The American flag is an "irritant" in Berkeley

[realtraveller]

From the L. A. Times 9/21/01

"The stars and stripes became a center of controversy in Berkeley on Thursday when city administrators removed American flags from all firetrucks.

Citing the banners as a possible irritant to some who live in this diverse and historically opinionated city, [the Berkeley city manager] ordered them removed from the departments seven firetrucks and two support vehicles before an antiwar rally Thursday at U. C. Berkeley. Officials said they were trying to avoid a repeat of violence that occurred during the Perisan Gulf War in 1991 when demonstrators hurled rocks and bottles at city firetrucks sporting American flags."

And Berkeley has the nerve to call itself the bastion of free speech. They would never dream of restricting the speech in the antiwar rally (and neither would I) but they are perfectly okay with restricting the free speech of the flag-waving firefighters.

[drmomentum[$]]

This would bother me a lot more if they were telling residents that they couldn't fly flags. We're talking about municipal employees who are charged with keeping the city secure. I'm willing to bet if the firefighters wanted to have an anti-war demonstration during work hours using the fire trucks, they would not be allowed.

I have to shrug at this one.

-JP

[realtraveller]

An anti-war demonstration during work hours would mean that they were not performing their duties as firefighters. Flying the American flag doesn't do that.

Instead, I think these thoughtless flag bigots in Berkeley don't want their firefighters showing support for America's resolve to fight terrorism.
Instead of preventing the firefighters from flying the flag, they should be preventing anyone from throwing rocks and bottles at the firetrucks flying it. After all, the rock throwers are the law breakers. The firefighters are just exercising their right to peaceful free speech. I never thought I'd see the day when anyone would be prevented from flying the flag of our country.

[drmomentum[$]]

Originally posted by realtraveller
Instead, I think these thoughtless flag bigots in Berkeley don't want their firefighters showing support for America's resolve to fight terrorism.

When you say "bigots" you mean the Berkeley city manager? (he/she is the one who is directing them to remove the flags)

"Officials said they were trying to avoid a repeat of violence ..." Do you have evidence that they are lying when they say their motivation is to prevent violence?

Your claims are unsubstantiated. These people are out there to do a job, not to be flag bearers.

An anti-war demonstration during work hours would mean that they were not performing their duties as firefighters. Flying the American flag doesn't do that.

Dodging rocks would also prevent them from doing an effective job. It is not the firefighter's job to be the bait to smoke out people who would throw rocks.

If you think those people ought to be arrested, why don't you go to Berkeley and walk around with a big flag? It's your right to do so, and anyone who throws rocks at you should be arrested. But I don't think it's a sensible use of resources for the fire department to be playing that roll.

Still shrugging,
-JP

[AuntieEmma[$]]

Nobody's throwing rocks. The decision to take down the flags -- and it was just the oversized flags, not all the flags on the trucks -- was made by one person, I think it was the fire chief. Nobody else agreed with that decision, not even the protestors. And now the decision was reversed and the flags are going back. Much ado about nothing, I think.

[drmomentum[$]]

Originally posted by AuntieEmma
Much ado about nothing, I think.

It would seem so.

-JP

[wivabef]

Hurray! I'm glad this was resolved.

My point of contention with this is that I don't think there would be one protestor who would be so callous as to throw a rock at fire trucks bearing the stars and stripes. They read the news. They know that hundreds of fire fighters, rescue workers and police officers died and would understand how important it is for their sisters and brethren to honor their valour.

I thought whomever it was making such a decision to remove the flags was actually insulting the intelligence and compassion of protestors.

[realtraveller]

The article said that rocks and bottles were thrown at firetrucks bearing flags during the Persian Gulf War and they feared a repeat of the same.

The duty of the police of Berkeley is to protect those engaging in peaceful free speech. If not, the will of the majority would always win out and the views of a minority would not be heard because of fears of violence.

[wivabef]

The Persian Gulf War and our response to the WTC attacks are completely different animals. We had no direct reason to be smart bombing the desert and though throwing rocks at flags on cars is really stupid and a violent form of protest, the reason behind the protest was understandable. How they responded to the reason is dead wrong.

This attack REQUIRES a response from us. 6,000 plus souls lost on our soil as opposed to a bunch of Rolls Royce driving millionaires being kicked out of their condos in another country.

I think even "flag-bigots" know how to pick their battles.

[mtbat]

coming from Berkeley this doesn't surprise me that much-

However, having been in Berkeley for those so called riots during 1991, I can tell you-most of the so called rioters were nothing more than drunk and stoned homeless people looking for an excuse to cause trouble-that and a few students who saw an opportunity to act like idiots and loot.

[AuntieEmma[$]]

Originally posted by wivabef
I thought whomever it was making such a decision to remove the flags was actually insulting the intelligence and compassion of protestors.

That's what I thought. And also, as you said, the situation now is very different from the Persian Gulf War.

Besides, the press loves to run "only in Bezerkeley" stories, and often these stories are more an expression of the writers' highly imaginative fantasies than they are accurate descriptions of something that actually happened.

[realtraveller]

I agree with much of what has been said above:

But the point is that free speech must be protected even under a threat of potential violence.

The second point is that Berzekeley which used to be known as upholding free speech is now more comfortable suppressing it rather than risking "irritating" its "diverse" and "opinionated" population.

Would the firefighters have been told to remove a peace sign? And no, I'm not saying that the flag is a "war" symbol. I don't view the flag as expressing any particular political philosophy, just a sense of bonding the United States.

[AuntieEmma[$]]

Originally posted by realtraveller
The second point is that Berzekeley which used to be known as upholding free speech is now more comfortable suppressing it rather than risking "irritating" its "diverse" and "opinionated" population.

Well, again, I think the flag story was so overblown and distorted that it illustrates absolutely nothing. But there were a couple of recent incidents involving the Daily Cal (the University's student newspaper) that I agree do show an intolerance of free speech, at least on the part of some people (though not necessarily the city as a whole).

The first was several months ago. David Horowitz (who I personally think is a jerk) submitted, as a paid advertisement, a deliberately inflamatory column arguing against reparations for slavery. The Daily Cal ran it, and there was a huge protest by people who objected to it -- as I remember, I think there was an overnight sit-in at the Daily Cal's offices. The Daily Cal caved in -- they ran a retraction and apologized profusely, saying, essentially, that it was a mistake, that they usually review their ads and don't accept ones with offensive content, but somehow this one slipped through the cracks, yadda yadda yadda.

Then just a few days ago, they ran an editorial cartoon , and again there was an overnight sit-in, by people who thought the cartoon was racist, but this time the newspaper refused to apologize or to issue a retraction. Now the protestors are going to sue.

[AuntieEmma[$]]

P.S. Here's the Daily Cal's editorial on the subject, which seems totally reasonable to me (and which I suggest might be more representative of what a lot of people really think than what's shown in the colorful "Bezerkeley" stories that make it onto the evening news.)

[realtraveller]

The protestors are going to sue? For what! If I had a cause of action on which to sue for every editorial in the Times, with which I disagreed, I'd be filing a lawsuit every day.

I saw the cartoon. It was pictured in the article I posted on Berkeley. I didn't include it to keep the thread on just one issue. The turbaned men looked like Bin Ladin and his Afghan follwers which I suppose is whom they were supposed to represent. The Times ran a similar editorial cartoon. Several Arab men (but in Western dress) depicting the hijackers, approach the escalator to heaven and are stopped by God and shown the escalator to Hell. God says "We have better security here than in airports."