Spokane7
68°
February 1, 2012 in Idaho
Idaho senators to amend anti-Occupy bill
Hearing Wednesday on HB 404, the bill to evict the Occupy Boise encampment from state property across from the Capitol
(Full-size photo)
BOISE - A key Idaho Senate committee has voted to amend the bill to evict the Occupy Boise encampment from state-owned property across from the Idaho Capitol, with likely amendments including removing an emergency clause and amending a portion allowing property left at the site to be disposed of as “litter.”
Senate Majority Leader Bart Davis, R-Idaho Falls, an attorney, said the litter clause raised legal and constitutional concerns, and Senate President Pro-Tem Brent Hill, R-Rexburg, said he favored removing the emergency clause. If that happened, the bill would take effect July 1, rather than immediately when it’s signed.
There was just one dissenting vote on the committee, from Sen. Michelle Stennett, D-Ketchum, who said she opposed the bill and wouldn’t consider it even with changes.
Davis said, “Speech that’s uncomfortable certainly is entitled to protection of Idaho’s constitution and the 1st Amendment, certainly as much as speech that I agree with.”
The decision came after nearly three hours of public testimony, virtually all against the bill.
Russell Buschert, a businessman and 28-year Eagle resident, asked the senators, “Do you really think that if Jesus was in your chair right now that he would vote to evict these people?” He said, “The freedom of speech and the right to protest are the most precious rights we have.”
Mike Despot, a 35-year Boise resident and former state facilities manager for the Capitol Mall, asked, “Why is it an emergency to pass this anti-free speech bill?”
The encampment currently is legal, and has coordinated its vigil since November with state officials and local law enforcement.
Said Despot, “Since we are not breaking the law, I ask that you not turn us into lawbreakers.”
Sen. Jim Hammond, R-Coeur d’Alene, the bill’s Senate sponsor, likened the Occupy encampment to someone camping in state parks or on senators’ own front lawns indefinitely. “They don’t have the right, nobody has the right to seize our common property for their own use, particularly for an unknown period of time, particularly month after month,” he said.
Monica Hopkins, head of the ACLU of Idaho, told the senators, “What they are doing is protected symbolic speech. .. This bill seeks to evict a given set of protesters and is crafted … in a way that is problematic.”
The bill now will move to the full Senate for amendments; any senator can offer amendments. It earlier passed the House on a 54-16 vote.
Recent stories by Betsy Z. Russell
Tax-protesting Idaho state rep files for bankruptcy May 30, 2012 1- Mussel infestation threatens NW waters May 30, 2012 1
- Invasive mussels on the move toward Northwest May 29, 2012 5
- Unique artifacts confirm indelible link between Idaho, Lincoln May 27, 2012 1
- Eye on Boise: Idaho backs Montana’s campaign spending fight May 27, 2012 1
rosehips on February 01 at 11:15 a.m.
Thank you, Senator Michelle Stennett for standing up for freedom of speech and assembly.
Just because protesters make you uncomfortable does not mean their rights should be squashed. Shame on those who are trying to do just that.
oneanddone on February 01 at 11:56 a.m.
There’s an old saying that “your rights stop where mine start.” Protesters have rights but they’re not absolute or of a priority over anyone else’s right to enjoy the PUBLIC park. The laws against camping on public property is reasonable and should be enforced. The Occupy movement isn’t about injustice it’s about unemployed malcontents trying to cause trouble. When they burned the American flag they lost any support I had for them. Wait for a nice cold night and then hose them down.
liberal_in_right_wing_land on February 01 at 12:05 p.m.
People who want a one party government just look at Idaho. Amazing that they can actually restrict ones free speech.
I do love republicans throwing around how much they love the constitution whenever possible…..but then ignore it on things they don’t agree with.
Keep voting republican Idaho.
rosehips on February 01 at 12:06 p.m.
well, I’d respond to that oneandone but what’s the point. Your name doesn’t lend itself to debate. Too bad.
berrybestfarm on February 01 at 12:17 p.m.
How’s this for a logical conclusion if this becomes law: Since the use of the public park is interfering with the publics right to use the park then the next time you camp next to me in a public (State) park I can have you arrested for interfering with my right to use the public park.
Dennis Patterson—Deer Park
RedCedar on February 01 at 12:25 p.m.
The constitutional language is that the people have the right to assemble and petition the government. It doesn’t seem like there’s a whole lot of active petitioning going on any more at these squatter’s camps. I’ll leave it for a judge to decide if simply camping somewhere indefinitely constitutes free speech or “petitioning”. If it does, then let’s just all go park our trailers on Forest Service land, BLM land, or even in city parks, set up housekeeping, and say that we’re making a political statement.
Democrat or Republican, cities and states everywhere are getting tired of the remaining Occupy camps and are closing them down. Even the Bonus Army had a single clear and unequivocal demand, unlike Occupy. Occupy seems to simply be against the big companies and rich people, or maybe it’s simply in favor of camping for free. The clearest Occupy statement I’ve seen was chanted in Seattle, “The revolution has begun! Everything for everyone!” If that’s what they want, “everything for everyone”, then let’s hear them start articulating it clearly so it looks more like a political protest than a hobo jungle.
rosehips on February 01 at 12:40 p.m.
“If it does, then let’s just all go park our trailers on Forest Service land, BLM land, or even in city parks, set up housekeeping, and say that we’re making a political statement.”
The Rainbow Family does this every year in the National Forests. They’ve been doing it since the 70’s and every challenge to their right to assemble has failed. It’s a waste of tax money to try to restrict speech, even if it’s a bunch of squatters in a park.
RedCedar on February 01 at 2:21 p.m.
Yes, I know all about the Rainbow Family, having been to many gatherings myself. At this point, there seems to be some sort of pseudo detente between the USFS and the ostensibly leaderless Rainbow Family wherein the former thinks it has issued a conditional use permit and the latter thinks that they are gathering without a permit. Both sides think the courts have agreed with them. At this point there is some sort of accommodation, though the amount of money the Forest Circus spends on pretending to “manage” the Gatherings is absurd. It no doubt helps that the Rainbow Family stays within the USFS/BLM rules for not camping more than 2 weeks in a given spot. If they stayed for months, it would be a different story. Nobody wants to seem to force the issue at this point.
I like the idea of Rainbow Gatherings, especially of creating “community” from almost nothing and just having a big campout in the woods. The big difference from Occupy is that the main part of the Rainbow Gathering only lasts a week, and it’s always in a reasonably remote area, away from homes and businesses, where water can be gotten from springs, trench latrines used for sanitation, and the gathering site has been picked to be not too environmentally fragile. Gathering in a city park, using nearby businesses and offices for sanitation, and staying for months (if not potentially years) is a whole different situation.
Unfortunately even with the Rainbow Gathering, I’ve been horrified and dismayed at the mountains of trash left behind by people who ostensibly care about the Earth. How can they build a prototype of a more egalitarian and environmentally sound future when they can’t even clean up their own trash?
asiseesthem on February 01 at 3:39 p.m.
The grounds of the old (and currently vacant) Ada County Courthouse are not a park. For whatever that may be worth.
Teseract on February 01 at 4:33 p.m.
I like that this article actually has comments from both sides of the issue. Most of the AP drivel is so one sided it’s ridiculous.
detroitdude on February 01 at 4:44 p.m.
It’s dumb they did this. On the other side, Occupy needs a clear message and a focused movement with a stated goal they want to achieve. Encampments won’t be enough as we see they will just make a new law to usher you out.