COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC HEARING AND PUBLIC MEETING BEFORE COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Monday, June 12, 2000 3:00 p.m. - - - BILL 000164 - An ordinance amending Title 10 of the Philadelphia Code, entitled "Regulation of Individual Conduct and Activity," prohibiting concealed identities in certain instances PRESENT: COUNCILMAN ANGEL L. ORTIZ, Chair COUNCILWOMAN JOAN KRAJEWSKI, Vice Chair COUNCILMAN DARRELL L. CLARKE COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN COUNCILMAN FRANK DICICCO COUNCILMAN JAMES L. KENNEY COUNCILMAN RICHARD MARIANO COUNCILWOMAN BLONDELL REYNOLDS-BROWN COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO - - - VINCENT VARALLO ASSOCIATES, INC. Registered Professional Reporters Eleven Penn Center, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 561-2220 2 6/12/00 PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL OOO164 I N D E X * Deputy Commissioner Robert Mitchell. . . . . Philadelphia Police Department John Hogan, R2K Network. . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Terrence McGuckin, Masked Protester. . . . . . 57 Lisabeth Pelsue, Masked Protester. . . . . . . 61 (* - Also provided attached written material.) Attached Written Testimony By: - Gerrie Green, ADL - Dave Frankel, ACLU - Lynne Abraham, Philadelphia DA - Kenneth Trujillo, Philadelphia City Solicitor 3 6/12/00 PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL OOO164 P R O C E E D I N G S
The Committee on Public Safety, seeing a quorum present, calls the committee to order to hear testimony on Bill 6 000164. Councilman Kenney, Councilman Rizzo, Councilman DiCicco, Councilman Mariano, Councilman Cohen and Councilman Clarke are present. A quorum being present, I would like to -- is Mr. Mariano around? Commissioner Robert Mitchell, would you please come forward. (Witness comes forward.)
Would the clerk please read the title of the bill into the record.
Bill No. 000164, an ordinance amending Title 10 of the Philadelphia Code, entitled "Regulation of Individual Conduct and Activity," prohibiting concealed identities in certain instances.
Please identify 4 6/12/00 PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL OOO164 yourself for the record. COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: Good afternoon, Councilman. My name is Deputy Commissioner Robert Mitchell Philadelphia Police Department.
Please continue. COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: Yes. Police Commissioner Timoney has personally assigned me to plan and direct the Police Department's involvement in the upcoming Republican National Convention. I am here today on behalf of the Philadelphia Police Department to urge your support for City Council Bill 164 for the year 2000. This summer, Philadelphia will be the proud host of the Republican National Convention. The Police Department has the enormous privilege, and the corresponding enormous responsibility, to make sure that this convention is a success and a safe one. It is our intention to protect the rights of the conventioneers as well as those who wish to exercise their rights to free expression. Therefore, we have been preparing for this event for nearly one year. We have invested an enormous amount of 5 6/12/00 PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL OOO164 time and resources in planning for this event. We are training our offers to address the increased traffic and crime prevention concerns that will accompany this massive proliferation of visitors that we anticipate. We are also prepared to provide those services and courtesies that will assist tourists to enjoy their stay in our city. At the same time, we are also training and preparing to handle multiple large demonstrations in a manner that emphasizes safety and lawful assembly, while protecting the rights of free speech. Over the past year, we have traveled to other large gatherings around the country, including the meeting of the World Trade Organization in Seattle, the World Bank gathering in Washington, DC, and the May Day celebrations in New York. These events have taught us that there are a small percentage of protesters who are intent upon using violence to destruct the rights and well-being of those with different viewpoints. These organized offenders attempt to draw attention to their issues by unlawfully disrupting the meetings and discussions of those 6 6/12/00 PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL OOO164 that they disagree with. In the other cities we visited, violence had been the primary tool of discourse for these rogue groups. These tactics include setting fires, blocking traffic, throwing rocks and bottles, and other means intended to intimidate and cause havoc. Our mission is to provide a safe forum for the cherished right of free expression, while preventing those who use violence from intruding upon the rights and safety of others. Council Bill 164 will enable us to reach this goal as it directly addresses a common tactic used by the lawbreakers to facility their elicit behavior. We observed that the violent protesters used masks to hide their identities while committing these crimes. They also wore gas masks to prevent their dispersion by police and to allow them to continue their assaults. Council Bill 164 would prevent anyone from wearing a mask to intimidate others. More importantly, for our purposes, during large protests, this bill will prohibit the use of a mask to conceal one's identity when engaged in 7 6/12/00 PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL OOO164 unlawful activities, and it will also prevent the use of masks such as gas masks that are being used for the purpose of facilitating criminal behavior. We have been taking great pains to ensure that the rights of all individuals and groups are respected. It is our job in the Police Department to maintain an atmosphere that allows for a free and safe exchange of ideas and opinions. To do so, we must also be prepared for the real possibility that some will come to our city with the intention of depriving others of these rights. Council Bill 164 will help us maintain this balance. We respectfully request that the rules of Council be suspended so as to allow Council Bill 164 to be read on the first-consideration calendar on June 15th, as would be necessary for action on this important bill on June 22nd, the last Council session. Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I'm available for any questions.
Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner. COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: Yes, sir? 8 6/12/00 PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL OOO164
You mean to tell me that you will not be able to, without this bill, these demonstrations that we're going to have, you will not be able to handle them? COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: No, I'm not saying that, but it would be a valuable tool to assist us in better management of large crowds.
I would hope that you will detain anyone involved in unlawful activity, whether they be masked or not masked, wouldn't you? COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: We are certainly going to try.
So being masked and being involved in unlawful activities, I would hope that the use of the law would be exercised in both cases. COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: It would be.
How do you define" intent? How will you be able to recognize that someone is going to intimidate and is wearing a mask with an unlawful intent in mind? COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: What I think we mean be that -- or what I believe we mean by that, 9 6/12/00 PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL OOO164 Councilman, is their actions, the actions that lead up to their behavior before there would be any kind of a police action.
Well, let's say that they're demonstrating at the Republican Convention, the welfare folks, they're demonstrating against the unlawful and oppressive laws against poor people that have been put forward by the Republican administration during the last ten years, they're wearing masks, they have Gingrich masks, they have Ronald Reagan masks, they have different masks, they have all sorts of masks, and they're shouting all sorts of all sorts of phrases and words against Republican politics and legislation, and they raise their fists. Will they be liable to arrest? COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: No. 20
What would make them liable to arrest? COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: Pardon me, sir?
I said, what would make them liable to arrest? COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: I said they 10 6/12/00 PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL OOO164 would not liable for arrest.
I said, what would? COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: They would have to move beyond that. Those mere actions that you've just outlined are not sufficient -- not sufficient intent to warrant arrest.
But what would be a sufficient intent? Describe to me an action that would be characterized as sufficient intent, because this is -- to me, intent would be in the aye of the beholder. And what would be an intent? And you have young policemen out there, and it's going to be a very tense situation if we get the type of demonstrators that we are expecting for this convention. There may be thousands of people out there, and tension may be high. How are we going to define "illegal intent"? COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: I would care to describe it, Councilman, by the actions that follow. In other words, the mere wearing of the mask is not, in our eyes, evil and criminal. 11 6/12/00 PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL OOO164
In Detroit, a lot of people got arrested not too long ago by just the mere wearing of a mask. What is going to help that from -- prevent that from happening here, the cradle of the Constitution and the birthplace of the Declaration of Independence. The people who went and threw the tea overboard wore masks, they wore Indian garments to hide their identities from the British. And, obviously, that was an oppressive government; they would have been arrested. What is going to be -- because here, intent is very -- is in the eye of the beholder. It is not defined. In demonstrations, because I've been in some throughout my life, and I know that many times you can get arrested just because you answer -- a policeman tells you something and you say something back to the policeman, and you might get arrested. COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: Well, I can't -- I can't talk to the Detroit story that you've mentioned, I know nothing about that. And as I said to you, the mere mentioning of the masks would certainly not be sufficient for the 12 6/12/00 PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL OOO164 Philadelphia Police Department to take any kind of an action at all just.
Just that it's the words in this legislation, and I'm asking you for a definition of how we are going to be able to define that, how the police will interpret that. And you have not given one as of yet. COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: Let me attempt, then, to put the issue to rest by saying that what I would view, and as commander will be responsible for ensuring that it gets communicated down to all of the police officers involved in the operation, is that when you carry it beyond that, when you move in a forceful, aggressive manner. Now, if that's also vague, I will attempt to try to clear that up. Towards bringing harm to an individual, putting somebody in deathly fear of possible harm, or moving towards the destruction of any kind of property that would be in the area. Now, what I mean when I talk about the property issue, I don't mean just moving towards it; I mean taking some kind of an action towards the destruction property or the harming of an 13 6/12/00 PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL OOO164 individual.
So someone have to pick up a rock and throw it for you to move, for example? COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: Yes.
If they are moving forcefully down Broad Street, you will not be able to arrest anyone at that point. COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: That's right. If it goes back to what you were talking about when you used the example of the Kensington Welfare Rights, yes.
So somebody would have to pick up a rock and throw it at a window for you to more against that individual. COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: Or attempt to throw it at the window.
You mean he would stop it halfway or -- COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: If we were that unfortunate.
I mean, it says, "with specific intent to intimidate or threaten another person," and I want the Police Department 14 6/12/00 PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL OOO164 to put on the record, as accurately as possible, what would be meant and what would be the type of actions that would be taken so that we'd leave no 5 room for interpretation later on.
Councilman Clarke's going to introduce an amendment that may clarify that a little further. I don't know if that will satisfy your questioning, but it's -- it may.
I read 'em, but they still have the "specific intent to intimidate" wording in the body of the legislation, and the Police Department, I would hope, or the District Attorney, to be able to really delineate what it means, 'cause we're going to have protests in this city, and we don't want that in the city where protest was born, that protest is curtailed. And I want specific directions as to how you're going to interpret this little phrase, "specific intent to intimidate or threaten another person." Councilman Kenney. 15 6/12/00 PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL OOO164
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Commissioner, you've been in law enforcement in the Police Department for quite a long time and have had a lot of experience with special events and crowd control and these types of special situations, and I'm sure that's the reason why you've been given this very important duty of coordinating all the safety, security, movement of delegates and press and protesters and everybody else. Just based on your experience throughout your career and kind of liking it -- the question I'm going to ask -- to when you're raising your own kids. Kids get in the teenage years and you tell them that they cannot do something, and "You better not do that and if you do it, you're going to be in trouble." Don't bills like this and efforts like this in some ways create a situation where more people actually decide that they're going to wear a mask or do something they're told not to do because they've been told basically not to do it. People who protest, who argue against the status 16 6/12/00 PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL OOO164 quo, argue against, or rail against the machine, so to speak, are more likely to be desirous of showing you that they're going to do it anyway 'cause you've told them that they can't. I'm just talking about -- not this particular situation, but just human nature. Are we looking for more masked protesters come July and August than we would normally have if we didn't pass this bill? COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: Councilman, I would hope not, but I don't know, I mean I truly don't know whether these folks will just take it as a personal challenge because City Council had saw fit to pass it because it had some merit that this would be -- Well, they we said no, well, we're going to do it anyway. I don't know.
I mean, it's a rhetorical question and I know you don't have a specific answer for it, but I just -- I guess what I'd like the Department and the City organizers and coordinators of this event, a very important event in this city, to think about. And, again, I am not a professional of this, I've not done this profession, I am not a law enforcement, nor an 17 6/12/00 PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL OOO164 event organizer. But it seems to me the more we try to sanitize and move the protests away from the main areas of this event, the more and more resistance we're going to get and the more trouble we potentially may have. I think often people that you're describing, the small minority or small group -- not minority people but small group of people who desire to rile things up and cause trouble or cause violence -- not just protest peacefully -- are more interested in getting publicity and coverage and TV time than they are anything else. And if you kind of cooperate with them and let them have their say, it gets boring because the real fight, the real interest, and the real excitement comes when you tell people, You can't do it and you better not be in this area and we're going to limit the places where you can be and you're got going to have Love Park, and you can't have the lakes and you can't do this. I think it heightens in some ways the tension and potential for trouble; as opposed to basically saying, Look, this is America, you have a right to 18 6/12/00 PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL OOO164 express your opinion, whether I disagree with it or not. I understand the law enforcement part of it, you know, I've seen the tape from Seattle, I've seen some of the other tapes from the World Trade Organizational meetings. I think they were handled horrendously by the police. I would suspect that your experience, Commissioner Timoney's with running the Democratic National Convention, I guess, in '92, would handle things differently than the police did in Seattle or the police did in Washington -- although I think the Washington thing in the end really turned out to be a very interesting dynamic between protesters and law enforcement, which I think was a good thing for that department and a good thing for the commissioner there. I'm just wondering whether or not, in some ways, if you try to limit and sanitize it and avoid or hide the protesters, I think it gives them more of an impetus to want to be more vocal and visible and more violent. COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: Well, I -- I really want to leave you with a sense that the 19 6/12/00 PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL OOO164 lessons that the police learned in Seattle and also the little observations that were made in Washington, DC, they're not lost on us, they really aren't. We are not -- and I have told it to any media person that's ever asked us, because they're really interested in that aspect of the convention, and I've gone to great lengths to tell them, we are not -- I don't know how many times -- you know, we're not looking to pick a fight, we're not looking to ring up the numbers of arrests. We would absolutely relish an event where everybody leaves having accomplished what they wanted to do and, you know, it's just been a real pleasant experience. We are not looking for confrontation.
And I'm taking that from you -- I mean, I've known you for a long time and I have every confidence that you're going to be able to do that and every confidence that Commissioner Timoney has the expertise and the experience to keep that from happening and to have a really good event for the City, for the delegates, for the protesters, and for the citizens who have to live here during the course of the event. 20 6/12/00 PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL OOO164 But I'm just wondering rhetorically and kind of thinking out loud, the more we try to limit, are we asking for more trouble that we need. So, I mean, that's not a question you can answer; it's just something that's still in my mind and will determine whether I vote on this one way or the other. Thank you.
I'm having a great difficulty with this bill. It seems to fly in totally the opposite direction that I thought the Police Department was moving in. You know, what -- you know, it seems to me, as I read it, it applies to a bank robber. Bank robbers are the people who usually wear masks to hide their identity, and I'm just wondering to myself, does that mean that the next time somebody wants to rob a bank and would wear a mask would say, Well, the City of Philadelphia's passed an ordinance and I'm going be subject to a fine, I'd better rob the bank without a mask? (Laughter.)
You know, it -- I 21 6/12/00 PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL OOO164 don't understand this. If a person does something illegally, as Councilman Ortiz said at the outset, we would expect that the Police Department would do something about it. This does what in that circumstance? It adds to whatever illegal action was taken, it adds a second minor penalty? None of it makes sense to me. Therefore, I have to worry about what the real intent of this legislation is. And to me, it looks like this legislation is aimed at suppressing the expression of dissent in some fashion or another, and pretty words like at the end of the bill, "A person who violates this" -- no, this section is next to the last. "This section shall not be construed to punish Constitutionally protected speech." That's words under these circumstance. What this bill does is to move directly to seek to prevent, maybe not punish, but to prevent protected speech. And it seems to me that wearing masks has always historically been a method of expression of dissent in some fashion or another. People are ridiculed. Cartoons, maybe 22 6/12/00 PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL OOO164 they'll use my face or my beard as a mask to express some kind of a sentiment somewhere along the line. I just see nothing in this bill which makes any sense except to put out a threat, and not a very veiled threat at that, that by God, if you come with a mask and you make too much noise, or as in Detroit, maybe it was an over-zealous police officer, that's what the reports seem to indicate. It just gives pretext for suppression of dissent, and I just feel this bill flies totally in the wrong direction. I invite your comment to that. I'm stunned that in the City of Philadelphia such a bill would be offered. COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: Well, I'm kind of saddened to hear you say that, Councilman, I have to be quite candid with you.
Well, I'm really shocked that the Police Department is appearing here today in support of this bill, which seems to move in just the opposite direction from the way we have understood Commissioner Timoney has been conducting the Police Department. He has 23 6/12/00 PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL OOO164 universal support because he's shown universal respect to everyone. COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: Well, I would submit -- then that's why I express my exception to your remarks. This bill was reviewed by the Police Commissioner, and you have a lot of respect and admiration for him, you know exactly where he stands on many, many issues. And this is an issue, the issue of free speech, your right to express is very -- I've had some sessions with him. He's kind of out of synch with an awful lot of people 'cause he marches to the beat of his own drum. This was not an issue that he had a problem with. I might submit that it's patterned somewhat after a piece of legislation out of New York City, in addition to a piece of legislation out of the State of Georgia. And our proposal here is not as severe as those two, which passed constitutional muster in the appeals courts of those two geographical areas of the country. And to go back, the Commissioner would -- if he had the slightest sense that we were 24 6/12/00 PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL OOO164 really going to be out of synch and we were really going to be stepping on people's constitutional rights, getting in their face, I can assure you, this whole Council panel, that he would not have asked me to please represent him at this --
But then this bill 8 is unnecessary because if anyone does an act that is unlawful and is wearing a mask when he does or she does that act, they violate countless other laws that we have on the books. I mean, what bothers me here is that you're not saying "wearing the mask and doing the act," you're saying "with intent." That means that the person has not committed an unlawful act, but you believe that he has an intent to do so. And that, to me, sounds quite repressive. Because you're asking a policeman on the line, facing a huge throng of people, to make an instantaneous decision and to be able to define what the intent of an individual wearing a mask in front of him is going to be, criminal or not criminal, and he might commit the wrong one. COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: You're exactly right. And one of the things that we're 25 6/12/00 PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL OOO164 emphasizing, as part of the training that we go for, when in doubt, count to five, don't jump. We have a very small ratio of police officer to supervisor. Many of the police officers that will be working on this project have never been exposed to an operation like this, never. This is a whole new generation, never having been exposed to it. We don't want anything to go awry. What's not lost on us, Councilman, is the fact that there is an army of media out there just waiting for something to turn nasty, and we just cannot let that happen and have the Department and City tarnished.
You understand that the Republican Conventioneers that are coming here and the people who are coming here to protest, they have the same rights. Just because they're staying at luxury hotel rooms does not give them any greater rights than the people who will be on the streets and not in the convention. We understand that, do we? COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: Yes, sir.
And last time we had something like this, in 1976, the whole euphoria 6/12/00 PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL OOO164 about what was going to transpire was into the newspapers. I happened to be an attorney at Legal Services at that time, trying to organize and represent the people who were protesting, and it was called "An Anti-Bicentennial Without colonies." The then-mayor, Frank Rizzo, projected an image that the City was going to be invaded by all of these unlawful individuals. Over 60,000 of us did come; we were not unlawful. What happened was that the tourists that were supposed to come to make 1976 a huge success, because of the laws, because of the pages and pages of stories that kept on going out about the unlawfulness that was going to be happening here, those tourists that were supposed to provide an economic drive to the City did not get here. And I'm afraid, like Councilman Kenney says, we approve things like this and we send a message, and this is not an ordinance that really, really is going to cause anyone not to demonstrate without a mask, because the maximum find is $300. So it is not being done to prevent, but it does send a message. And I don't believe that it is a 27 6/12/00 PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL OOO164 positive message. And I still don't believe how you're going to believe, because you have not been able to answer how you define and how you're going to instruct people to define "the intent to intimidate or threaten another person." "Intent," not "act," is presupposing an unlawful act on an individual. I thought that the laws of the United States did not do that.
Well, Councilman, I guess I should wait for the proper time, but my question is, what is purpose of wearing a mask? I thought years ago, going down through history, that the Ku Klux Klan wore masks. What is the purpose in this day and time for wearing masks?
Will someone answer? Do you know that answer, Commissioner? COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: I would not want to answer that. Let -- the -- let the --
I just don't understand why they have to wear masks. I see 28 6/12/00 PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL OOO164 different masks over there, bandanas. I see the Gore, all different kinds of masks over there. I'm -- I don't understand. Why do they have to wear masks? COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: In -- there was extensive property damage done in Seattle. The film footage of that damage indicates clearly that it was done by the people wearing the masks.
Well, then I can understand it. COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: Okay, when we go on to Washington and trying to learn some lessons from Washington, we sent a sizeable police group of commanders that were going to work on the convention there so that they might observe a police operation. We had a captain at one point, a captain and three lieutenants, that were walking behind lines, and they observed right in front of them the absence of -- there was no uniformed police in the Washington metropolitan police department. The destruction by a group of masked people of a white unmarked car with antennas out of it, believed to be that of the metropolitan 29 6/12/00 PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL OOO164 police depart, it turns out it was a media, a media car. They did a job on that car. It was witnessed firsthand -- not anybody without a mask. I -- I -- I, the day, the second day of the convention, was in the back with the demonstrators who were mulling around, and it was this group that wore the masks continually just trying to agitate and trying to agitate --
Because they have a mask and no one would know who they were. COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: You know, that's exactly right.
I -- I -- I understand, and I believe that the Police Department are the professionals, that they're out there, they know exactly what to look for, what to do, and I have to agree with you, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: The other thing that I would probably ask to go back to a point that Councilman Ortiz raised. Sometimes laws are enacted to discourage a type of behavior, a form of behavior, not all the time, and not everybody complies. But I think in many cases, that's the 30 6/12/00 PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL OOO164 intent of what you folks do day in and day out, as part of your job. And we're just part of the enforcement arm of that mechanism, but you do it. That's kind of the rationale behind it. You don't think everybody will, though. So, I just wanted to comment on that.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I'd like to thank you for bringing -- letting me bring this Bill 164 before this committee. As you may not know, this was borne out of a twofold concern. First -- my first concern was for people so they could exercise their constitutional right to free speech and assembly. Rather, I am concerned about the people who infiltrate peaceful protests and cause damage or harm, like the Commissioner was just speaking about. This just didn't come to me in a dream. This was told to me by a police inspector who was at them both locations, and I said, what 31 6/12/00 PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL OOO164 could we do? Believe me, I commend these people that come here and there's not a problem with them with a mask on. The problem is if someone where's a mask with the specific intent to hide one's identity during the commission of an unlawful activity, that's all. And that will help their freedom. If they wear masks and protest, fine, they could do that till the cows come home. They can dress up like Councilwoman Krajewski, Councilman Cohen, myself, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, as long as they don't commit a crime. I happen to be a person who has faith in the Philadelphia Police Department, and maybe many people on this committee, on this Council don't, okay? I think they're highly trained individual, and they spend a lot time. Chances are, this will never be used. This is going to cause -- if this does happen, this will be a $75 fine. I mean, it's not the end of the world. And I understand everyone's intent, trying to protect freedom of speech. That is basically what I'm trying to do. You have to 32 6/12/00 PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL OOO164 understand, and the Commissioner spoke a little bit about that. I'm also concerned about those who practice ethnic and religious intimidation behind the mask. We didn't invent the Ku Klux Klan. It may be gone now for Philadelphia, and that may not happen there for a while, but there's a chance that that could come back. And also, this bill, like the Commissioner mentioned, was written by the Anti-Defamation League in Georgia, and it was modeled after a bill to help thwart the efforts of the Ku Klux Klan. I mean, there's no evil intent here. The intent here is to make sure that they can do that, just do it, wear all your masks. Just don't commit a crime while doing it, because this police department is going to make sure that that doesn't happen. Chances are we won't even need to use that. And also, I'd like to take -- to thank Gerrie Greene, from the Anti-Defamation League, 'cause she helped draft this from the Georgia legislation. Thank you. 33 6/12/00 PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL OOO164
Thank you. Commissioner, let me ask you questions about Seattle. And, again, what I've seen from Seattle and what I know about it is only what I've read and what I've seen on television. One of the issues that occurred to me is that the number of masked people, people basically with bandanas over their nose and mouth, was a result, in some cases, of attempting to avoid the tear gas that was used during the course of trying to quell some of the disturbance. I'm wondering, what comes first, the chicken or the egg? I expect and am confident in this police department, that we never get to the point of using tear gas during the course of this convention. I think it would be a terrible thing for it to happen, and I know you agree with me see. But I'm wondering whether or not some of what we see in the way of Seattle's file 23 footage and stuff in Washington and other things has to do with the ability to avoid the gas while protesting, while doing destructing, while things 34 6/12/00 PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL OOO164 that are wrong or criminal, but not necessarily the reason why it was started in the first place. Do you understand? The point is, if we never get to the point of using the gas, there will be a lot less masked people. COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: Well, I would submit -- yeah, you're right, Councilman. But we've gone on the record -- we've gone on the record early, we've gone on the record repeatedly to say it is not our attention to use gas unless we're into severe civil disorder and we've in a bad way and we've used about just everything other thing we have, but it's not going to be a basic way of doing business and dealing with large demonstrations; believe me, it is not.
I mean, again, I guess my point is that if we -- and I am totally confident in your ability and Commissioner Timoney's ability to have a nice event which is good for the City, good for the delegates, and good for the protesters and residents. But the point of -- I think it's how you deal with this stuff up front that sets the tone for either a confrontational or a non-confrontational approach. 35 6/12/00 PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL OOO164 And the reason why I have some doubts about this bill is that I look at the issue of human nature, and it is when you tell somebody or tell a group of people that they can't do something, that they find ways to be motivated to go and do it anyway, just to kind of flaunt it in your face. And, secondly, I think the ability -- the desire to -- and I know the way the contract was written with the RNC, which left the inability to designate areas for public, peaceful protest until late in the game, I know there's some discussions going on now. I think a lot of that activity really sent a message that the protest wasn't welcome, wouldn't be cooperated with, although I know you're cooperating and trying to do your best -- wouldn't be cooperated with and that we're going to try to bury you somewhere where you can't be seen. And, again, I think all of those messages motivate those people, who may not even be violent in nature or violent in intent, to be agitated, aggravated, and motivated to get on television and to be visible by doing things they 36 6/12/00 PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL OOO164 wouldn't normally do. If we allow them to have the visibility, if we allow them to have the ability to express their opposition to governmental policies, to whatever economic policies, that we would have less of a problem in potential violence or disruption because we will have been given them the right to do it up front and made it clear that they're welcome to express their views. So that's just my opinion, and I am confident in the end that we'll have a great event, I know you'll do a good job. COMMISSIONER MITCH: Thank you.
I agree with what Councilman Kenney just said, and I would expect that if this bill became a City ordinance, that there would be hundreds, maybe thousands, of people appearing in masks because they would regard this as an effort to silence them. Using masks is one way of expression, it's one way of people showing -- some people talk, some people want to dress up in a certain fashion to express an opinion. That's the reason why they use these 37 6/12/00 PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL OOO164 masks. But let me ask you this, Commissioner, suppose this ordinance had been in effect in Seattle, could you tell me what difference would it have made? Suppose this had been in Seattle before those demonstrations which involved people wearing a mask and doing wrong things, how would this have helped the Police Department in Seattle? How could they have stopped whatever occurred? And it was regrettable, nobody liked that. COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: I think, Councilman --
And the other protesters made very clear in Seattle how they resented the action of this group that created the illegal activity. COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: Well, that -- let me comment on that last part of your question. That's quite right. Any kind of objective viewing of that film footage on the destruction of the property in Seattle showed that there were demonstrators that had participated in the March and had a strong feel about the WTO, 38 6/12/00 PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL OOO164 that really went to some great lengths to try to stop the troublemakers from destroying property, only to be ignored, only to be ignored. But that's right. And, again, we're talking about, you know, the 2 percenters. We're not talking about --
Well, how would this bill have helped? How would it have been used in any way? COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: It's just only one tool, Councilman, and I submit to you that it may not have helped in the case of Seattle because of the fact that there were several other major problems that confronted both that city and that Police Department that had them ill prepared to properly handle that event.
That's -- you know, it -- the bill does not to seem to have any purpose, except to generate the kind of feelings that Councilman Kenney spoke about. It doesn't seem to have any practical use, it won't help you do anything that day. Well, what is the purpose of the bill? 39 6/12/00 PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL OOO164 And, therefore, I suggest that many people are going to interpret it as the only purpose is to discourage. You said to discourage people from wearing masks. You hope -- you hope that this won't cause people to want to wear masks, you hope this will discourage them, but it isn't the masks that are a problem, it's any unlawful activity that may take place that we ought to be discouraging, not the wearing of masks. COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: We just -- we just happen to feel, Councilman, that that's also a part of it, that that is a part of it, this there be those people that will -- that could conceivably be discouraged by the enactment of this ordinance, should that occur. And there will be others that -- just as Councilman Kenney said, Well, I'll be darned. If we can, we will. You're right. And there were those that have -- that have been wearing them and have been wearing them in -- as part of the nature of that organization to dress that way -- and I might have to add, and possibly behave the way that some of them do, that 40 6/12/00 PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL OOO164 nothing would -- nothing's going to change their mind.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Commissioner, as Councilman Kenney asked you about the gas and people maybe wearing the bandanas or the masks to fight off the effects of gas, if we get to shooting gas off during this demonstration, we -- this is going to be a failure, if we get to the gas. Am I right in saying that? COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: Well, I think as the manager of this thing, I'd consider it a failure. I mean, I'd be deeply disappointed that -- that we couldn't effectively manage it and that the lawlessness had gotten so far out of hand that we couldn't effectively manage it, but I -- I mean, that would be a deep disappointment to me.
That bill is not going to prevent us getting to that point.
It could help. 41 6/12/00 PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL OOO164 COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: But it could help. I'm not saying that it will prevent it. I don't put that kind of weight on it, Councilman, but I --
Criminal activity is criminal activity. There are penalties much worse than $75 for wearing a mask. If you come here and you come in an do an unlawful act an you get arrested, you're got going to -- the law that will -- that will be named will not be this one that will put you away.
Mr. Chairman, I believe I still have the floor, if you don't mind.
I just want my colleagues here -- don't mix up the intent of this bill. We all come from different places and different regions and different philosophies on this. But believe me, if one policeman gets hurt here and if one police car is burned, if any windows are broken, and we didn't pass this bill, it's on us. Okay, this might not stop it, this might not stop it, but it's going to be another 42 6/12/00 PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL OOO164 tool for those people that are out there putting their lives out on the line to be able to do this. I mean, you could vote any way you want, but let's not turn around the intent. I wrote this bill, okay? The intent was just what I said. Nothing against masks. Using that mask to cause damage to this city or hurt our people. And I'm concerned about the Police Department, but I'm also concerned about the people that live here all year around, and I'm concerned about them conventioneers that are coming and what they're going to think of this city. That's all. That's what we're to do.
I think that's a concern shared by everybody in City Council. No 17 one wants any unlawful activities to happen.
That's not what I'm saying, Councilman. What I'm saying is, we're having the hearing, the Commissioner has been grateful to come here, I checked with Police Commissioner Timoney. I mean, we're going to vote the way we want to vote anyhow, okay? But let's not confuse the issue. They can wear the masks, like I said, till the cows 43 6/12/00 PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL OOO164 come home, as long as they don't commit a crime with it. And that crime, to me, is not the $75 fines. The crime is what might happen to somebody in the City of Philadelphia.
Sure, but if we can get them off the street before they get to that crime, it might be good.
But you can't arrest them before they commit a crime. (Laughter.)
You cannot arrest people before -- not in this country. You cannot arrest people in this country before they commit a crime. It is unlawful, it is against the Constitution.
Councilman, it doesn't say before they can commit a crime. Read the bill, Councilman. Do you want me to read it again for you? (Laughter.) 44 6/12/00 PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL OOO164
The bill says, "No 3 person shall, with specific intent, to intimidate or threaten." If I'm up here yelling about you, about your ethnic heritage and trying to get you to go for something and I have a mask on, that gives his personnel a chance to be able to stop that before blood is drawn. And, believe me, blood will be drawn, okay? (Laughter.)
Okay, any other questions for this witness? (No further questions.)
Hearing none, thank you, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: Sir, thank you for listening to us.
Mike Morrill, please, of the Pennsylvania Consumer Network. Mike? (Witness comes forward.) UNIDENTIFIED WITNESS: A change of plan.
A change of plan. 45 6/12/00 PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL OOO164 Very good, come forward.
My name is John Hogan, and I'll be presenting a statement on behalf of the R2K Network.
Do any of the masked persons, citizens want to be heard? How many of the individuals --
Please. How many of the citizens sitting in the audience will be testifying? Okay. One, two. I saw two, okay. Could you please come to the table at this time, too. Okay. (Witnesses come forward.)
Please proceed and identify yourself for the record, please.
Thank you. I'm John Hogan, speaking on behalf of the R2K Network, which is the group of Philadelphia groups that are planning activities in connection with the Republican National Convention.
I'm Terrence McCucken, 46 6/12/00 PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL OOO164 from the Philadelphia Direct Action Group. We're planning nonviolent protests.
I'm Lisabeth Pelsue, from the Philadelphia Direct Action Group.
Last month, while Congress was considering granting permanent normal trade relations with China, a number images appeared before me. Each of these vision made me question whether such a free trade agreement was warranted.
Could I ask you to slow down so we can really hear what you say?
Yes, yes. I remember armored military personnel carriers rolling into crowds of unarmed protesters. I saw pictures of police with full-body armor, wading into crowds, swinging their clubs indiscriminately at nonviolent citizens who didn't move fast enough. I saw 47 6/12/00 PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL OOO164 chemical weapons, banned by international treaty as inappropriate weapons of war, being used as crowd control on the nation's own citizens. I saw pictures of military-style raids on the protestors' headquarters, confiscating their banners and fliers before they had a chance to distribute them. I read of dissenting voices being arrested just days or hours before a planned protest, with trumped-up charges: carrying a water bottle that could used as a weapon if thrown; wearing spiky jewelry that could be used to stab someone; wearing masks to protect against tear gas because the police determined that the masks were threatening. I reviewed all of these human rights abuses in my mind and I determined a nation that tramples on the basic human rights of its citizens in such a cavalier manner should not be rewarded but should, instead, have sanctions imposed against it. No, that nation is not China, although it certainly has serious human rights problems. The nation that has repeatedly violated its own 48 6/12/00 PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL OOO164 laws and international laws in dealing with peaceful protest is the United States. Since the peaceful rallies against the World Trade Organization in Seattle last November and December, police departments around the country have shared information on how to effectively large-scale protests. As citizens organized to nonviolently express their opinions, police from most major cities have announced that they have had some of their leadership in Seattle, Washington, Boston, and Windsor to observe and replicate the effective means of controlling protests. At the head of the class in this school of repression is the City of Philadelphia. Recent statements by Commissioner Timoney, actions by Mayor Street, and Councilman Mariano's bill make me fear for the future of democracy in this city. What are the lessons that Philadelphia has learned? I count four: The first lesson is to restrict the right to assemble. From the first announcement that we would be developing protest plans, the City has attempted to deny the right to assemble 49 6/12/00 PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL OOO164 peacefully. Unity 2000, the major march and rally planned for July 30th had to file suit in federal court to get a permit to assemble. The Ad Hoc Committee to Defend Health Care likewise only got its permit by filing suit. The Kensington Welfare Rights Union has also applied for a permit but has been denied. In fact, the only group that has gotten a permit to march during the period surrounding the Republican Convention without going to court is the Silent March, a display of 30,000 pairs of shoes symbolizing the annual toll due to handgun violence in this country. It seems that is how the City prefers its protesters -- silent. The City will tell you the demonstrations can take place in its "free speech zone," a 40-foot-by-190-foot area across the street from the First Union Center. What the City will not tell you is that this protest pit is invisible to the media and conventioneers, rendering any demonstration meaningless. Most groups have seen through this charade and have refused to participate. One group that plans to use it is a group promoting the adoption of 50 6/12/00 PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL OOO164 greyhounds, a laudable project and one laden with symbolism for the City's attempt to quash protest. Lesson two is preemptive arrests. Commissioner Timoney and other police officials have stated publicly that they will arrest people who are planning to commit a crime. They do not identify what crimes people must be planning in order to be arrested but we can imagine, based on recent actions in Washington, DC, and Windsor, Ontario.
In Washington this April, over 100 heavily-armed police broke into the conversion center of the people planning the protests against the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. The police closed down the center and confiscated puppets, banners, and fliers, under the pretense that the center violated fire codes. I don't know about with you, but I was unaware that the police took such a keen interest in the fire and building codes of the city. I was also unaware that it took over 100 police to issue a building code citation -- unless the real reason was to quash protest by closing down the center 51 6/12/00 PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL OOO164 and arresting perceived leaders. Also in Washington, on the eve of the largest protest, police herded a group of protesters into a corral of other police officers and indiscriminately over 600 peaceful marchers. A number of bystanders were also arrested, including out-of-town tourist and Pulitzer Prize winning photographer from the Washington Post. A small price to pay for keeping the peace, I guess. Lessons learned from the police in Seattle. Just last week, in Windsor, Ontario, and in Detroit, police honed their newly learned techniques by arresting people on clearly trumped-up charges. Windsor was the host for the meeting of the Organization of American States, and simultaneous protests were organized in both cities. Windsor and Detroit declared the possession of water bottles illegal and arrested people solely for carrying them. Of course, the only people arrested for possession of H20 were protesters. Two protesters from Toronto were arrested as they got off their bus Toronto for wearing studded leather bracelets, which the 52 6/12/00 PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL OOO164 police determined were potential weapons. ), a US resident and master puppet-maker was arrested because he had a prior record and was suspected of planning to participate in civil disobedience the next day. Twenty bicyclists were arrested in Detroit because they were wearing masks, which is illegal under Michigan law. They were performing no other illegal act at the time, but were considered threatening by the Detroit police. Last Sunday, after the peaceful civil disobedience action, the police began arresting perceived leaders, including anyone who spoke at the teach-in at the University of Windsor. After listing to Commissioner Timoney, this appears to be the second lesson the Philadelphia police have learned. The third lesson of intimidation was in Seattle where police tried to strike fear into people planning to protest. Seattle was the first place that the use of chemical weapons on nonviolent protesters became acceptable. Police were filmed shooting tear gas cannisters directly at people. They were shown to use pepper spray, 53 6/12/00 PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL OOO164 banned under international law for use in war, on people whose crime was to be peacefully sitting down in front of the WTO meeting place. Last week, the police in Windsor took the use of pepper spray to a new level by pouring bottles on the heads of people who were blocking a bus. Reporters and observers standing 30 to 40 feet away were overcome by the pepper spray vapors. By the way, over 100 people have died from the use of pepper spray in the United States, according to the Police Chiefs Association. In Seattle, Washington, Detroit, and Windsor, thousands of police in body armor patrolled the cities, searching backpacks, checking identification, and imposing an intimidating force. Armored personnel carriers patrolled the streets. Police with automatic weapons could be seen on rooftops, some pointing parabolic microphones into gatherings of potential protesters. The result in each case was a police force with a siege mentality, looking at all protesters as probable law breakers. The general population looks at their 54 6/12/00 PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL OOO164 city turned into a police state and stays away from even legal demonstrations.
Labor leaders in Detroit and Windsor talked of how hard it was to get their members to attend a (unintelligible) rally with the threat of indiscriminate arrests in chemical weapons looming over their heads. This is lesson three learned by the City of Philadelphia. Lesson four is disinformation. After each demonstration, city officials and the police decried the use of violence by protesters while praising the restraint used by their police. The police in Seattle talked of protesters attacking police, although there is no video or photographic record of such attacks. In Washington, the police talked of being hit with bags of urine and feces, although there is no record of such an attack. Also in Washington, the police talked to protesters possessing Molotov cocktails, which was, in reality, a plastic milk jug with rags soaked in turpentine to paint puppets. They also said there were homemade pepper-spray ingredients, which were chilly peppers at the common kitchen created to 55 6/12/00 PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL OOO164 feed protesters. These stories can all be proven to be lies or exaggerations by the police, but if you repeat a lie often enough. . Just last week, the New York Times wrote an article decrying the new protests and supporting the police actions because of the use of Molotov cocktails, homemade pepper spray, and bags of urine being used against the police. These are the lessons the City of Philadelphia has learned. It is in this context that one must view Councilman Mariano's bill. On its face, it seems innocuous enough. However, one must ask, what is its real intent? under what circumstances will it be used? Are there any concrete examples that can be cited, or is this really just another tool in the belt of those who would tear down our Constitutional rights to free speech and assembly. I think there is no doubt why this bill 22 has been introduced. It is clearly meant to be used to arrest protesters. It is also meant to intimidate. It is, therefore, warranted only if you want to stifle speech. " Unity 2000 is opposed to this bill 6 because its intention is clearly to chill dissent. Unity 2000 will be a peaceful, permitted march, with tens of thousands of participants. No one to my knowledge is planning to wear masks during our march and rally, with the possible exception of artistic masks. But we are opposed to the increasing of police state tactics meant to stifle any voice that does not represent the ruling class. The anti-mask ordinance should itself by unmasked and exposed for what it is: an attempt to intimidate dissenting voices. We urge you to abandon this effort and restore the rights of free speech and assembly in Philadelphia.
You've got to get the microphone close to you. 57 6/12/00 PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL OOO164
It's all part of a political expression. Why I'm wearing this mask is because the City's trying to pass an ordinance 8 against wearing masks for protesters. And that's why we're wearing masks, to symbolize that.
Identify and spell your name so that the stenographer can get it.
Yes. My name is Terrence McGuckin. T-E-R-R-E-N-C-E, M-C-G-U-C-K-I-N.
Like the police commissioners, I too was in D.C. and what I saw that the police were doing is, they were trying any means that they had necessary to get as many demonstrators off the street, whether it was legal arrest or not. They seemed not to care if it was a legal or not, if it was Constitutional or not. They wanted to get the protesters out of the way, 58 6/12/00 PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL OOO164 whether they're illegal or not. And this just seems what this bill is there to do, is to get protesters off the street. And we're not violent demonstrators, we don't have any weapons, there's no reason the police should be afraid of us.
Well, if that's the case, I still want to know, what is the reason for wearing the mask?
When the police use things like tear gas and pepper spray, that's a health risk to people who are out in the street demonstrations. And tear gas and pepper spray can be lethal. And I myself, I have asthma, and it's been proven to be lethal to people who have asthma, and if they decide to use tear gas, I will be putting on a gas mask because I don't want to die.
But you're out there with hundreds of thousands of people protesting, right? And the asthma doesn't bother you? But you have to wear a mask in order to protest?
The protesters there 59 6/12/00 PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL OOO164 aren't --
Because you have fear that the police may do something; is that what you're saying?
Well, the police have done that in the past several demonstrations, so it is a real concern.
I don't know. I've lived in this city all my life and I've seen demonstrations that were very, very peaceful. I didn't see any problems with the Police Department at that time. They had demonstrations up where I live at times, and I never seen any police throw any tear gas or pepper spray or whatever you're saying.
They're just doing their job, to protect people like me at times.
Another reason why people might wear masks is because this is a people's movement and demonstrations, and we don't necessarily want to be identified as leaders 'cause we're all leaders here, and that's part of 60 6/12/00 PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL OOO164 the reason why we wear masks..
Oh, you just said it: you don't want to be identified.
As the leaders, but the bottom line is the word "identification."
Is that the reason? You do not want to be identified?
I just identified myself. I said I don't want to be identified as a leader. Sometimes you take a picture and a face and that becomes more the message. If you cover up your face, then people listen ore to the issues you're talking about than what they see.
Identify yourself 61 6/12/00 PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL OOO164 for the record.
Oh, okay. My name is Lisbeth Pelsue. The first name is spelled L-I-S-B-E-T-H. The last name is P-E-L-S-U-E.
Yes. The reason that I wanted to speak is because I am also an asthmatic and I wanted to speak.
Let the record show that the speakers are wearing masks.
And I wanted to represent people who have respiratory problems and would still like to demonstrate. It's the same as if someone has an allergy to bees that is lethal; they would carry epinephrin with them so that they would be able to avert that allergy. Someone who has a risk of tear gas or pepper spray, which is lethal, will carry a gas mask with them, and if necessary, will wear it. But the Police Commissioner and the representative from the police have not really made much of an effort to lay down the bottom line 62 6/12/00 PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL OOO164 as to how they will determine intent to break the law, and that is my concern. Because anyone wearing a mask could be misconstrued as someone with intent to break the law. Since they have said numerous times that, Oh, all of the people who are breaking the law in Seattle and in Washington were wearing masks. So that to me misconstrues someone who has a serious health problem with a small, small, small group of people who will break the law.
I saw many of my friends get gassed. I had to move away because I was 63 6/12/00 PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL OOO164 afraid of getting tear-gassed.
Did your mask keep you -- your bandana kept you from the effects of the tear gas?
Okay. And you travel around from city to city to these peaceful demonstrations?
I travel to demonstrations that I feel that I'm concerned about the issues that are being represented, and DC just happened to be one of them.
Okay. And have gone to many demonstrations? I'm just trying figure out where your head is. Do you go to many demonstrations?
Not really. That's not really relevant, what are you getting at?
Your demonstration history is, you'll be in Philadelphia an you were in Washington? That was it? You didn't go to other demonstrations? Do you or don't you?
You don't travel 64 6/12/00 PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL OOO164 much? So you're basically a local guy, and you went down to Washington and saw something, you didn't like it, and now you're testifying in front of Philadelphia City Council; is that it?
I saw people who were getting beaten and tear-gassed and who were peaceful demonstrators, and they were being attacked because the police wanted to get them off the street because they didn't want to deal with them on the street.
Did you see any of these demonstrators throw any rocks or attack the police cars or any of the media cars? You didn't see any of that?
But did you see any of it? I didn't ask you if there a little. Did you see -- personally see any of it?
No. There was hardly 65 6/12/00 PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL OOO164 any.
You mentioned that you were in DC and you noticed that police, in your view, exercised no -- didn't make -- it did not make a difference whether persons had masks or not; is that what you said?
I said that the police were trying any means-- they were trying to get people off the street. And they especially targeted people with masks. And that's something, if there's a law that says that if somebody's 66 6/12/00 PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL OOO164 wearing mask that has intent, that will make it easier for police to target people who happen to be asthmatic or happen to be wearing a mask because they don't necessarily want to be identified and picked out as a leader. If doesn't mean if they're necessarily willing to -- an intent to commit a crime. That's what I was saying.
I can understand why someone wears a gas mask if they're fearful that gas may be sprayed in their direction, but isn't masks in general a form of theater by which people historically over -- as long as human history has existed, people have used different forms of dress to express opinions. It's a form of speech. That's why we regard that as a part of the First Amendment. It's a way people express themselves. Obviously, people wearing some form of masks such as the ones you're wearing tend to draw attention more than a group of people who are not wearing 67 6/12/00 PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL OOO164 masks. Isn't that the basic thing? The gas masks we talk about only in connection with a defense against gas being used against people, but the real theater comes from these kinds of masks that you're all wearing.
And isn't that historically a form of expression used by people?
That's right. It's a standard form of political expression -- satire and parody.
As Councilman Ortiz talked about, it was used at the Boston Tea Party in the Revolutionary days. It's always been a part of human response.
It's also always been a way for criminals to keep from being identified. It has been going on for hundreds of years, if not thousands. And as far as I know, no one thought it would make it easier to charge Jessie James with robbing a train if you could add the charge of robbing a train with a mask over his face.
But anyone intent on performing criminal action would not be deterred 68 6/12/00 PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL OOO164 from wearing a mask to hide identity by this City ordinance.
And that's the reason so much concern's expressed, why this City ordinance?
And whatever its purpose may be, it certainly seems to be clearly one method by which to attempt to discourage dissent. And the great thing about this country is the encouragement of the expression of dissent, not the repression of dissent. That's why I said at the outset, this moves directly in the opposite direction that it ought to.
Councilman, I'll tell ya, I think a lot of store owners would be scared to death if they see somebody come in with a mask on. Is that their right too?
Well, we had masks in Council, we had performers the other day --
Well, I'll tell ya, if someone knocked at my door or tried to 69 6/12/00 PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL OOO164 get in my house with a mask on, I know the Police Department would be around.
I don't think anyone here has any intention of visiting private homes or anything.
That's all right. I have no problem with demonstrations, protesters, but I have a problem when they wear a mask. To me, that's a coward. If you're going to fight for something, then let them know what you're fighting for and who you are. Why the mask? I still didn't get the right answer. Why you have to wear a mask.
You haven't gotten an answer you're happy with, but I think we've offered answers. 70 6/12/00 PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL OOO164
That's not true, because I didn't understand your answer.
It's a form of political expression. We've got George Bush masks and Al Gore masks that we can use as political theater. Those are masks.
That may be, but it's also on the other side, the other people on the opposite side, their form of saying, "We don't want it." I personally do not want to see masks. I think it's dangerous. What have we fought for all those years?
But what is the intent of wearing a mask in a masquerade? It's theater, it's not --
We can say what if what? if what? what if? But for a demonstration as broad as this and fear of trouble at a huge, huge affair, the protester wearing masks, let them be seen, let them be seen. Maybe 71 6/12/00 PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL OOO164 it's my next-door neighbor, maybe it's your next- door neighbor who doesn't agree with you. We'd like to know. I want to know.
Thank you. I recognize Councilman Clarke for amendment to the bill.
I'd like to read these into the record in the public hearing. On behalf of the sponsor, I'm going to offer these amendments: In Section 1, it reads insert after "person," insert "or with the specific intent to hide during the commission of unlawful activity." Further on, after "device," insert "or means of." Delete entirely Section 2.
Re-number Section 3 as Section 2. 72 6/12/00 PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL OOO164
And re-number Section 4 as Section 3. These amendments are based on recommendations from the ACLU and the Law Department.
Okay, thank you, Councilman Clarke. I'd like to read into the record a letter from the ADL. "We are writing with regard to Bill 13 000164, which would prohibit facial concealment in certain instances. The bill would amend Title X of the Philadelphia Code to prohibit a person from wearing a mask, hood, or form of facial concealment with the specific intent to threaten another person. "As you know, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) assisted in drafting the bill and we support it. As you know, the ADL is an 86-year-old civil rights and human relations organization that fights anti-Semitism, racism, prejudice, and bigotry of all kinds. ADL has been in the forefront of the effort to monitor and 73 6/12/00 PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL OOO164 counteract extremist activities on both ends of the political spectrum. Such activity often threatens the democratic process and interferes with the peaceful exercise of Constitutional rights by our citizens, especially those who are members of racial, ethnic, and religious minorities. Further, ADL has been actively involved in monitoring and counteracting extremist groups who have historically carried out extremist activity under cover of mask and hood. Therefore, ADL was pleased to assist your office in drafting anti-mask legislation that would be effective and most likely survive any Constitutional challenge. "The Constitutionality of the Anti-Mask Laws. A. Laws that Have Been Upheld. Anti-mask laws were upheld in courts as early as 1878 these early laws said in essence that a trespasser wearing a mask was guilty of an attempted felony. In 1927 the Kentucky Supreme Court upheld a state ordinance that made it illegal to appear in public wearing a mask or disguise. See Pineville v. Marshall 299 SW 1072 (Kentucky 1927). The Kentucky law was not aimed at secret organizations who are masked or hooded but acknowledged that 74 6/12/00 PUBLIC SAFETY - BILL OOO164 wearing masks tended to increase public disorder. In 1930, a Texas court had a valid state statute prohibiting, among other things, the parading of any secret society organization or part of the members thereof in masks of disguise upon or along any public road or any street or alley or any city or town or state. See Dellinger v. State, 28 SW 2d 537 (Texas Criminal Court 1930) as cited in 2 ALR 4th 1241 (1980). "Historically, anti-mask laws have met with mixed success in the courts. However, ADL believes it is possible to draft a law that would be narrow enough to be upheld. . ." My colleagues are saying to put this into the record. The ADL letter will be put into the record. (ADL Letter attached hereto.)
Thank you. There's a letter from the Philadelphia ACLU that I cannot find in front of me here. This letter will be read into the record. And I would just like to read, "And while we would not be opposing this bill, nothing contained in this letter should be construed as a 75 6/12/00 PUBLIC SAFETY - PUBLIC MEETING statement in support of the bill. Please feel free to contact me should you have any questions. Larry Frankel." That also will be put into the record. (ADL letter attached hereto.)
Statements by District Attorney Lynne Abraham will be put into the record. (Lynne Abraham letter attached hereto.) - - -
I now conclude this hearing of the Public Safety Committee on Bill 14 000164 and move into the public meeting. And I'd like to hear a motion about the amendments. I recognize Councilman Clarke. Is he here? Councilman Clarke, do I hear a motion on the amendments?
Yes, Mr. Chairman. I make a motion that the amendments, as read in the hearing, be adopted. (Duly seconded.)
The amendments are being offered and seconded. Do I hear ayes? 76 6/12/00 PUBLIC SAFETY - PUBLIC MEETING Do I hear nays? The ayes have it. Now I'd like to hear a motion on Bill 5 000164, as amended. Councilman Clarke?
Thank you. I ask for a motion on Bill No. 000164, as amended, to be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation. (Duly seconded.)
The bill has been recommended and seconded. Do I hear the ayes. Nos? Please identify those voting aye. Councilman Clarke?
Councilman Ortiz, no. 11 The ayes are 4, the nays are 3. Therefore, the bill passes. This bill 13 will be read into the first reading of City Council on Thursday.
Mr. Chairman, can we ask for a request for a suspension of the rules? I'm asking for a request for a suspension of the rules.
A motion has been offered. Do I hear a second? (Duly seconded.)
Ayes? Nos? We'll do a roll call again. Councilman Clarke? 78 6/12/00 PUBLIC SAFETY - PUBLIC MEETING
Councilman Ortiz, no. 18 The ayes are 4, the nays are 3. The ayes have it. (Adjourned at 4:10 p.m.) - - - 79 C E R T I F I C A T E I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing proceedings of the Council of the City of Philadelphia of Monday, July 12, 2000, were reported fully and accurately by me, and that this is a correct transcript of same. RE: COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY BILL NO. 000164 __________________________________, JOSEPHINE CARDILLO, Registered Professional Reporter