Saturday morning my sister, Monica Bicking, and her boyfriend, Eryn Trimmer, were arrested in Minneapolis. Monica was released on Sunday, but Eryn and others are still in custody, and the police will try to keep them detained as long as possible. update: the two of them and six others from the Welcoming Committee are charged with felonies, including "furtherance of terrorism". A website has been set up in support of them, and to keep people informed about ongoing events in the case: rnc8.org
They were arrested for "conspiracy to incite a riot". This is the same charge used against the Chicago 8 (or 7) at the 1968 Democratic Convention. Perhaps the police have a sense of tradition?
But more directly she and Eryn were arrested in an attempt to preemptively suppress the protests at the Republican National Convention. They were both very active with the RNC Welcoming Committee, which is a group coordinating and supporting some of the people coming to the Twin Cities for the convention.
Obviously I’m very concerned by the arrests and charges. But there’s been a huge outpouring of support from the community — both from activist in the Twin Cities, and from their neighbors. In Chicago I’m a little unsure about what to do.
Reading articles about the incidents (Glenn Greenwald’s post on Salon is a good one) I find myself mostly avoiding the comment sections. The comments fall into two categories: mean comments against the protesters, and reactionary comments with no real substance ("this is proof this country is a police state!") Activists generally understand what’s going on, and people of a right-wing/authoritarian bend are hardly going to be convinced of anything, but there’s a lot of progressive people out there who’ve never really been involved in any activism like this. There’s very little explaining the protests, the role of activists like my sister, and the philosophies they hold. Certainly the news makes no attempt, and unfortunately the activists themselves often speak from an unexplained perspective.
So I’d like to use this as an opportunity to explain my understanding of the role of protest, what’s going on at the RNC specifically, and what an "anarchist" really is. At the moment I can’t do a lot to help Eryn and Monica directly, but at least I can talk about her personally instead of another story about a named but otherwise anonymous "protester".
The Role Of Protest
It’s challenging to explain and justify protest, at least in this country and at this moment. Probably the biggest blow for protest as a useful form of political expression was the February 15, 2003 protests against the Iraq War. I say this because those were the largest protests the world has ever seen, estimated around 10 million people, and yet they did so little to stop the war.
That war is still with us, and is still the most significant motivation for the RNC protests. The war has gone through many phases since then — purported success, then clear failure by just about anyone’s definition, then ongoing failure labelled as success because of dramatically lowered expectations (the surge). Public opinion has moved several times, but is constrained by what is considered the reasonable options. These "reasonable" options are defined by the Democratic and Republican elite. Balance in news means inviting participation from partisans from those two parties. In this context the Democratic party had a practical landslide in 2006, driven primarily by anti-war sentiments, and then proceeded to do almost nothing to stop the war. If protest has failed, then so has electoral politics.
I don’t have any third path to offer, but I just want to make it clear: none of us know what is best to do, none of us have figured out the way to effect change. People complain protest doesn’t work. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn’t, but frankly most things don’t work. Doing nothing definitely doesn’t work, and frankly that’s what most of us are doing. It’s hard to take criticisms seriously when they are made from a stance of inaction.
What might the RNC protests accomplish?
First, it is an attempt to break out of a politics restricted to two perspectives. I believe, quite firmly, that "radical left" opinions are actually quite mainstream. This was also the goal of the DNC protests. This goal has become quite difficult to achieve. News stations generally ignore protest, and when they do cover protest they seldom talk about the actual issues.
Second, protests can attempt to disrupt normal activity. To be fair, this is probably better termed "civil disobedience", and I’m sure there will be civil disobedience in response to the RNC. One possible goal of civil disobedience is to make news — to be so disruptive that you simply can’t be ignored. And even if the news won’t say why you won’t be ignored, at least one message that can be made clear: everything is not okay. Another goals is simply to disrupt the RNC. This is a bringing together of many of the architects and profiteers of war. This is a convention that includes many people advocating torture.
It’s also a convention of people who buy the lines about the Republican party being "conservative" and supporting "family values" and whatever other bullshit. One argument goes: oh, these poor dullards and simpletons! Do not interrupt their harmless partying! Do not interrupt their absurd views! They deserve their delusions as much as anyone! I say: this stuff is too important to defer to the bullshit of this political grandstanding.
Are We In A Time Of War?
It is all too easy to fall into "protesting for the right to protest". Lest I fall into this, I want to make it clear: protest itself is not the goal. 600,000 Iraqis dead. And to what ends? No ends at all? Unlikely! There is a purpose. It is a purpose architected by people who would throw away hundreds of thousands of lives. People may argue about whether war is valid. I don’t believe it is, nor do Monica or Eryn, but whatever your feelings: this is not an abstract war. This is a specific war. And this specific war is a war made by liars, by people who treat human life lightly, by people whose primary ambition seems focused on power itself.
600,000 dead, and what’s so different in America? Do you feel this war? If you didn’t turn on the TV or listen to the news, what would remind you that we are at war? What would remind you of all that’s happened? We are a nation at war, and yet there is nothing to show us this, it has no presence. Our nation is so large, our institutions so abstracted, our military so partitioned from most of society… we are numb to war. Moving around while numbed is dangerous. You can’t feel what you are doing. A cut doesn’t hurt, a bruise is just a faint sensation. We are a numbed nation and this is dangerous.
If I was to give one reason for civil disobedience, it would be this: to acknowledge this war is real. This isn’t just a difference of opinion, this isn’t just a debate. This is about how we exercise our collective power, the power that is exercised in the form of the state. This is our war, whether we feel it or not.
One of the criticisms of civil disobedience is to say it deprives the Republicans of their free speech. First, this is absurd. No form of civil disobedience deprives them of free speech. No one is taping their mouths shut. No journalists are being detained by activists. No debate is stifled. The RNC’s request: we want to speak our lies without interruption, without distraction. The Republicans have through decades of whining managed to frame the debate, to redefine "common sense" and "conventional thinking", to move the Overton Window far to the right. Free speech does not mean they should not be challenged. Protest challenges the content of their speech, it doesn’t deny them of the ability to speak.
This is an aside, but for all the effort put into limiting the bounds of debate I don’t think the Republicans, or Bush, have really changed the country as much as they are given credit for. I don’t think people are as easily manipulated as that. I think our core values are not so easily affected. If we were not so numb I think it would all come rushing back.
On "Anarchism"
If you read the articles you will see Monica and Eryn called "self-described anarchists". This is true, they are anarchists. I will attempt, briefly and probably inaccurately, to describe what anarchism is.
Anarchism is, at its core, a belief in the individual, and a belief that good flows uniquely from the individual. Conversely, it believes that bad comes from institutions, from the abstractions we build between people. Anarchism is a belief in the power of empathy instead of laws. Instead of leading our lives according to principles that are passed down to us, anarchism says we should live our lives based on our personal reflections and decisions. We should be deliberate, we should not be obedient.
The RNC Welcoming Committee (the name is ironic) is a "anarchist/anti-authoritarian" organization. Ha ha you say, isn’t an anarchist organization an oxymoron? If you meet an anarchist this is the most tedious joke you could possibly make. Anarchism is, of course, a somewhat chaotic philosophy. And any anarchist should be a human first, and an anarchist second — anything else would be contrary to the very principles of anarchism! More practically, they form groups based on shared understandings and motivations, and there is nothing at all inconsistent about individuals working together — indeed it is interpersonal cooperation that is at the heart of anarchist traditions.
Do anarchists want to tear down all institutions? I guess some flavors of anarchist rhetoric make this claim. Looking in from the outside, it feels like some kind of phase adolescent male anarchists go through. There is an underlying lack of respect for institutions and authority, and this is genuine. But though they see nothing wrong with disrupting institutions, violence against people is not considered acceptable. Some would like to categorize property damage as violence, but I find this rather disrespectful of genuine violence. Things don’t feel pain or fear.
Discussions of anarchism tend to degrade very quickly because people are overly obsessed with self-consistency. For instance: how could an entire society run without laws, governments, police, taxes? There are answers and speculations, but we would all do better to make the world we want now and here. This is what actual anarchists do — running whole societies might be fun to theorize about, but building a community is actually attainable, and among progressive groups anarchists are probably the most enthusiastic community builders.
Lastly: why the term "anarchism"? It’s a scary term, though it’s derivation is simply from the term "without rulers". It’s been a term used to scare people for so long that it’s hard to separate the idea from the myth. People at time suggest alternative terms. But anarchism isn’t just a philosophy, it’s a tradition and culture and shared understanding, one that goes back over a hundred years. And anarchists don’t want to disassociate themselves from that tradition. And usually, what does it matter what other people think of the name? It is however awkward when the police are trying to label you as a dangerous extremist.
Violence?
Reports have come out about violent protest. Update: There were reports of "violent protesters". Now police report that "one or two windows were broken" during the entire RNC. In other words, there was almost no violence at all by protesters, and almost no property damage. Frankly I feel stupid for ever believing there were even small groups of "violent protesters". There was simply no violence (under any definition of "violence") of any note by the protesters. (I’m actually surprised there weren’t more windows broken by stray police munitions.) Again police lack basic credibility in their statements. end update
Actual incidents are often exaggerated or fabricated. For instance, in the case of the home raids things like paint, bottles, and rags were labeled as "the ingredients for making Molotov cocktails". I’m sure every reader of this post has sufficient ingredients to make a Molotov cocktail. Also, many people have hatchets, bricks, and other materials. Buckets of urine were particularly attention-grabbing, but the only reason for these was that one of the houses had a broken toilet. The police interpretation of the confiscated material is not credible.
There have also been reports of violence at the protests themselves. First it should be noted that there are no reports of police or bystanders being injured. I personally find it is hard to classify property damage as "violence". If you don’t include property damage then there doesn’t seem to be much evidence of violence.
Protest is confrontational. Some will suggest that protesters should obey police in all situations. They suggest that protesters should obey all laws and only protest where permitted. They suggest protesters should not be disruptive of anyone else. The result would not be protest. In cases like the RNC, where extensive planning was in place to counter protest, non-confrontational protest means protesting according to someone else’s plans, someone who has no desire for the protest to succeed in any way. Once you confront the police, there will be violence — usually by the police. And sure, you can stand with a flower in your hand and get a face full of pepper spray, and of course many people choose that course. It’s a noble choice, but I can’t fault people for making other tactical decisions.
Another protesting tactic is the "black bloq", typically a group of people who try to attract the attention of the police, often through property damage. If the police have nothing better to do, then why not pin down the peaceful protesters and direct them where they can make the least impact? People in the black bloq will try to keep this from happening. It’s unlikely they were at all successful at the RNC as it was so thoroughly militarized. You could debate whether this is a good strategy (and there is lots of debate about this), but probably few people outside activists have any idea that there even is any underlying strategy.
Also, if you wonder why protesters, especially the anarchists, dress the way they do, it is primarily defensive. If you are going to get teargassed and peppersprayed does wearing a handkerchief seem so odd? And if they are tracking people to preemptively arrest, all the more reason to be as anonymous as possible.
Monica and Eryn
I’d like to speak specifically of Monica and Eryn. Talking to Monica about the RNC protests, she was never actually that excited. The RNC isn’t what she wanted to focus on. Why focus on the thing you dislike? Why focus on a political process you don’t believe in? Why focus on the workings of institutions you wish didn’t exist? She would have preferred to work on the scale she felt was valid — to build a community of individuals. But of course events are larger than us, and by whatever coincidence the RNC was coming to the Twin Cities. This is not the sort of thing you can just ignore. And of course it wasn’t up to her whether there would be protests.
Monica and Eryn are competent and diligent, so of course they would become important to the organizing process. It seems that there were infiltrators in many of the organizations, so it’s unsurprising that the police knew who to find when they were getting ready to suppress the protests. The two of them had expected informants from early on. Monica herself worked for a year for the American Friends Service Committee (a Quaker charity and peace advocacy organization) at a time when they were being spied on because of purported fears of violent protest. If you are not aware of Quakerism, it is a quite strictly passivist faith, and the pretense for the spying was exceptionally absurd. So Monica was not particularly shocked that there would be spying in the lead up to the RNC.
The RNC Welcoming Committee is itself a coordinating organization. It was inevitable that many, many groups would want to protest at the RNC. There’s no lack of people who are angry. The Welcoming Committee served as a local resource for all those people — so visitors could find a place to stay in the city, so people could coordinate with each other, so people could perform their chosen form of protest in as well-informed a manner as possible. That it is being painted as an organization with criminal intent is a complete misrepresentation; the Welcoming Committee specifically has no intention of direct action.
The preemptive arrest was surprising to everyone. It is normal in the course of civil disobedience that some people expect to be arrested. Civil disobedience is confrontational. You have to go into it knowing that there will be certain consequences. Those are the consequences of the confrontation. They are not the consequences of the possibility of future confrontation. As organizers I know Monica and Eryn weren’t planning on being arrested.
But I haven’t written this essay in anger over their arrest. Protest is conflict. The lines of conflict move, and I find this move to preemptive arrest quite troubling, but I’m also optimistic that they won’t ultimately be charged with anything. I also don’t want to slip into the protest-to-protest mode, more obsessed with the form of protest than the function of this protest. This is a frustrating turn of events, and I’m sure no one is more frustrated than the two of them — one sequestered in a jail, the other in legal limbo, at the culmination of all their work over the last year. But I didn’t write this essay out of anger but because I wanted to recognize what they’ve been doing and do my best to explain it to other people, because I’m proud of them. They are exactly the model of an engaged, ethically driven citizenry.
I see lots of comments like "this country is a fascist state!" and "this is just like Nazi Germany!" But of course this country is not those things. That’s what happens when the citizenry of a country stands down, when they look away from what’s happening right in front of them, when they ignore justice and discard empathy. This country is not those things because of Monica and Eryn and the thousands of people who will be present and paying attention when the RNC lands from on high.
To support Monica, Eryn, and the other charged members of the RNC Welcoming Committee, and also to get updates on the case and news coverage of the case, please visit rnc8.org
No related posts.
Just wanted to express general support both for your sister and for your comments on comments.
The world would be a better place if more people agitated. And the internet would be a better place if more people left comments that highlighted the good of what they had read, not the bad.
Thanks for this post. Its nice to read a sane and coherent essay on the reasons for the protest and the intentions of the Welcoming Committee. Supporting your sis and the RNC 8.
In response to Mr Sbardella’s response: You’re crazy. Political protest isn’t like “selling drugs or a false hope or belief”. Political groups do blockades all the time – how about Operation Rescue blockading abortion clinics, or people manning a picket line while on strike? Picket lines are legally protected, by the way, and they’re designed to interfere with the continuance of business at the location of the picket line. Ian’s sister has just as much right to help in protesting the Republican National Convention by putting a picket line around it and wasting the “time and energy” of the delegates, as trade union people do by picketing businesses while on strike and making an effort to cut into their income, or as Operation Rescue has by blocking people from going into abortion clinics and trying to shut them down.
References:
Just got linked over here from Ars Technica. Not sure there’s much I can add to this discussion, except to lend my support to your sister and her boyfriend, and to thank you for this post; I’ve not read a more in-depth discussion of the principles of anarchism, and your analysis of current events in our country and the role of protest is well-reasoned and spot-on.
awesome post, thanks for taking the time to put these thoughts together so cogently. hope your sis is doing alright.
Well, bruno, the Temple was held out as the house of prayer and the house of God and not the house of commerce or capitalists. Jesus was violating nothing by cleaning it of those who refused to obey the real rules within. It was a house clearly demarcated in Jesus’s view. I concur with him.
Furthermore, no one within is dragged in or coerced to enter under Jesus’s rules. In fact, at the time, the so-called great unwashed were rather despised and barred from entering very far, if at all. That is something Jesus clears up. Anyone may enter a sinner and remain provided he or she is undergoing transformation to righteousness.
What is the street on which one finds store windows and bank windows? It is a different universe completely. It is the street of capitalism.
If it is proper to destroy rather than to convert, then total war is totally proper and we ought to get on with it. That, however, is satanic and was, and remains, rejected by the Christ spirit.
Of course, the world is not to remain a place where the ignorance that is capitalism is to last.
The issue is one of means and ends. Jesus did not use the means of the capitalists when he cleaned the Temple. He harmed no one. Not one person innocent of violating the rules of the voluntary house was as much as bent over. Consider it. They didn’t put him on trial for harming anyone when he cleaned the Temple of the selfish, thieving, moneychangers.
God bless,
Tom Usher
To All,
Concerning Chris | 03-Sep-08 at 10:32 pm and Jake | 08-Sep-08 at 8:44 am:
On the issue of property, it was the monarchists who stole the Commons from the whole people. The Commons was and still is the rightful inheritance of all. The only tragedy about the Commons is the theft of the Commons by force of arms by evil people who converted the inheritance of others into so-called private property. Don’t be duped by the capitalists masquerading as anarchists. There is no such thing as an anarcho-capitalist or libertarian capitalist for that matter. The concepts are irreconcilable. The terms are oxymoronic.
Blessings,
Tom Usher
@Tom Usher: Jesus didn’t use fraud or deception to run the moneychangers out of the Temple; he used force, by overturning their tables, scattering their goods, their weights and measures and scales, their accounting papyri and ink, and driving them out with a whip. It could well be assumed that he was physically capable of doing some serious ass-kicking, since by trade he was a carpenter, not one of the more bookish types hanging around the Sanhedrin.
He ended up getting crucified about a week later, for claiming that he was the Messiah (you know, the “this is my Father’s House” statement). The Romans knew full well about conspiracy, the sub rosa thing, but in the case of Jesus preferred to hand the matter over to the Sanhedrin. If they’d gone ahead and shipped Jesus off to Rome to be tried, it might have become an even greater cause celebre than actually happened, well, quicker, anyway. The Roman authorities, along with the Sanhedrin, did their best to sweep things under the rug, and inasmuch as the great majority of Jesus’ followers were illiterate, this was successful for the most part.
What drove the Romans nuts about the Christians is that they had no hierarchy, no leaders, no temple, and they shared their goods in common, they would not swear by Jupiter or by Saturn or otherwise make a good oath in court, and they tended to slack off because they had the idea that the world was ending soon. Romans thought that Christians were atheists, which was a capital offense. The “no hierarchy, no leaders” thing went totally against the Roman culture which depended on leaders and hierarchy which could be subverted, corrupted, or at least co-opted. The bit about “no temple” is obvious – no Roman would be caught dead on a feast day anywhere else than at the temple, whooping it up, getting drunk, engaging in orgies, and having a good time. On the other hand, the Christians had no feast days, did not go to a meeting place one day a week and have ceremonies and rituals – but they did meet on irregular occasions in the catacombs and sewers. No civilized Roman would have anything to do with this kind of nonsense. …
@Tom Usher with regard to private property: Private property has been with us since the dawn of written history. The earliest clay tablets found in Sumer, some 5000 years back, are records of private property belonging to an individual; some of these records are records of land ownership, which could conceivably have begun with the advent of agriculture in 10,000 BC or thereabouts.
I’ll supply references if they’re asked for.
As to the existence of a “commons” – that did exist from the dawn of written history, in those places where the default owner was the king. This was especially true in cases where livestock herding was combined with the growing of grain and vegetables. Land not suitable for agriculture was set aside as grazing land, and when villages and towns began to form, this grazing land became commons. Commons began to disappear from the scene in the 1870s and were fully gone by the 1930s, at least in most Western societies, replaced by such things as “parks”, where activities were highly regulated and grazing was forbidden.
@Tom Usher
You wrote : “Falling to destruction of property raises the issue of where to draw the line”. I you re-read Luke XIX (IIRC), you’ll notice that our Lord did exactly that : destructing properties.
Not that I take it as (nor imply it is) an approval of violence and destruction in any way. Just that, whatever your arguments, “where to draw the line” is indeed an issue – and one that’s not that easy to solve. Jesus did not restrict it’s action to building communities – he also engaged in public “protest” actions, eventually – that is, in at least one occasion – using force and destroying properties.
Once again, I don’t mean it as a legitimation of violence and destruction – I certainly share a good part of your POV on this. But MVHO is that clearly, building communities, while indeed necessary, is not enough – you (we) also have to engage in public actions (protests etc) to denounce lies. And the fact is that when engaging in such actions, you will have to deal with violence (your own included) whether you like it or not.
Not a simple problem, indeed…
Your post was very interesting to read.
I probably disagree with you on just about everything.
However, I am against protest zones and other such shenanigans.
People have a natural right to protest and speak in the public space, and this right is affirmed in the First and Tenth amendments.
It seems that traditionally lawful forms of protest have been outlawed. Obviously, people who would normally protest peacefully no longer have the option and are lashing out.
Perhaps violence is becoming the only viable option for some, since Constitutional protections are being rendered irrelevant.
Like I said, I probably disagree with you on just about everything, but I would like to meet you in a public space and engage in free speech.
interestingly enough, the original post by “Tom Sturgeon” seems to have disappeared, to be replaced by the (quite different) one above: “There is a new comment on the post “On the RNC, Monica Bicking, Eryn Trimmer, and Protest”. https://ianbicking.org/2008/09/02/on-the-rnc-monica-bicking-eryn-trimmer-and-protest/
Author: Tom Sturgeon Comment: Your post was very interesting to read. I probably disagree with you on just about everything. However, I am against protest zones and other such shenanigans. People have a natural right to protest and speak in the public space, and this right is affirmed in the First and Tenth amendments.”
The lines above are the same as in the (apparently) edited version. The lines below have changed. They were:
“On the other hand, people who block traffic, break things and engage in discourteous behavior should be sprayed with pepper spray, water cannons and/or beaten with nightsticks. If they are damaging property or threatening others, they should be shot.”
They are now:
“It seems that traditionally lawful forms of protest have been outlawed. Obviously, people who would normally protest peacefully no longer have the option and are lashing out.
Perhaps violence is becoming the only viable option for some, since Constitutional protections are being rendered irrelevant.
Like I said, I probably disagree with you on just about everything, but I would like to meet you in a public space and engage in free speech.”
This is quite a change in direction. I wonder what brought it about. Mr Sturgeon, could you explain?
Thank you, Ian, for your analysis. You gave a much better analysis for what I feel in my heart than I myself could articulate, about my identification as an anarchist and my reasons for traveling to St. Paul.
I had the “pleasure” of attending the protests, and doing regional and local work in the lead up time, including some work with the WC (although Monica was one of the few organizers I never meet). To paraphrase what you said about your sister’s motivations above, whether or not it is obvious, we created community. My best friends for the past 5 months, who lived several hours away, were introduced to me during a consulta; organizing built and strengthened a lot of ties within the local anarchist community– hell, a lot of us were pretty isolated from the good work that has been going on, and RNC organizing brought us together. Even during the protests, I met a lot of good people from all over the country who I have stayed in contact with. Honestly, despite the police violence, despite being arrested and harassed by police, despite all the bad things, my life is so inconceivably better because of the RNC protests, and largely that is because of the tireless work done by Monica and the others in the WC. The feelings of empowerment, and freedom, and community and love and friendship forged in the streets were just so great that it was difficult to return to “normal” life.
Best of luck to Monica and Eryn, as well as to the other 6 and to Dave and the other 800 still facing charges. Monica should know that whatever sacrifices and hardships she has endured and will continue to face are not in vain. She and her comrades have forever changed my life and the lives of countless others.
Just a quick not to pass my congratulations over to you sister and her boyfriend, after the news that the charges of the RNC8 have been dropped. Hope they can get now get on with the rest of their lives.
Simon, UK Anarchist and Plone nerd.
Sadly just the “terrorism enhancement” was dropped. They are still being charged with conspiracy to riot and conspiracy to commit property damage. The terrorist designation added 50% to the maximum penalty, but it’s still up to 5 years. So it’s positive that some charges (or aspects of the charges) were dropped, but they aren’t out of the woods at all.
Ian,
Sadly I got the wrong the news, and it has been qualified, by actually reading the bloody press release rather listening to chinese whispers, damn. Youre right not out of the woods but surely a very positive step for the defendants and hopefully it wont be long before the rest of the trumped up charges are dropped.
In solidarity,
Simon. Newcastle, UK
In my experience, this is what prosecutors will do before they take a case to trial, they’ll drop the charges they don’t think will stick, and they’ll keep the rest. At this point, what usually happens is that the prosecutors will offer a plea bargain to one or more defendants, perhaps getting one or more to turn “state’s evidence” in exchange for a lesser penalty. If all defendants stick to their guns and refuse to do this, and they all go to jury trials, it’ll cost the State lots of money; if they all plead out, it’s a lot less money expended by the State. Of course, it all depends on how crowded the dockets are up there and if the DA is up for re-election, and whether it’s to the DA’s political advantage to take the cases to trial, and so on… lots of variables to consider here. Depending on the criminal history of each of the defendants, the possibilities of prison terms vs presumptive probation differ. If this were in Kansas, and your sister had no prior criminal history, then she’d be “presumptive probation” which means no prison time (but a felony conviction). Minnesota may be different, and of course, she should be represented by competent local counsel in any case. The ACLU should be in on this, it’s a case which has great civil liberties implications with regard to the criminalization of dissent…
Here are the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines:
http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/issinfo/cr-sent.htm
and
http://www.msgc.state.mn.us/guidelines/guide08.pdf
for the 2008 guidelines. It looks like both remaining charged offenses are Level II offenses; with a criminal history score of 0 or 1 (0 if your sister has no prior misdemeanor convictions; 1 if not, and other conditions may apply) (see page 15 of the Guidelines) the presumptive sentence is 12 months and 1 day in prison, with the expectations that the court will grant a stayed sentence (i.e. probation), and that if sentenced to prison, the actual sentence served in confinement will be 8 months and one day, with 4 months not in confinement (i.e. probation) See pages 57 and 65 of the Guidelines.
(From page 15 of the Guidelines: “II.B.305. The Commission placed a limit of one point on the consideration of misdemeanors or gross misdemeanors in the criminal history score. This was done because with no limit on point accrual, persons with lengthy, but relatively minor, misdemeanor records could accrue high criminal history scores and, thus, be subject to inappropriately severe sentences upon their first felony conviction. The Commission limited consideration of misdemeanors to particularly relevant misdemeanors under existing state statute.”)
There may be aggravating or mitigating factors present which may give rise to either upward or downward departures. Also, sentences should run concurrently (i.e. 12 months/1day + 12 months/1day = 12 months and 1 day, not 24 months and 2 days) see page 40 of the guidelines. Of course, local counsel should advise your sister on these matters, I’m just going though this to try to allay some of your concerns, and anything I’ve said can be found out by any member of the public – I’m making no legal judgments here.
Full Press Release:
Originally facing a single charge–Conspiracy to Riot in Furtherance of Terrorism–Gaertner’s office added three additional charges against the eight defendants in December of last year. Now, two of those charges have been dropped, clearly demonstrating that all the charges are a matter of political maneuvering, not a reasoned look at the evidence.
On March 28, supporters delivered to Susan Gaertner’s office a stack of over 3,000 petitions urging her to drop all four charges. Among other statements, a resolution from the 17,000-member Duluth Central Labor Body in support of the RNC 8 was also delivered. National media attention, including an appearance on MSNBC on Wednesday morning, has drawn significant attention to the case at the same time as Gaertner is accelerating her campaign for Governor–having just hired full-time staffers, opened an office on University Avenue, and planned appearances at several DFL events in the next month. Additionally, the broad-based RNC 8 Defense Committee has succeeded in calling widespread attention to the Minnesota PATRIOT Act, and played an instrumental role in applying the pressure that led to this reduction of charges.
In removing the controversial MN PATRIOT Act from the debate at this moment, Susan Gaertner obviously hopes to defray the costs of this unprecedented prosecution on her campaign for Governor, and to mitigate the overwhelmingly negative public opinion of Ramsey County’s repressive behavior during and since the RNC.
“Make no mistake,” said defendant Luce Guillen-Givins, “This change to the complaint against us is a token gesture meant to placate our supporters and bolster a floundering political prosecution.”
As defendant Eryn Trimmer pointed out, “This move only focuses attention more acutely on the outrageous nature of the two remaining charges, Conspiracy to Commit Riot and Conspiracy to Commit Criminal Damage to Property.”
In the months leading up to the RNC, the defendants were involved in open, public organizing with a broad coalition of Twin Cities activists and community members. We continue to assert that the only “conspiracy” committed by the RNC 8 was to provide basic and necessary infrastructure for people who wished to engage in their fundamental right to dissent.
“We’re relieved and gratified that the most sensational part of the charges has been dropped,” said St. Paul peace and justice activist Betsy Raasch-Gilman, member of Friends of the RNC 8. She continued, “We hope that the conspiracy charges will also be dropped. If planning a protest can be called conspiracy, the right to free speech is in real danger.”
Friends of the RNC 8 asks Susan Gaertner to continue in the direction of justice by dropping all the remaining charges, thereby saving enormous financial resources for the people of Minnesota in this time of rampant foreclosures, unemployment and economic turmoil. We also remind supporters that while we should rightly celebrate this small victory, the time for increased action to defend the RNC 8 is now. Political organizing is not conspiracy. Dissent is not a crime.
Am I an old and suspicious Brit?
A few days ago the democracy village protest outside the Houses of Parliament was broken up and today news of leaked documents showing possible war crimes by British and American troops in Afghanistan was released by the press?
Hi, hope Monica and Eryn are ok. God bless.