Oct 8

Oct 8 Counterproductive

Chicago, Demonstrations, Protest, Public Declarations

Today a coalition of largely left-leaning groups held a rally in Chicago’s Federal Plaza. Somewhere between 750 and 1,000 people then marched to Trump Tower to demand universal reproductive rights. The demonstration was not only poorly conceived and executed, but also counterproductive.

The Message. The 48 sponsoring organizations incorrectly assumed that everyone who supports reproductive rights also supports a plethora of other causes, including freeing Julian Assange, rejecting the Democratic and Republican parties and favoring the Revolutionary Workers Party, supporting worker rights, achieving social equity, and freeing Cuba, among others. I assume “defunding the police” was lurking somewhere.

Only a broad coalition of Republicans, Independents, and Democrats can protect abortion and other reproductive rights. By conflating the entire far Left’s agenda and abortion rights, the organizers inevitably alienate the people who must vocally support abortion rights. Not smart politics, which is why I was surprised to see Planned Parenthood Illinois Advocacy identified as a co-sponsor of the rally and march.

The sponsoring organizations should also be concerned about the message that the low attendance sends about themselves. Basically, 20 to 25 people came per group, which suggests that these groups don’t have the wide reach or support that they would like the general public to believe. That average is further diluted if the large contingency of Iranians who showed up is excluded. While the Iranians attended to support women’s rights, I suspect that but for recent events in Iran, most would not have been present.

An Inwardly Directed Event. Second, and relatedly, this event will have no impact on securing abortion rights. By and large, it was a feel-good event, with a large clique of leftists convening in their silo—talking to each other, but to no one else.

The small turnout surprised me because I had assumed this event was designed to significantly increase participation in the upcoming election, just four weeks away. To succeed, the organizers needed to turn out tens of thousands of people — the attendance levels achieved during the January 2017 Women’s March.

Undoubtedly those at today’s demonstration had a positive experience, but the effort changed few if any minds. The subsequent news coverage was largely perfunctory, so the organizers gained negligible public notice.

Most people I saw downtown were far more interested in the Chicago Marathon and shopping than the demonstration. Those who stopped to take a photograph quickly returned to the path that they had charted for the day. Their images will soon be forgotten as subsequent selfies accumulate.

The Staging was Horrible. There was a small stage on the north-end of Federal Plaza. It was barely elevated, which posed a potential problem for the television crews, as well as limited the number of people who could see the speakers. Moreover, the person speaking was handed a microphone wrapped in ugly gray fur that obscured the speaker's facial expressions. To the speaker's right was a bank of microphones, further obscuring the speaker.

The optics from a photographer's standpoint were so bad that after two speeches, I headed to the back, and then across the street. Some will say that photographers always complain about challenging environments. That may be true, but the visual record is a critical element when it comes to a successful demonstration. The organizers have some control over how that record looks.

From a logistical standpoint, the organizers should have positioned the speakers on the southern side of the plaza, where the light is better, particularly had the demonstration started an hour earlier. Moreover, Calder’s Flamingo statute offers a more dramatic backdrop then some foliage in concrete planters.

The people standing around the Flamingo couldn’t hear the speeches (at least that was my experience), which probably led to further disengagement. No wonder many toward the back were gathered in small “coffee klatches” talking.

The Attack. Finally, and most importantly, I was attacked by a woman who labeled me as a pedophile for taking a photograph of her son. She also told me that they both had a First Amendment right not to be photographed.

Before the speeches had begun, I was walking toward Dearborn when I saw a group of people coming toward me. Using a relatively wide-angle focal length (probably 24mm) and fill flash, I took a photograph of the group, which included the woman’s son. After she called me out as a pedophile, I began to walk away from her. She followed, shoving her sign at me and using her phone to video me—that move is getting old. She then lunged at me, grabbing my arm and my camera. At that point she had crossed a line, and I responded by forcefully grabbing her arm and removing it from my camera lens. She immediately claimed that I had struck a “woman,” falling back on a well-worn trope in an effort to gain support from the crowd.

So what’s wrong with this picture? First, Federal Plaza, in the words of longstanding U.S. Supreme Court precedent, is the quintessential public forum, which means it is a place where First Amendment activity is sacrosanct, qualifying the activity for maximum protection. The courts have consistently held that photographic activity with a communicative intent is protected by the First Amendment. The woman might want to read a posting on the ACLU’s website, which states: “When you are lawfully present in any public space, you have the right to photograph anything in plain view, including federal buildings and the police.” This can be found under the heading “I Want to Take Pictures or Shoot Video at a Protest.” “Anything in plain view” includes men, women, and children in the plaza, as well as the police.

Notably, one of those charged with security intervened. I showed him the image, and even agreed to delete it, something I shouldn’t have to do. While we were talking, a man approached. Unsolicited, he looked at the security person, and said the woman was the instigator; that she had grabbed me and my camera. About half an hour later, some guy (who I think was a protester based on his green neckerchief), walked up to me and said, “I’ve seen you at plenty of demonstrations, and you are no pedophile.”

The unfortunate incident highlights a number of issues. First, this woman went straight to pedophile. I don’t know any such people, but I suspect that when they want to grab a photograph of a child, they don’t have two cameras wrapped around their neck and a Profoto flash unit. You don’t need $10,000 of equipment to get creepy images. Nor do I suspect that pedophiles use a powerful strobe light, which only would draw attention to them.

I don’t know this woman’s views, but it would not surprise me if she is deeply troubled by the far-right conspiracy theorists attribution of pedophile to many Democratic politicians. Remember “Pizzagate”? This woman used the same slimey tactics to discredit someone she didn’t like as do those on the right use.

If she is so concerned with her son’s welfare and so certain that everyone carrying a camera is a pedophile, why did she bring him to a public rally? Organizers typically go to great efforts to maximize press coverage. Today, dozens of people in the crowd had cameras, and that doesn’t count the iPhones. Anyone who goes to a rally held in a public plaza should know that they will be and should expect to be photographed.

The woman told me I was free to photograph crowds. I responded, “Where is the line between a crowd shot and a photograph that offends you?” Is it at 50mm, 70mm or 200mm? Having a right to photograph demonstrations means I should not have to self-censor my work. If you don’t want your image captured, either stay home or wear a disguise, but don’t trample on my rights.

So why did she bring her son to the demonstration if she is so fearful? On the one hand, I applaud her decision. Teaching kids about civic engagement is laudable. I, however, have another question that has been running through my mind since I attended counter-demonstrations in Houston at the NRA’s annual convention, which took place just four days after the massacre at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas.

Where is the line between teaching your kid about an issue and indoctrinating him with your values and beliefs? While I support abortion rights, I believe there are people on the other side of the debate who have deeply-held beliefs. Has her son been exposed to those beliefs? If so, hasn’t this woman, to quote John Stuart Mill, ”silenced . . . discussion [based] on an assumption of infallibility?” Mill went on to write, “and that the same causes which make him a churchman in London would have made him a Buddhist or a Confucian in Peking.” Put plainly, her son is not her. Has she given him a choice?

Overall, the incident is another example of intolerance and the willingness to silence others that is so prevalent today on both sides of the political spectrum.

The One Positive Highlight. Those of iranian heritage who showed up were the one positive highlight in what otherwise was a failed effort. At first, I was unclear whether they came in support of abortion rights or to support the Iranian people who are in a struggle with the Mullahs over the death of Mahsa Amini, who died while in police custody. One woman told me that they came in support of women’s rights, including abortion rights. She pointed out that Iran is a far worse place to be a woman than the United States, but that, unfortunately, the United States is headed down the same road as Iran; something she hopes her presence today stops.

I have no doubt that the woman truthfully described her intentions, as well as the intentions of the other Iranians in attendance. Their signage, however, did not directly address abortion rights, but rather focused on Iranian repression of women. As I noted earlier, I doubt that most of the Iranians would have participated in this demonstration had it occurred before Amini’s death. I estimate that they comprised at least one-third of those in attendance.

This was the fourth time in the last month that I have encountered a group people of foreign heritage protesting atrocities or governance issues in their native lands. First, I encountered a group of Taiwanese in New York’s Union Square demanding that Taiwan be given a seat in the United Nations; second, I stumbled upon four Uyghurs holding a hunger strike in front of the White House; third, I unexpectedly ran into a protest by Ethiopian Tigrays in Pioneer Court outside Tribune Tower; and today I encountered people of Iranian heritage. I should also note the Ukrainians, who have had periodic demonstrations in Chicago following the Russian invasion of their homeland. Not all demonstrations concern domestic issues.

Had it not been for the Iranians, today would have been a total bust.

[Click on an Image to Enlarge It]