Skip to main contentdfsdf

Home/ stevenwarran's Library/ Notes/ April 3, 2003, The Eureka Times-Standard, Whose shoulder should carry the burden?, by Editorial Staff,

April 3, 2003, The Eureka Times-Standard, Whose shoulder should carry the burden?, by Editorial Staff,

from web site

April 3, 2003, The Eureka Times-Standard, Whose shoulder should carry the burden?, by Editorial Staff,

The $37,000 that the Humboldt County Sheriff's Department spent the week of March 17 policing logging demonstrations in Freshwater was a snapshot of the significantly higher costs these activities have brought to bear here over the years. The tree-sitters protesting Pacific Lumber Co. logging are doing so in defiance of a court order, and are trespassing as well.

This is not protected freedom of speech. It is illegal. The folks who were encouraging them on Greenwood Heights Road below the tree-sitters' perches, may have in large part been acting legally, but quite a few allegedly trespassed and resisted arrest, both illegal.

The number of protesters at the scene prompted a large contingent of sheriff's deputies and other law enforcement to be on hand. Despite activists' claims that they are nonviolent, we think the response was justified. Emotions run high at such gatherings, and a large group can take on a life different than the attitudes of the individuals that make it up.

For Pacific Lumber Co., its efforts to remove the tree-sitters were fruitless. Is it really an effective tactic to have climbers remove protesters from trees one by one? Certainly the company has the right to spend thousands of dollars trying ineffectively to root out the activists in its trees. But what if the activities -- however legal -- are known to draw hordes of activists and hence require significant law enforcement? We strongly suggest that PL find another tactic, because the one it has been using isn't doing anything.

Should the protesters, or Pacific Lumber, be responsible for covering the costs of the law enforcement presence? We agree with 3rd District Supervisor John Woolley when he told the Times-Standard that such a policy would be a slippery slope. Having to pay law enforcement for a job it is supposed to do would lead to numerous complications. It's not up to the county to attempt such collections, even if it could legally do so.

We do, however, have a slate of judges in the county who have wide latitude when it comes to assessing penalties, and who have a means to recoup the county's costs where they see fit. We encourage them to take a look at this option during the criminal proceedings of the arrested activists, should they be convicted.

The highest authority should be the law, not any other notion espoused by one group or another. If Pacific Lumber has done wrong by the law, let the courts assess the damage done. If PL's critics have broken the law, let the courts assess the costs.

But let the law be the end-all: It's all we have in common.

Would you like to comment?

Join Diigo for a free account, or sign in if you are already a member.

stevenwarran

Saved by stevenwarran

on Aug 16, 13