There was an interesting article in today's LA Times about the scheduled destruction of a "petitioner's village" in Beijing.  There is an ancient tradition in China where those who feel they have a grievance against the government petition to be heard.

In earlier times, the petitioner would bang a drum (literally) outside the government offices.  Apparently if the official grew tired enough of the banging drum, he would hear the petitioner's grievance.

In recent years, the Chinese government located several "Petition Offices," the modern offshoot of banging the drum, to a neighborhood in Beijing.  Petitioners moved nearby and the village sprang up.

It's not a good sign for China's supposedly open government that theya re disbanding the village.  Timing is suspect since the Olympics are fast approaching.  As the article notes, it's likely that because so many petitioners gathered in one place, the government has grown nervous about their ability to band together and form a movement.

The petitioner's village reminded me of our American versions of the petitioner's village--the "free speech zone."  At rallies, speeches, even near Bush's "ranch," zones are set aside for people to freely give their views.  Unfortunately, the zones are often far from the venue of the speech or rally, so the people are mainly free to give their views to those who agree with them.

Things get trickier in cases where a protestor or dissenter actually gets access to a microphone during a question and answer session.  During the last election campaign, Bush was notorious for only letting in friendly (read Registered Republican Donor) folk for his "town hall" discussions.

At a speech given by John Kerry yesterday in Florida, a young man named Andrew Meyer took the mike to ask Kerry a question.  There is some dispute over whether or not he took the mike away from another person (but I've seen no evidence of that).  He proceeded to ask Kerry about the 2004 election, referencing a book, about impeaching Bush and whether or not Kerry was part of the Skull and Bones society that Bush belongs to.

During Meyer's long, rambling question, Kerry is clearly engaged with his topics.  Yet 20 seconds into the question, a security guard touches Meyer on the back in an apparent attempt to get him to quit the mike.

Meyer refuses and continues with his half-lecture, half-question.  40 seconds later, she's back again.  Meyer brushes her off and finally finishes his question at 1 minute, 19 seconds.  He is then accosted by another security guard and they both try to take him out of the auditorium. 

Kerry interjects, saying, "No, let me answer his question."  But the guards ignore Kerry and the situation rapidly deteriorates.  Meyer objects to being escorted out, avoids the guards, flaps his arms and generally makes a ruckus.

The guards succeed in getting Meyer to the door of the auditorium just about 2 minutes after he started asking his question. He's put on the ground, continues to protest and then is tasered.

When I first saw the video of this event, I felt that both "sides" were off base--Meyer for his resistance and the guards for tasering him.  Having looked a 3rd time now, I really feel pretty sympathetic toward Meyer.  The female guard rapidly decided that his questions were inappropriate and tried to get him to away from the mike when very little time had elapsed.  He was harassed during questioning even though Kerry was clearly engaged.

And the guards ignored a gracious opportunity provided by Kerry to de-escalate the situation.

Should Meyer have resisted? Not if he wanted to avoid a confrontation.

Did the guards go too far in tasering him? At that point, they probably wouldn't have been able to subdue him without force and the situation needed to be resolved quickly.  So they probably made a "correct" decision there.

The real issue (easy for me to say since I wasn't tasered) is that the situation should never have gotten to that point.  Meyer was exercising his right to free speech and there was no credible reason for taking that away from him.

Eventually the officers tell Meyer that they're arresting him for trying to "incite a riot."  Hah!  That won't stick.  The disturbance was created by the show of force, in my opinion, not by the questions.

The good news out of this brouhaha is that we're in a country where news of the altercation is not suppressed.  Where Meyer will be able to defend himself and petition for justice without having to bang a drum or beg for an official to hear him.

The bad news is that such over-reaction by the guards might encourage more people to stay safely in the "free speech zone" where they are seen but not heard.

Leave a Reply