>
to the death your right to say it'?"<br><br>
Similar suppressions have occurred during Bush visits to Florida. A
<br>
recent St. Petersburg Times editorial noted, "At a Bush rally
at <br>
Legends Field in 2001, three demonstrators -- two of whom were
<br>
grandmothers -- were arrested for holding up small handwritten
protest <br>
signs outside the designated zone. And last year, seven protesters
were <br>
arrested when Bush came to a rally at the USF Sun Dome. They had
<br>
refused to be cordoned off into a protest zone hundreds of yards
from <br>
the entrance to the Dome."<br><br>
One of the arrested protesters was a 62-year-old man holding up a
sign, <br>
"War is good business. Invest your sons." The seven were
charged with <br>
trespassing, "obstructing without violence and disorderly
conduct."<br><br>
Police have repressed protesters during several Bush visits to the
St. <br>
Louis area as well. When Bush visited on Jan. 22, 150 people
carrying <br>
signs were shunted far away from the main action and effectively
<br>
quarantined.<br><br>
Denise Lieberman of the American Civil Liberties Union of Eastern
<br>
Missouri commented, "No one could see them from the street. In
<br>
addition, the media were not allowed to talk to them. The police
would <br>
not allow any media inside the protest area and wouldn't allow any
of <br>
the protesters out of the protest zone to talk to the
media."<br><br>
When Bush stopped by a Boeing plant to talk to workers, Christine
Mains <br>
and her 5-year-old daughter disobeyed orders to move to a small
protest <br>
area far from the action. Police arrested Mains and took her and
her <br>
crying daughter away in separate squad cars.<br><br>
The Justice Department is now prosecuting Brett Bursey, who was
<br>
arrested for holding a "No War for Oil" sign at a Bush visit
to <br>
Columbia, S.C. Local police, acting under Secret Service orders,
<br>
established a "free-speech zone" half a mile from where Bush
would <br>
speak. Bursey was standing amid hundreds of people carrying signs
<br>
praising the president. Police told Bursey to remove himself to the
<br>
"free-speech zone."<br><br>
Bursey refused and was arrested. Bursey said that he asked the
police <br>
officer if "it was the content of my sign, and he said, 'Yes, sir,
it's <br>
the content of your sign that's the problem.' " Bursey stated that
he <br>
had already moved 200 yards from where Bush was supposed to speak.
<br>
Bursey later complained, "The problem was, the restricted area
kept <br>
moving. It was wherever I happened to be standing."<br><br>
Bursey was charged with trespassing. Five months later, the charge
was <br>
dropped because South Carolina law prohibits arresting people for
<br>
trespassing on public property. But the Justice Department -- in
the <br>
person of U.S. Attorney Strom Thurmond Jr. -- quickly jumped in,
<br>
charging Bursey with violating a rarely enforced federal law
regarding <br>
"entering a restricted area around the president of the United
States."<br><br>
If convicted, Bursey faces a six-month trip up the river and a
$5,000 <br>
fine. Federal Magistrate Bristow Marchant denied Bursey's request for
a <br>
jury trial because his violation is categorized as a petty offense.
<br>
Some observers believe that the feds are seeking to set a precedent
in <br>
a conservative state such as South Carolina that could then be used
<br>
against protesters nationwide.<br><br>
Bursey's trial took place on Nov. 12 and 13. His lawyers sought the
<br>
Secret Service documents they believed would lay out the official
<br>
policies on restricting critical speech at presidential visits. The
<br>
Bush administration sought to block all access to the documents,
but <br>
Marchant ruled that the lawyers could have limited access.<br><br>
Bursey sought to subpoena Attorney General John Ashcroft and <br>
presidential adviser Karl Rove to testify. Bursey lawyer Lewis
Pitts <br>
declared, "We intend to find out from Mr. Ashcroft why and how
the <br>
decision to prosecute Mr. Bursey was reached." The magistrate
refused, <br>
however, to enforce the subpoenas. Secret Service agent Holly Abel
<br>
testified at the trial that Bursey was told to move to the
"free-speech <br>
zone" but refused to cooperate.<br><br>
The feds have offered some bizarre rationales for hog-tying
protesters. <br>
Secret Service agent Brian Marr explained to National Public Radio,
<br>
"These individuals may be so involved with trying to shout
their <br>
support or nonsupport that inadvertently they may walk out into the
<br>
motorcade route and be injured. And that is really the reason why
we <br>
set these places up, so we can make sure that they have the right
of <br>
free speech, but, two, we want to be sure that they are able to go
home <br>
at the end of the evening and not be injured in any way." Except
for <br>
having their constitutional rights shredded.<br><br>
The ACLU, along with several other organizations, is suing the
Secret <br>
Service for what it charges is a pattern and practice of
suppressing <br>
protesters at Bush events in Arizona, California, Connecticut,
<br>
Michigan, New Jersey, New Mexico, Texas and elsewhere. The ACLU's
<br>
Witold Walczak said of the protesters, "The individuals we are
talking <br>
about didn't pose a security threat; they posed a political
threat."<br><br>
The Secret Service is duty-bound to protect the president. But it
is <br>
ludicrous to presume that would-be terrorists are lunkheaded enough
to <br>
carry anti-Bush signs when carrying pro-Bush signs would give them
much <br>
closer access. And even a policy of removing all people carrying
signs <br>
-- as has happened in some demonstrations -- is pointless because
<br>
potential attackers would simply avoid carrying signs. Assuming
that <br>
terrorists are as unimaginative and predictable as the average
federal <br>
bureaucrat is not a recipe for presidential longevity.<br><br>
The Bush administration's anti-protester bias proved embarrassing
for <br>
two American allies with long traditions of raucous free speech,
<br>
resulting in some of the most repressive restrictions in memory in
free <br>
countries.<br><br>
When Bush visited Australia in October, Sydney Morning Herald
columnist <br>
Mark Riley observed, "The basic right of freedom of speech will
adopt a <br>
new interpretation during the Canberra visits this week by George
Bush <br>
and his Chinese counterpart, Hu Jintao. Protesters will be free to
<br>
speak as much as they like just as long as they can't be
heard."<br><br>
Demonstrators were shunted to an area away from the Federal
Parliament <br>
building and prohibited from using any public address system in the
<br>
area.<br><br>
For Bush's recent visit to London, the White House demanded that
<br>
British police ban all protest marches, close down the center of
the <br>
city and impose a "virtual three-day shutdown of central London in
a <br>
bid to foil disruption of the visit by anti-war protesters,"
according <br>
to Britain's Evening Standard. But instead of a "free-speech
zone," the <br>
Bush administration demanded an "exclusion zone" to protect
Bush from <br>
protesters' messages.<br><br>
Such unprecedented restrictions did not inhibit Bush from
portraying <br>
himself as a champion of freedom during his visit. In a speech at
<br>
Whitehall on Nov. 19, Bush hyped the "forward strategy of
freedom" and <br>
declared, "We seek the advance of freedom and the peace that
freedom <br>
brings."<br><br>
Attempts to suppress protesters become more disturbing in light of
the <br>
Homeland Security Department's recommendation that local police
<br>
departments view critics of the war on terrorism as potential
<br>
terrorists. In a May terrorist advisory, the Homeland Security
<br>
Department warned local law enforcement agencies to keep an eye on
<br>
anyone who "expressed dislike of attitudes and decisions of the
U.S. <br>
government." If police vigorously followed this advice, millions
of <br>
Americans could be added to the official lists of suspected
terrorists.<br><br>
Protesters have claimed that police have assaulted them during
<br>
demonstrations in New York, Washington and elsewhere.<br><br>
One of the most violent government responses to an antiwar protest
<br>
occurred when local police and the federally funded California
<br>
Anti-Terrorism Task Force fired rubber bullets and tear gas at
peaceful <br>
protesters and innocent bystanders at the Port of Oakland, injuring
a <br>
number of people.<br><br>
When the police attack sparked a geyser of media criticism, Mike
van <br>
Winkle, the spokesman for the California Anti-Terrorism Information
<br>
Center told the Oakland Tribune, "You can make an easy kind of a
link <br>
that, if you have a protest group protesting a war where the cause
<br>
that's being fought against is international terrorism, you might
have <br>
terrorism at that protest. You can almost argue that a protest
against <br>
that is a terrorist act."<br><br>
Van Winkle justified classifying protesters as terrorists: "I've
heard <br>
terrorism described as anything that is violent or has an economic
<br>
impact, and shutting down a port certainly would have some economic
<br>
impact. Terrorism isn't just bombs going off and killing
people."<br><br>
Such aggressive tactics become more ominous in the light of the
Bush <br>
administration's advocacy, in its Patriot II draft legislation, of
<br>
nullifying all judicial consent decrees restricting state and local
<br>
police from spying on those groups who may oppose government
policies.<br><br>
On May 30, 2002, Ashcroft effectively abolished restrictions on FBI
<br>
surveillance of Americans' everyday lives first imposed in 1976.
One <br>
FBI internal newsletter encouraged FBI agents to conduct more
<br>
interviews with antiwar activists "for plenty of reasons, chief
of <br>
which it will enhance the paranoia endemic in such circles and will
<br>
further service to get the point across that there is an FBI agent
<br>
behind every mailbox."<br><br>
The FBI took a shotgun approach toward protesters partly because of
the <br>
FBI's "belief that dissident speech and association should be
prevented <br>
because they were incipient steps toward the possible ultimate
<br>
commission of act which might be criminal," according to a
Senate <br>
report.<br><br>
On Nov. 23 news broke that the FBI is actively conducting
surveillance <br>
of antiwar demonstrators, supposedly to "blunt potential violence
by <br>
extremist elements," according to a Reuters interview with a
federal <br>
law enforcement official.<br><br>
Given the FBI's expansive definition of "potential violence" in
the <br>
past, this is a net that could catch almost any group or individual
who <br>
falls into official disfavor.<br><br>
James Bovard is the author of "Terrorism & Tyranny: Trampling
Freedom, <br>
Justice, and Peace to Rid the World of Evil." This article is
adapted <br>
from one that appeared in the Dec. 15 issue of the American <br>
Conservative.<br><br>
©2004 San Francisco Chronicle </blockquote></body>
</html>