East County Issue / Protecting Demonstrators...

Richard Barrett, Nationalist Movement leader

The only haters that I saw there were the ones throwing rocks and assaulting police. I think that the people who have been throwing rocks at the police and inciting riots and anarchy in the streets should not be protected at all. They should be put in jail. I’m talking about those who hate the American way of life, despise the American system of justice and who use hate, murder and violence for illegal ends. There were not sufficient police to allow the citizens of Simi Valley who were pro-jury, pro-cop, pro-law enforcement to hold a parade on the streets with sufficient public safety in order not to be assaulted or killed by the violent hate groups. There is a price to be paid, and that price is stated in the Declaration of Independence better than I can say it: We shall pay with “our lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.”

*

John R. Hatcher III, President, Ventura County National Assn. for the Advancement of Colored People

No, but hell no. We are constantly talking about the fact that the city and the state and the county are running out of funds. The money used to protect the Nationalist Movement could be used to help support the educational system, to pay teachers, to make sure kids have adequate things they need. It was a total waste of money to spend on one man that creates hate crimes or that kind of uproar in a community. If I had come over there as a member of the Panthers or some black organization, they would have flat denied us the right to have a rally, then would have told us if we don’t like it, sue us. And under the justice system that we have, they would have dragged the case out for five or six years. I would have supported the city 100% if they’d have said, “We’re going to deny these people the right to come in and upset our community. They’re going to just have to sue us.”

*

Lindsey P. Miller, Simi Valley police chief

Yes, to the extent possible, because we’re really protecting the rights for ourselves and not for any group in particular. We were not protecting Barrett’s right, we were protecting our right as a society to air our views. This is a constitutional right. Since protecting a constitutional right is a benefit to the entire nation, the nation should bear the burden of that cost. If the local entity does not have enough funds or personnel to protect that right, then the federal government or state should step in. Obviously, there has to be a balance. We can’t bankrupt government in the pursuit of such things. The dilemma is that no right exists without the power to enforce it. That power costs the taxpayers money. What is it worth to us to protect our rights? I certainly don’t agree with Mr. Barrett, but since we are sworn to enforce the law, we have to enforce the law whether or not we agree with any particular group’s views.

*

Barbara Bergen, Associate Western states counsel, Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith

This is a very unfortunate situation. There is nothing more disturbing in this time of budget cuts than seeing $50,000 go up in smoke in protection provided by the city for both protesters and counter-protesters present for Richard Barrett’s Nationalist Movement rally. As distasteful as it is, however, First Amendment considerations require that, as long as a permit is issued, people with even the most unpopular views be permitted to speak. It is, however, hoped that the counter-protesters and the press will avoid these events so that vast amounts of taxpayer money isn’t necessary to provide protection. There were two Nazis and about 150 protesters there. As a civil rights lawyer it’s the only position that I can take. It’s pretty clear that he has the right to speak. It’s clear that the city has the obligation to protect its citizens. It’s also pretty clear that it’s a damn shame that the city has to waste money in that way.

*

Greg Stratton, Simi Valley mayor

I don’t think that that was the intent of the First Amendment. The government should never suppress people’s rights to speak, but the fact that that includes providing extensive protection for somebody, I don’t think was envisioned by the framers of the Constitution. It’s a great deal like somebody deciding to hold a party in your front yard and telling you, by the way, not only are they going to hold a party in your front yard, but you have to provide all the refreshments, and you are legally obligated to do so. Theoretically, if you’re hated enough, as Mr. Barrett was, you could walk into any small town and practically bankrupt it. Because he declared his right to freedom of speech, he basically had the right to obligate some fairly significant amounts of public money. The necessity to provide this tremendous expense is above and beyond the call of duty and the obligation of a government.