District justice grasps what president doesn’t
President Bush and his minions might not understand that part of the First Amendment about “the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition their Government for a redress of grievances,” but District Justice Shirley Trkula of Coraopolis does. Thank goodness.
Last week, Trkula dismissed a disorderly conduct charge against Bill Neel, a 65-year-old Butler man whose great political sin, apparently, is not being a fan of the president. When Bush attended a Labor Day rally on Neville Island, Neel showed up carrying a protest sign that read: “The Bush family must surely love the poor, they’ve made so many of them,” according to published reports.
What Neel found out is that there are two classes of Americans – those who agree with Bush and those who don’t – and that they are treated differently. Those who agreed with the president got to stand along his motor route with their signs while Neel and others like him were to be penned off inside a baseball field.
When he refused to move, Neel was arrested. He wasn’t rude. He didn’t threaten anyone. He didn’t curse or swear. His sign didn’t use vulgar language. He just stood his ground, which, the last time anyone checked, was still on American soil.
Sadly, Neel was under the impression that as a citizen of the United States he had the right to peaceably assemble as a way of petitioning his government for a redress of his grievances. Although the federal government and county government – in the form of Secret Service agents and county police – didn’t agree with that, Trkula did.
Three words she spoke when dismissing the charge sum it up – “This is America.” Yes, it is – for now.
It’s important to look at the Neel case in another light, one that has ramifications beyond Trkula’s courtroom – the Bush administration’s continued push for more police powers to combat terrorism. These changes would have an impact on basic constitutional rights and should be used with discretion and restraint.
How can we as a people give them that power over our sacred fire of liberty when they won’t even let a 65-year-old man exercise his constitutional right to hold up a protest sign, the very essence of our democratic republic?