Thus far, our posts have primarily revolved around official incompetence or malfeasance as well as how we, as the bosses, can forge a better governance. While that is still partly the case here, we are also excited to announce our first-ever critique of private citizens!! Actually, let me backtrack. They were private citizens. That is, until Saturday, January 6 (no not that “J6”), when at about 1:00pm scores of anti-Israel “protesters” very loudly and publicly blockaded traffic for four hours on I-5 running through Seattle. The Washington State Patrol (“WSP”) still is investigating its response and by all appearances they did what they could given the current state of the law on this type of “protest” action. (That’s the last time we will put protest in quotes, but you get the idea). CADF, as advocates for the rights of all Washingtonians (in and out of their cars), will continue monitoring the aftermath.
For all the dangers this type of protest action poses to the public, it might come as a surprise that there is no state or federal law against it. Sure, police can remove these human barriers (often called “sleeping dragons”) on public-trespass grounds. But, as evidenced by the zero arrests made on-site or since, there is no criminal punishment directly addressing this specific conduct. It is a problem that has been stewing for decades. Indeed, as far back as 1999’s “Battle of Seattle” protests against the World Trade Organization’s annual summit (even as a millennial I dread putting “far back” and “1999” in the same sentence), activists in the Puget Region have employed the practice. No matter the cause, we sincerely doubt a road blockade has ever persuaded a single impacted motorist to the activists’ side. Indeed, they could push for more sunshine and lollipops and those snagged probably would still come out against them. Until such actions bring real consequences, those motivated will continue to deploy them.
It so happens that this particular display was in opposition to an extremely divisive matter—Israel’s ongoing combat operations in the Gaza Strip. Without expressing our personal position (though you can perhaps guess where our sympathies lie), the subject of this (or any) protest is inconsequential to the overriding issue at stake—though we are still uncertain what they expect Seattle officials to do about a war on the other side of the planet. The real concern is whether we as the public can and should continue to abide protest tactics that seem almost designed to threaten public health and safety, to say nothing of their impact on commerce. Yes this was a weekend protest, so there were certainly fewer commuters (though still plenty of truckdrivers). But there were still enough cars impacted—hundreds, if not thousands—that it is hard to imagine the chaos did not cause at least some medical or pecuniary harm. It also does not help their cause that at least one of the groups involved may have links to a designated terrorist organization.
Notwithstanding, it is the manner in which their (or any message) is delivered that the public ultimately is concerned with—and properly so. The First Amendment to the Federal Constitution prohibits Congress from obstructing “the right of the people peaceably to assemble.” Ditto Washington’s Constitution, which enshrines “the right . . . of the people peaceably to assemble for the common good.” We cannot think of too many things less good for the commons than preventing the free flow of traffic through our state’s busiest artery. (Even if we could, we do not want to give these protestors any new ideas.) Enter House Bill 2358, which makes “obstructing highways a crime”—that is, its own separate offense. The other Washington (D.C.) is considering a similar federal law. Their passage should assist the WSP, outside counterparts, and federal authorities in clamping down on what may very well be the most obnoxious form of protest—one that, though apparently passive, can cause very real damage to the public.
That is why last week CADF sent a letter to the Acting U.S. Attorney, the state attorney general and the Seattle city attorney demanding that they take legal action against the groups who engaged in the protest on I-5 and, based upon the lackluster response of the state and local authorities, will likely do it again. The bottom line here is the right to protest does not entail a right to annoy, harass, or assail. Whether one’s cause is the most just conceivable or even downright dastardly, individual citizens and the public at-large deserve laws that strike a fair balance between the constitutional rights of protestors and the former’s natural prerogative to go about their lives in as peaceful a manner as possible. We cannot expect the WSP—or any law enforcement agency—to fight for us without a proper battle map. They deserve the tools necessary to keep the public safe.
Alki and Stay Safe,
Sam Spiegelman