Long story short, The Humanist Ethical Society of Chicago invited Sunsara Taylor to speak at a conference. Later they learned she was a communist, and dis-invited her. Taylor showed up anyway and made a statement before the program about how she didn’t think she was treated very ethically. What happened was crazy:
On Sunday, November 1st, plainclothes and uniformed police who had been called in earlier by officials of the Ethical Humanist Society of Chicago (EHSC) dragged out, maced and arrested a man for videotaping Sunsara Taylor as she stood near her seat and made a statement before the start of that morning’s program about the shameful cancellation of her long planned talk to EHSC that day on the topic “Morality without Gods.”
The shocking incident took place at the insistence of the president of EHSC. About 40 people witnessed the videographer being brutalized by the police in the foyer of the facility. An attorney demanded that the police stop brutalizing him when five officers piled on him as he lay face down on the floor. 6 police cars arrived within minutes.
The day before, during a workshop on the same premises which the president and other board members of the EHS were at, Sunsara explained very clearly that she would be attending the opening of the EHS’s Sunday gathering and giving the EHS the opportunity to do the right thing and allow her talk to go forward, up until the last minute. If the EHS still refused to let her give her talk, she explained that she would leave and give her talk in “exile” at the nearby home of one of the EHS members.
This is being discussed over at Pharyngula and Friendly Atheist already, but this story is so weird that I think it deserves continued publicity.
It doesn’t seem like anyone knows the reason why the police arrested this man. What a mess.
Update: There is another version of events in the comments. Hopefully there will be something official put up soon.
At first I thought this was excessive, but then I saw that the guy was bald.
So much for “Ethical Humanists”?
I’m at a loss to express everything I’m feeling about this…
This is to atheism what PETA is to animal rights.
“This is to atheism what PETA is to animal rights.”
This. The one thing we cannot forget is that no matter what the group, there will always be members who act embarrassingly stupid and ruin the reputation of the group, and unfortunately it looks like some members within the EHSC are representatives of atheism’s minority of idiots.
Wow and here I thought the only ones that tended to use police as their enforcement arm was those with closed minds. I guess they need to change their name because from what I have read so far they aren’t to ethical.
“It doesn’t seem like anyone knows the reason why the police arrested this man.”
Perhaps someone should get a hold of the police report, and we can find out their reasons.
Police officers are often idiots with guns in positions of authority who have no clue how to exercise it properly, or simply don’t care. I worked for a time at a Sheriff’s dept. as a Dispatcher and 911 operator. Since I was officially deputized, I sometimes went on the road with Deputies so I could learn landmarks and unmapped roads, and also to assist and learn what they do on a daily basis. Some of them were good guys doing their work ethically and sensibly. Others were worse than the people we throw in jail and label criminals. I was shocked by some of the behavior I saw; most especially an utter and complete failure at times to obey the same laws they were being paid to uphold. I think if some people really knew what scum some cops are, they’d be terrified of them. Especially considering if it’s your word against theirs in a court of law, you pretty much automatically lose.
Cops should be required to hold 4 year degrees with a strong emphasis on ethics and social science in my opinion. Perhaps that would stave off the dumb ones and educate the rest enough that they would at least be able to identify when they’ve become worse than criminals.
Educated people are unsuitable for being obedient soldiers.
As long as you have ranks, lower grunts are better left uneducated and controllable, you want them to obey unquestioningly first and (maybe) think later.
I do oppose this idea, but this is how it works.
…and educated cops would be more expensive.
Anyway, who would want to be a police if he could have another degree?
I’d gladly pay a little more in local taxes for a well educated and well paid police force. As to who would want to be a police officer if they had a degree? Many cops do have degrees and it’s illogical to assume that someone would not want to serve their community just because they have a little education.
I read (can’t remember where) that they wouldn’t hire police candidates if they scored too high on the entrance exams. It had something to do with the job being too tedious for anybody with above average intelligence.
A number of years ago I worked on a job with somebody that quit the police department. He said the job consisted of days of boring patrolling around and around the town followed by 1 to 2 minutes of terror. He said it was a tough job and couldn’t handle it’s ups and downs.
I’m no communist, but I have a sneaking suspicion this might not be the ideal method of discussing its benefits. Not that was going to discuss communism in that lecture anyways, from the looks of it.
That explains it – they were in the NO CONSTITUTIONAL ZONE!!! Thanks to wack-job Bush the patriot act allows police to do as they wish within 100mi of any US border to PROTECT us from the evil terrorist. Strangely the ONLY terrorists I have ever seen in this country are the police!!!!
Factual correction to your recitation of Taylor’s story — the group knew about her political beliefs BEFORE inviting her but had been told that she could talk about morality from an atheist perspective without interjecting her communist beliefs. She was asked to provide a brief summary of her talk mid-summer but did not provide it until mid-October. The description she provided was clearly about communism and so the committee, which felt it had been subjected to a bait-and-switch, voted not to confirm her invitation and arranged for a different speaker. Imagine you invited a scientist to speak about their scientific area of expertise and shortly before the talk they submitted a summary of a talk devoted to their spiritual faith (or…an expected spiritual presenter proposes to talk about their quest to visit every major baseball league stadium…or….) After reiterating your interest in the original topic (as happened here) you would tell them you weren’t interested.
Is this documented anywhere? That would be helpful, thank you.
I can understand them not allowing her to speak, but do the police really need to go bat-shit crazy on the camera guy? Doubtful.
Daniel:
The info at the top of this discussion is pretty much straight from Taylor’s blog…there are some descriptions from people at the Ethical Society on the Friendly Atheist stream about this. My impression is that, because of the pending legal proceedings with regard to the guy who got arrested, there isn’t too much being said about that piece of it.
Since I’m too much of a lazy ass to go find this for myself, would you mind posting a link to those sources? :)
The thing is, the police usually don’t send “plainclothes officers” into events like this without some reason. So they must have been alerted well in advance. I suspect that the EHSC gave the police some kind of alarming story that there might be trouble — one alarming enough to convince them to plant plainclothes and uniformed officers there. Then, based on the information they had, plus their own propensity to leap to conclusions, the police turned this whole thing into the brazen snafu it became.
Way I see it, the blame isn’t on EHSC for calling the police. In my opinion, Americans will call the cops on you for the wierdest reasons, like you having a party in your own apartment-happened to me. It’s the way the police handled them that’s wrong. ‘At the insistence of EHSC president’ is particularly troubling.
See, much the same way, you can have terrible priests but it doesn’t make the whole Christian lifestyle or community suck.
I keep on saying this, but I’m going to say it again:
American police are badly trained, do not know the limits of their powers, are not adequately punished for arresting people they do not have any right to arrest, are not adequately punished for bullying the public and do not realise that the police are NOT soldiers.
You’re absolutely right, Custador. I’m Canadian, and I’m still frightened by the HOO-RAH mentality that seems to be filtering out from the US’s hyper-glorified military to every yahoo that carries a gun or a goddamned flashlight as part of his job.
In the first season of the new Battlestar Galactica, Bill Adama put it beautifully. “The police protect the people. The military defends the state from enemies. When you turn the military into the police, the enemy of the state tends to become the people.” Paraphrased, but I think it’s precisely what the military attitude is doing to American police. By and large, they seem to no longer think of themselves as public servants, but soldiers in “wars” on crime, on drugs, or worse, on those elements of the public who would challenge their perception of their own authority.
Scares the hell out of me.
Did I read somewhere that agents of the US’ ATF agency actually crossed into Canada and closed down a coffee shop in a Canadian town which they claimed was selling weed?
Not that I heard of. I’m sure if it were an issue of overzealous activity outside of their jurisdiction, it would’ve been all over the news; Canada takes American “incursions” like that pretty seriously. On the other hand, the DEA and RCMP team up all the time to deal with drug smuggling – mainly weed, yes – across the border. Here’s one example:
http://www.justice.gov/dea/pubs/states/newsrel/2008/nyc091008a.html
Typically, I think the actual enforcement of those partnerships just depends on who has the manpower in a particular place at a particular time. So yeah, it’s plausible that the US ATF was active on Canadian soil, but if so, it would be working closely with Canadian law enforcement, not off pursuing cowboy justice.
Interestingly, googling around terms such as “ATF” “canada” and “marijuana” allowed me to learn that ATF is also an acronym for a potent strain of Alaskan weed grown during the long daylight hours of summer, affectionately known as “Alaskan ThunderFuck.”
BRILLIANT :D That actually made tea squirt out of my nose :D
So, am I right in thinking that weed is pretty much tolerated in Canada, then? I’ve always been given to understand that it is, but I can’t think of where I got that idea from.
Much like the US, it depends on what part of Canada you are in.
Elemenope is right, it varies widely from place to place. In general, however, punishments for possession aren’t nearly as steep. They certainly CAN be, but practically speaking, hardly ever are. Out west, cops are far more concerned with distribution than possession, unless you’re dumb enough to blaze up in plain sight.
Sunsara did NOT do a “bait and switch.”
The reason she got invited in because last year she was on a panel called, “A Communist, A Buddhist and A Priest sat down to discuss: Morality To Change the World.” She was on the panel with prof. Stephen Asma and Rev. Bob Bossie. Hundreds of students packed in — standing in the back, sitting on the floor in front.
A great time was had by all.
Sunsara discussed morality from her perspective — which is informed by communism but in no way only relevant or of interest to communist… the whole thing was very stimulating, especially the exchanges.
A member of the EHSC Board liked Sunsara’s presentation and participation so much, he got his group to invite her. Google her for two seconds and everyone knows she is a communist. You also see that she speaks to a great many relevant issues of our time and is good at engaging, and likes to engage, a diverse audience with respect and a good spirit.
Further, if you the letters back and forth between her and the EHSC once they disinvited her, she clearly was willing to adjust her talk and responded to their requests to do so — but they didn’t want that. They wanted to cancel her and used the idea that she’d “bait and switched” them to justify a politically motivated decision.
Amusingly, I’ve heard people argue that the effects of the McCarthy-era Red Scare aren’t preserved in modern generations of American citizens. If the EHSC did in fact cancel Taylor’s talk because of her political beliefs, I’d say that stands as a pretty convincing example of the preservation of knee-jerk anti-communism in a great many citizens of your fair country.
What a strange story. A few thoughts:
1. The EHSC is a private organization who can invite or disinvite anyone they want. It sounds like Taylor was handling her disinvitation in a peaceful and logical way. A brief statement to the group, followed by a talks elsewhere. EHSC’s behavior is strange but it looks like a peaceful outcome was relatively easy to acheive.
2. What on earth were the police reacting to? If I understand correctly, he was videotaping Taylor’s statement. How does that justify arresting him, let alone piling on him? Very strange. The EHSC does not strike me as the kind of organization that typically gets a great deal of sympathy for police officers. What could possibly have been their motivation here?
I am a member of the Ethical Humanist Society of Chicago and one of the members who initially supported Sunsara Taylor. It is now clear to me that from the moment she was dis-invited Sunsara saw an opportunity for a confrontation she could blog about.
The program committees decision to change speakers for the November 1st platform was, at worst, ill informed and rude but hardly unethical. We are a society, not a public speakers corner and the decision to change speakers, at any time, is well within our rights both legally and ethically.
Did you happen catch where Sunsara made her statement in the video? It’s at the EHSC. The society sponsored a workshop with Sunsara on Saturday; and yes, another member did host an alternate Sunday lecture at her own home. And what unreasonable demand did the EHSC ask in return? That Sunsara and her group not disrupt the Sunday program.
Even after an apology letter was sent to Sunsara, the Saturday workshop confirmed and held, and the alternate lecture planned, there were members in the society that were afraid that Sunsara and her group would disrupt the Sunday program. That’s why the Sunday school children were moved off site for the day and the Skokie police department was asked to have an officer at the society.
Fools like me thought this was unnecessary and defended Sunsara up until Saturday evening. Why? Because just like she did at minute 9:27 of her video, Sunsara said she was only going to come to the society on Sunday prepared to give her talk and if she wasn’t given the podium she would leave to give her talk at the private home. But that’s not what she did. Instead, as I suspect was always her intention, she caused a disruption until it became an altercation, and I say better with the police than one of our members.
The man who was arrested resisted the police officer when he was asked to leave private property. He was not kicked, beaten, clubbed or tazered; he was subdued with mace, handcuffed and taken into custody. The police officer that the man resisted was however bloodied in the altercation. Calling this an act of police brutality is not only unfair to the Skokie police department but is offensive to people who have actually suffered police brutality.
Even though the path to this unfortunate event was long and complicated in the end had Sunsara decided to not disrupt our event inside our building or even if she had just left when she was asked, there would have been no mace, no arrests and no blood.
Sunsara Taylor should take a hard, introspective look at her own actions before continuing to lecture others on morality.
Fascinating. Thank you for providing the other side of the story, Evan. Those of us who have been following this incident have, I think, had only Taylor’s statements and blog to consider, thus far. It seems the situation is much more nuanced than I, for one, had originally assumed.
Out of curiosity, are you able to speak on why Taylor’s talk was cancelled/declined? I acknowledge that EHSC was within its rights to do so, but I’m interested in the rationale.
Can you shed some light on why the man was asked to leave, and why they used mace on him?
Our Sunday speakers are chosen by a committee of nine people. In July, at one of the committee member’s request, Sunsara was provisionally invited to speak on a topic of morality without gods on November 1. The formal invitation was withheld until the committee was provided with a written description of her talk.
The formal description was finally received on October 13. Some of the committee felt that the description provided was far outside the topic that was originally proposed. Sunsara was contacted about adjusting her talk to fit what the committee originally thought they were getting. She understandably refused to adjust her talk. The committee decided by a vote of 9 to 2 to cancel Sunsara as a speaker and the cancellation, with apologies, was emailed on October 19.
(As a side note, I disagreed with the decision to cancel but in a democratic organization the vote doesn’t always go the way you want it to. I even started a petition to re-invite Sunsara but only about 20% of the society signed)
From October 19 onward Ms. Taylor and her people demanded she be given the November 1 platform. Attempt after attempt was made to find a solution that, although not ideal for either side, was palatable for both. The society bent over backwards to appease this woman. She was given an October 31 platform that was well attended and a member of the society offered her home for Sunsara’s “speech in exile” on November 1. The only thing we would not agree to was having her speak on November 1. All we asked is that she not disrupt the Sunday platform. She did not budge an inch; there was no effort at compromise from her or her people.
One plain clothes police officer from the Skokie police department was at the society the morning of November 1 because some members felt threatened by the fact that Sunsara would not commit to not disrupting the Sunday program. We had no idea what a Sunsara Taylor inspired protest would entail so the decision was made to err on the side of member safety.
When Sunsara and her camera man showed up on Sunday they were asked not to enter the building, they ignored this request but no action was taken by the society and they entered privet property.
After entering the building and our auditorium, Sunsara started to give her speech and her camera man started taping. They were asked to stop and let us continue our event in our building repeatedly. They refused and it is then that we asked the single plain clothes officer for support.
When the cameraman acted aggressively toward the police officer he called for backup on his radio. Uniformed officers responded to that call. It took five police offers using mace to subdue him. One police officer was injured.
Evan, you might want to consider getting the EHSC to post this information on their website. Thus far, the only version of events this past sunday propagating around the atheist blogs has been Taylor’s, and to hear you tell it, she may have been acting in a deliberately contentious and publicity-seeking manner, to the detriment of your organization. I would recommend, as well, emailing PZ Myers with this information. I, and likely many, many others, first saw this story on his blog at scienceblogs.com/pharyngula. Myers’ email address is pzmyers@gmail.com. I’m sure he’d be as intrigued to learn the another perspective on the Taylor-EHSC altercation as I am.
Thank you Nick. That is a good suggestion. I would also like to correct my math, the vote was 7 to 2.
The Communist Mob attempted to take over the meeting at the Ethical Society. The commies were told they were not invited to speak (by a majority of the Speakers Committee) and asked numerous times to leave the premises of the Ethical Society. The Commies refused. Police were called as a mob mentality developed, screaming and yelling at members of the peaceful Ethical Society, it was loud and threatening. Police asked one bald man repeatedly to leave and he refused. Police had no other option but to physically remove the man who not only resisted but pushed one of the officers and injured another. That is why he was handcuffed and removed and arrested. He was an obvious danger to others. And don’t forget about the children who attend the Ethical Society. They were not in attendance because the Ethical Society anticipated the Communist violence and Communist mob action and intelligently created another venue for the children that day. I now understand Sunsara and her followers to believe in violence, mob mentality, intimidation and fear mongering to attain their goals. They will never attain anything they want with their Storm Trooper ways.
I really do have to keep reminding myself to always question the information in front of me. The original published version of events really does make USHC seem like a bunch of hypocritical monsters – perhaps because of a theist-biassed media – and yet the version I’m now reading does quite the opposite.
Media 101. When I read the original report about the poor victims and the bad cops, it reminded me of a media experiment done years ago (in the ’70s or ’80s — i’m OLD).
Scene 1: reporter talks about how police had to be called to restore order when an unruly mob (of hippies?) was running loose on the city streets threatening citizens and property. Images: orderly cops gently by firmly subduing wild and dangerous looking screaming protesters.
Scene 2: reporter talks about how angelic group of peaceful protesters (to save the planet I suppose) were walking down the road softly singing hymns when they were suddenly and violently attacked by police. Images of violent looking cops beating innocent looking young people. Images of bloodied pretty blond girl crying.
Moral of the story: always question news reports and news releases. Try to figure out the point of view (never entirely neutral) underlying the story. Be skeptical of sources, even more when they claim to be skeptical because that’s when you’re likely to let your guard down and let your biases overcome your judgement.
The True Story of Sunsara Taylor and the “Ethical” Humanist Society of Chicago
From Sue B., Volunteer Tour Coordinator for Sunsara Taylor in Chicago
Since the cancellation of Sunsara Taylor’s long-scheduled talk at the Ethical Humanist Society of Chicago [EHSC] and the subsequent brutal arrest of her videographer on November 1st at the EHSC, there has been an avalanche of lies and distortions spread by members of the EHSC. While there are simply too many lies to refute them all, in this letter I will take apart the core elements of the mythology surrounding these events that has been constructed by the EHSC.
I believe that part of the reason EHSC is persisting in deliberately misrepresenting what happened and spinning a story that fortifies an untruthful account is because they don’t want to confront the reality of how ugly this whole thing has been, how much it goes against their own principles.
The unethical behavior of the EHSC began with the motivation of some on its program committee to cancel Sunsara’s talk based on crude anti-communism and disagreement with its content. In order to obscure these scandalous motivations, Sunsara’s words were taken out of context so as to invert their meaning and cause confusion. When many respected voices began to disapprove of the EHSC’s dis-invitation of Ms. Taylor, the EHSC shifted their rationale for this to a discussion of “process” and their “right to choose” who their speakers will be. When Sunsara continued to insist that the record be set straight on the real basis and motives of this cancellation, as well as the broader chill in society that it fits in with, the EHSC began to go after and slander her character. They whipped up a whole atmosphere of fear, justified only by the hysteria and the rumors that they themselves had created. Then they called in the police and set in motion events that would lead to the brutalization of a volunteer videographer and a situation where he is facing serious charges.
Are they really willing to put a man away in jail to justify this and cover their mistake? Just how disposable is a person’s life, their freedom, and their reputation to these “ethical” people?
One of the EHSC’s core arguments is that they have the democratic right to decide who their speakers will be. But Sunsara has repeatedly stated, “I have never challenged their bureaucratic ‘right to decide’ – I have challenged the wrongfulness of their decision and the dishonest and unethical way in which it was made. Even if they have the formal right to dis-invite me, that does not make their decision to do so morally or ethically right, any more than the fact that California voters have the legal right to ban gay marriage made their decision to do so morally or ethically defensible.”
What are the “dishonest and unethical way[s] in which” the decision to dis-invite her was reached?
As documented previously by me [http://sunsara.blogspot.com/2009/10/open-letter-from-chicago-tour.html] and in a separate letter by Sunsara today [http://sunsara.blogspot.com/2009/11/sunsara-taylor-on-ethical-humanist.html], those who initiated the process that led to her cancellation were driven by anti-communism and a belief that Sunsara’s condemnation of globalization was “non-sense.” Additionally, Sunsara’s words were wrenched out of context and strung together in such a way as to imply that she opposes the rights of women and of immigrants. It was in the context of these lies and this anti-communism that a vote was very aggressively rushed through to finalize Sunsara’s dis-invitation before there could be any official back and forth with her and before any thorough discussion could take place.
This unprecedented vote took place through an admittedly ad-hoc process, over the internet and phone, and without any formal record of the deliberations. It was only then, after the dis-invitation had been formalized, that individuals from the EHSC began to construct a procedural rationalization for this cancellation.
One of the EHSC’s insistences that this has been about “process,” is their claim that the invitation to Sunsara had only been “provisional” and that their request to her for a talk description was because the Board was still deliberating over whether to approve her. In a letter issued on November 5th and signed by their president and several members of their board, they claim: “In July, at one of the committee member’s request, Sunsara Taylor was provisionally invited to speak on the topic of ‘Morality Without Gods’ on November 1. The formal invitation was withheld until the committee was provided a written description of her talk.”
The only problem is, there was nothing “provisional” about the invitation. Sunsara’s November 1st talk on “Morality Without Gods” was confirmed in July. It was then listed in the EHSC’s October calendar that went out in September.
After Sunsara submitted her talk description, she received the following note from the the co-chair of the program committee: “Thanks, Sunsara, for your reply. I appreciate your decision to speak on the original topic of morality without gods, though, of course, you might still touch on the topic of human nature, however you feel it is relevant. From your description of your talk, I will write a brief item in our November newsletter. It should stir up a lot of interest. It’s an aspect of humanist and secular thought that is not commonly heard.”
In this same letter signed by the EHSC president and board members, the claim is made: “From October 19 onward Ms. Taylor and her people demanded she be given the November 1 platform. Attempt after attempt was made to find a solution that, although not ideal for either side, was palatable for both. The society bent over backwards to appease Ms. Taylor. She was given an October 31 workshop that was well attended and a member of the society offered her home for Ms. Taylor’s self proclaimed ‘speech in exile’ on November 1. Notice of the ‘exile’ speech was even made through the Society’s list serve.”
None of this is true.
In actuality, the Saturday workshop was set up last summer at the same time as the Nov. 1st talk, by a different Society committee, on a different topic, “The Liberation of Women and the Emancipation of Humanity.”
Then, when Sunsara wrote to the EHSC to set the record straight about the many lies members of the EHSC had spread about her, the EHSC responded not by addressing the substance of her letter, but by raising the specter of canceling the Saturday workshop as well. On Sunday, Oct. 25, Matt Cole announced to his congregation that Sunsara’s Saturday workshop was “under negotiation” (as opposed to “scheduled”) – to an audible gasp in the audience. An emergency special board meeting was hastily called for the next night (against the EHSC’s internal rules as set forth in by-laws). The reason the Saturday workshop went forward is not because the EHSC was trying to make amends for canceling Sunday’s program, but because enough board members and others wanted to see this workshop go forward.
Further, the “talk in exile” only happened because an individual stepped forward to provide a space at her home. This individual was so disgusted by the way in which Sunsara was dis-invited that she has formally resigned from the EHSC. For the EHSC to suggest that they arranged this location so as to accommodate Sunsara is the height of dishonesty as well as cynicism.
By the time we get to November 1st, the EHSC has whipped up into a make-believe world of “threats” and “fears” entirely of their own making. They write, “Taylor would not commit to not disrupting the Sunday program. We had no idea what a Sunsara Taylor inspired protest would entail so the decision was made to err on the side of member safety.”
The idea that fear and police repression are justified because someone who has never given any indication that they would carry out disruptive acts has not promised not to commit such acts is absurd and outrageous. Since when is it acceptable for people to be assumed guilty and repressed unless they jump through hoops constructed by the very people who have spread rumors and whipped up an air of fear about them?
Sunsara made clear on Saturday, October 31st that, “I will be attending the Sunday gathering, tomorrow, right here at the EHSC prepared to give my talk and giving the EHSC the chance, up until the last minute, to do the right thing. If they refuse, I will be giving my talk in exile and asking others to join me at the house of one of the members of the EHSC nearby.”
There were no “safety reasons” to move Sunday school off site. There was not “Sunsara Taylor inspired protest” to fear. There was no legitimate reason for police to be called in advance of Sunday morning’s program.
For a basic account of what happened around Sunsara and her videographer, please refer to the statement from a lawyer who was there. (link)
I was there and I can attest that Sunsara was never asked to leave the premises, never asked to stop speaking and that Sunsara (contrary to the claims of the EHSC) did not disrupt the Sunday program. Sunsara concluded her brief statement and left to give her talk off-site BEFORE the Sunday replacement program had even begun.
It was during this brief statement that a plain clothes officer and a uniformed officer, without warning or justification, grabbed the videographer by each arm and pulled him out of the room. I, like most people present, thought the police were coming for Sunsara. Instead they went for the one documenting her statement, at the direction of the EHSC’s president.
Given how many lies and how much unfounded fear had been whipped up around Sunsara, it made perfect sense that she would want someone to get a record of exactly what she did and did not say and do.
If Sunsara were truly creating a dangerous disturbance, why did no one tell her to stop, arrest her, or insist on getting her actions on tape? Why, instead, did the EHSC president insist that the one person documenting what transpired be arrested and detained?
The videographer was not told to leave, did not resist arrest, did NOT assault a police officer. He faces 3 serious charges of criminal trespass, resisting arrest, and battery on a police officer. But it was he who ended up in the hospital being treated for injuries to his head, eyes, and wrists. The police sergeant himself had called an ambulance to the jail out of concern for his injuries.
The complaint of criminal trespass is brought by Matt Cole. A police officer was overheard asking him, “Are you sure you want to press charges?” If there had been no charges pressed by Matt, there would be no charges at all. It is very typical in cases that involve police brutality that charges of resisting arrest and battery on a police officer are piled on to guard against being sued for the brutality.
***
People are looking at this whole sick situation and think there must be some more reasonable explanation, it is just too bizarre — and, too frightening. But this is the unvarnished truth. Best to look at it. This is the logic that gets unleashed when censorship leads to lies to justify it; where anti-communist fear and distancing generate more fear and hysteria. People get vilified and driven off committees. Others get scared and shut up, or lose heart and patience for the arduous struggle to guard the truth and stand on principle against this. One man has been brutalized and charges have been pressed against him with serious potential consequences.
Unfortunately, this situation is not over.
We all have choices about what we will do now — and responsibility.
Please contact EHSC and the Skokie police to demand these charges be dropped.
Contact: office@ethicalhuman.org or call: 847-677-3334.
send copies of your correspondences to me at: sunsaratour@yahoo.com.
I invite your comments, criticisms, inquiries and support at: sunsaratour@yahoo.com.
posted by Sunsara Taylor at 10:13 AM
Statement from Attorney Martha Conrad Regarding November 1st at the EHSC
I am a lawyer licensed to practice law in the state of Illinois for the last 23 years.
I was present at the Ethical Humanist Society of Chicago [EHSC] on November 1st. I personally witnessed the entire incident leading to the arrest and can lay out the salient facts of what occurred at EHSC that day.
That morning, I entered the building behind Ms. Taylor and others about ten minutes before the 10:30 am program was to start. No one at any time told Ms. Taylor, the videographer or anyone else that they could not enter the event, which was advertised as being “free and open to the public.”
I was close to Ms. Taylor and the videographer the whole time. Ms. Taylor entered the auditorium and sat down. A man, who I later learned was the director of EHSC, came over to talk to Ms. Taylor and told the videographer who was videotaping the interaction to turn off the video camera. He did so. At no time, did the director or anyone else ask Ms. Taylor or the videographer to leave. After talking briefly to the director, and before the official EHS program was to start, Ms. Taylor stood next to her chair and began making a short statement challenging the decision by the EHS to “disinvite” her. At no time during her statement was she told to stop. After approximately two minutes, the police came into the auditorium and Ms. Taylor stated, “I’m going to be leaving now.” At that time the videographer appeared to be recording Ms. Taylor’s statement with a cell phone. I then saw a uniformed police officer and a man in a baseball hat grab the videographer by each arm. I didn’t hear either give any instruction or warning. They proceeded to roughly pull on his arms as they took him out of the room. (Later, the man in the baseball hat identified himself to me as a police officer who had been hired to be there.)
I followed them to the hallway, and saw officers repeatedly batter him. I turned away for a moment, and when I looked back the videographer was down on the floor. The police pulled him down the hallway and out of my sight. I pushed past some other people in the hallway and entered the foyer. I saw 4-5 officers piled on top of the videographer as he lay face down on the floor. I loudly announced I was a lawyer, and called out to them that the man had done nothing illegal. I demanded that they stop battering him.
There were so many officers on top of him that it was difficult to see him. But I did see the officers bash his head against the floor at least twice. They twisted his arms behind his back and handcuffed him. A couple of minutes later, after the officers had taken the videographer outside and were putting him in the police car, I observed that one side of his face and neck was scratched up. One of his eyes was violently red and tears were pouring out of that eye and down his cheek.
At no time was the videographer aggressive toward the police officers. At no time did he resist arrest.
A sergeant on the scene approached me and claimed, gestering to EHSC and the EHSC people in front of it, “These people here are doing this. It is not us.”
I went to the Skokie police station, where the videographer was taken. When I arrived I saw an ambulance there. I identified myself as a lawyer, announced my concern for the videographer’s medical condition, and demanded to see him. I was not allowed to do so. The same sergeant who I had seen at EHSC came out and spoke to me in the waiting room. He told me he had called the ambulance due to the videographer’s injuries. The videographer declined going to the hospital in the ambulance and flushed his own eyes of a chemical spray they had used on him.
The videographer is charged with criminal trespass to property, resisting arrest and battery on a police officer. These are very serious charges and totally unwarranted. Later that afternoon, the videographer was released after a collection was taken up to pay his bond. Immediately upon his release, he went to Skokie Hospital where doctors treated his multiple injuries to his head, chest and wrists. His case is set for November 18th, and I ask that you join in demanding that these unfounded charges be immediately dropped!
Labels: arrest, ehsc, lawyer, police brutality, videographer
posted by Sunsara Taylor at 9:54 AM
Considering that you’re a lawyer, I guess I would have to believe what you have written. After all, lawyers aren’t known to lie for their clients.
Your own words show you to be very wrong.
“told the videographer who was videotaping the interaction to turn off the video camera. He did so.”
“At that time the videographer appeared to be recording Ms. Taylor’s statement with a cell phone.”
Seems like someone was continuing to operate a video camera. In spite of being told not to.
“I loudly announced I was a lawyer, and called out to them that the man had done nothing illegal. I demanded that they stop battering him.”
You are also an nincompoop if you thought your words would have any effect when police officers are performing an arrest.
“At no time was the videographer aggressive toward the police officers. At no time did he resist arrest.”
Yep, your eyes were on him the ENTIRE time. Oh wait, no they weren’t.
“I turned away for a moment, and when I looked back the videographer was down on the floor.”
“and out of my sight. I pushed past some other people in the hallway ”
“I identified myself as a lawyer, announced my concern for the videographer’s medical condition, and demanded to see him. I was not allowed to do so.”
Did you identify yourself as someone with Medical Training, or as His Lawyer? You know someone with the right to speak to a person under arrest?
“These are very serious charges and totally unwarranted.”
The first part is very true, the last part is called opinion and should be viewed with suspicion considering the accuracy of your previous statements.
I have to say, this snafu has made me quite leery of Ms. Taylor and her evidently very devoted acolytes. This whole thing is beginning to smack of an attempt to manufacture publicity.
I’m starting to think both sides deserve each other.
The person using the name Evan K in this comment thread offered an alternate version of the events herein as you note Daniel. Evan posted the same note at my blog. Then ensued a dialogue with him there. In the course of this exchange, Evan’s seemingly superficially reasonable stance gives way to a much more open virulence towards Sunsara.
This is what I said to him initially in that exchange about his original note. The note, incidentally, appears to be not merely “his” text but word for word the text, at least in part, of the EHSC’s “official” version of events.
Evan K. – I’m going to respond to two statements in your account of the events.
You said:
“Some of the committee felt that the description provided was far outside the topic that was originally proposed…
“(As a side note, I disagreed with the decision to cancel but in a democratic organization the vote doesn’t always go the way you want it to. I even started a petition to re-invite Sunsara but only about 20% of the society signed).”
I have read the entire email sent to Sunsara from the EHAC disinviting her. The substance of that letter is contained in my comment above in my email to the EHAC. Your characterization that her talk didn’t fit into the expected parameters of the invited talk does not square with the reasons given by EHAC for withdrawing their invitation to her. As I state in my letter above and as Sunsara stated, her talk was a) so grossly mischaracterized by EHAC as to constitute dishonesty and b) she would have spoken precisely to the topic and in the manner that she had originally indicated. This was clear from her original and subsequent description. And it would have been both in the spirit and to the letter of that which the EHAC in its letter disinviting her indicated they had wanted from her in the first place.
You write further:
“From October 19 onward Ms. Taylor and her people demanded she be given the November 1 platform. Attempt after attempt was made to find a solution that, although not ideal for either side, was palatable for both. The society bent over backwards to appease this woman. She was given an October 31 platform that was well attended and a member of the society offered her home for Sunsara’s ‘speech in exile’ on November 1. The only thing we would not agree to was having her speak on November 1. All we asked is that she not disrupt the Sunday platform. She did not budge an inch; there was no effort at compromise from her or her people.”
What compromise did you expect from her other than to not speak at the forum that your organization originally asked her to speak at? Exactly why do you say that she wasn’t compromising on anything? What was there to compromise on? You say that the only thing that she could not do was speak at the November 1 event. What else was there besides this for her to “compromise” upon? The speech in exile she did, the workshop on October 31st she did, and, moreover, the “speech in exile” at a home wasn’t arranged by the EHAC. It was offered by a member of EHAC on their own on their own individual initiative and, according to Diane, that member has resigned from EHAC in apparent protest over EHAC’s decision to disinvite Sunsara.
Your comment here is like saying that workers who have been laid off and their jobs sent overseas should “compromise” by accepting their fates willingly and not raising any fuss over it.
Cool! An honest to god — or spaghetti monster take your pick — he-said, she-said cat fight on the Unreasonable Faith blog. I suppose it’s a nice change from perverted priests, the perils of home-schooling, and videos of gangsta-rapping fundie preachers LOL!!!!
Seriously, what a fantastic example of how difficult it is to tell what really happened just the other day. As someone else said, imagine how difficult it is to tell what happened 2,000 years ago!!! At some point, you pick your version and you take it on “faith” — so to speak.
Spoke with the Skokie police today and learned two interesting bits of information.
1. The supposedly docile cameraman who was maced and arrested for “no good reason” has a long arrest record that not only includes violent crime but he has even been convicted of homicide.
2. The camera that he was using to record the even was NOT confiscated by the police. What is on this tape that the Sunsara Taylor people don’t want us to see? They sure are quick to post everything else.
The police report is now public for anyone interested in getting it.
For the record, I’m a member of Chicago Ethical Humanist society as well and I substantially agree with Evan Kane’s recounting of events. I also vigorously disagreed with the decision to dis-invite but once that was made had no recourse but to follow the majority. Finally, I wish the Society would drop trespassing charges but apparently an ex-ante informal agreement was made with the police that if we asked for their help we would not subsequently drop charges. Note that the Society’s charges are just one of the charges against the cameraman so this would not get him off the hook but it would help. This incident is very unfortunate on all sides. I believe that the Platform committee members who voted to rescind the invitation made a big mistake but I don’t think it’s fair to tar the Society with a dogmatic “anti-communist” label over this. We and other Ethical Societies around the country have had many socialist and communist speakers over the years!
Ron