Los Angeles Times

Activists face crackdowns across U.S.

- By Nina Agrawal

For months, opponents of the proposed $3.8-billion Dakota Access pipeline waged protests. They establishe­d a prayer camp and strung banners between trees. At times, they blocked roads and constructi­on sites. They faced attack dogs, pepper spray, tear gas, rubber bullets and sprays of water that turned to ice on their skin.

“We wouldn’t have been able to delay constructi­on to this point if it wasn’t for us taking to the streets,” said Dallas Goldtooth, an activist with the Indigenous Environmen­tal Network who helped coordinate the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe’s months-long protests in North Dakota.

But a bill introduced last month in the North Dakota Legislatur­e could make the obstacles to protest even

more formidable. The bill, still in committee, would make it legal to run over protesters who are standing in a roadway, clearing drivers of any liability, as long as their action is “unintentio­nal.”

The bill is just one of a raft of new pieces of legislatio­n that have been introduced around the country to discourage or criminaliz­e protest — even as large demonstrat­ions over environmen­tal issues, police shootings and the policies of President Trump have been surging across the country.

Colorado, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Virginia and Washington are all considerin­g legislatio­n that would variously impose stiffer civil and criminal penalties for protesters or award law enforcemen­t broad discretion in dealing with them.

“We are at a moment of historical protest activity,” said Lee Rowland, senior staff attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union. “The idea that legislator­s’ response would be penalizing that speech rather than engaging it in conversati­on is really troubling.”

Republican North Dakota state Rep. Keith Kempenich introduced House Bill 1203 in direct response to the pipeline protests. He said relatives of his got caught in them while driving on roadways last fall.

“This isn’t their issue,” Kempenich said, but “if something had happened, they’d wind up being accused of it.”

Lt. Tom Iverson of the North Dakota Highway Patrol said he was not aware of any pedestrian-vehicle crashes involving protesters. Whenever the agency has become aware of protesters blocking roads, it has closed them down to ensure the safety of both demonstrat­ors and drivers.

Kempenich said that the bill would not allow drivers to target protesters intentiona­lly, and that they would still have to slow down to “see and avoid” any potential collision.

“I don’t see it being applied very often,” he said.

He also said that he supports protesters’ right to demonstrat­e on sidewalks, in ditches or on road shoulders, but that “there’s a line between protests and terrorism.”

When a protester “comes up on the roadway and challenges a motorist,” he said, “that’s an intentiona­l act of intimidati­on — the definition of terrorism.”

For his part, Goldtooth said he saw the bill as part of a “terrifying progressio­n” of recent measures.

“What it effectivel­y does is allow people to potentiall­y murder another human being simply because they’re standing in a public roadway with a sign,” he said.

Goldtooth called the bill and others like it “a kneejerk reaction that carries the sour taste of racism.”

“Those in power are being challenged — whether it’s Black Lives Matter, Native resistance, the Fight for 15, or women’s rights,” he said. “That challenge causes a lot of fear.”

Goldtooth conceded that taking over roadways is against the law but said it is necessary sometimes.

“We’re out in the middle of nowhere fighting a pipeline where the only public space available is the road,” he said.

The right to protest is rooted in the 1st Amendment, which protects freedom of speech and peaceful assembly. Still, authoritie­s can require permits or impose narrow restrictio­ns on very large or loud protests.

Protesters cannot obstruct pedestrian or vehicular traffic without a permit, though federal courts have ruled that the lack of a permit cannot be used to prevent protests in response to breaking events, said the ACLU’s Rowland.

“Every city, town and county already has ordinances to deal with obstructio­n,” she said. “These bills may be dressed up as bills related to obstructio­n or insurance or public safety, but make no mistake about it — these bills are about one thing and one thing only: silencing dissent.”

In Minnesota, where protesters shut down Interstate 94 after the police shooting of Philando Castile last summer, and again after Trump’s election in November, lawmakers have introduced bills to categorize obstructio­n of roadways and public transit as a gross misdemeano­r, which carries a penalty of up to one year in jail and a $3,000 fine. An ordinary misdemeano­r carries a penalty of up to 90 days in jail and a $1,000 fine.

They have also introduced legislatio­n that would make it a felony to knowingly obstruct any legal process, including an arrest, and that would enable local government­s to sue convicted protesters to pay for law enforcemen­t costs.

“If you want to violate a law, if you want to close a freeway, you ought to go to jail,” said Republican state Rep. Nick Zerwas, who introduced two of the bills. “And when you get out of jail, I think we ought to give you the bill for the riot that you caused.”

Zerwas said he had been contacted by a constituen­t who reported being unable to take her asthmatic daughter to the hospital during an I-94 closure because of protests; another lost the chance to say goodbye to a loved one because of a protest at Minneapoli­s-St. Paul Internatio­nal Airport that delayed flights.

He said the cities of Minneapoli­s, St. Paul and Bloomingto­n had racked up $2.5 million in overtime costs for their police department­s over the last 18 months.

“In Minnesota, we’ve gotten to the point where shutting down a freeway is just kind of the go-to move for protests,” Zerwas said. “There’s two things a law should do: It should deter somebody from committing a crime, and it should punish them if they have committed a crime. [The current law] certainly is not a deterrence.”

Jordan Kushner, a civil rights attorney in Minneapoli­s who has represente­d Black Lives Matter protesters, disagreed.

“People don’t generally want to get arrested and charged with crimes,” he said. “There’s already deterrence in effect. How much retributio­n do you need?”

Kushner said the bills introduced in Minnesota reflect the broader racial tension in the state between white, suburban districts and the Republican lawmakers who represent them and Black Lives Matter activists, who have been the driving force behind the major protests of the last two years.

He said the bills under considerat­ion would cut off one of the last remaining outlets activists have to express grievances peacefully.

“What options are they leaving people who are dissatisfi­ed?” Kushner said.

 ?? Mike McCleary Bismarck Tribune ?? A NORTH DAKOTA bill would allow drivers to hit protesters who block roads in some cases. Above, Dakota Access pipeline protesters form a roadblock last year.
Mike McCleary Bismarck Tribune A NORTH DAKOTA bill would allow drivers to hit protesters who block roads in some cases. Above, Dakota Access pipeline protesters form a roadblock last year.
 ?? Stephen Maturen Getty Images ?? IN MINNESOTA, bills may boost penalties for obstructin­g roadways. One lawmaker says drivers with family emergencie­s were blocked when activists shut down this St. Paul freeway after a police shooting last summer.
Stephen Maturen Getty Images IN MINNESOTA, bills may boost penalties for obstructin­g roadways. One lawmaker says drivers with family emergencie­s were blocked when activists shut down this St. Paul freeway after a police shooting last summer.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States