Permit or No Permit-A Poll

ure signing a peace of paper that says u need permission to gather on a peice of public land... its pretty much saying that gathering is a privilage not a right, and its at the governments discretion wether or not u can assemble...

 

a mountain of written tickets/a mountain of permits...could petition the fs so make the permits the same size as the tickets...they already issue a 14 day permit for BLM land.


C

 

I'm really torn. Of course the instant reaction is fuck a permit. But isn't the ultimate rainbow way to give all brothers and sisters (bellybuttons) a platform to air their opinions? In the best of worlds, an "agreement" (let them call it a permit if they must?) could be reached between PEOPLE, disolving the "us versus them" concept. We compose our agreement, they compose theirs, and everyone interested attends council and discusses the issues. A compromise is reached, consensus happens, at that point ANYBODY there could put their sig on it, so long as there is one sig from rainbow and one from FS, and it states specifically that whoever signs is in no way responsible for the rest of the group they are "representing". Fair is fair after all. That pretty much makes it just symbolic, sort of like a handshake. Then just try as much as possible to go by the agreement. That's all anyone could ask. I do think that if folks keep going about the thing as if there was a cold war going on between us and them that things will only get harder. We push on them they push on us. It's nature. Too much stubbornness on both sides gets us farther and farther away from the real issue which is cooperation.

 

no permits that has been what the rainbow family is about since the beginning. the right to gather peacefully on public land

 

.

 

one peaceful voice is all

 

Exactly. This might help us avoid "Road Block Rage". I am scared for people's safety and well being if left in a bunch of VERY bitter feddies hands (because of last year).

 

OK, here is the count so far:

52% permit willing
48% no permit

 

well because there is no set leader in the rainbow family of living light (thank god it probably be some old high holie fuck like chicken wing, Steven) anywhere from 1-10000000000000 people can sign the permit, and you don't even have to use your real name, so the permit thing is ok to a degree. "They" just can't figure out why the fuck people go out and live in the woods for months atta time.

 

52% permit willing
48% no permit

25 votes counted outta the 25,000+ possible votes. Wow, just like the elections

ha ha ha....

 

I assume you're assembling in a national park. I don't know; I saw that mentioned. It seems perfectly reasonable to mandate a permit for that action. If you were to peacefully assemble at one's house, then, of course, no permit would be needed. In my humble opinion, this is being blown way out of proportion.

 

take thiz pole an shove it in their azz.

 

National Forest, not National Park.

There are quite a few people that feel like requiring a permit to assemble on public lands is a violation of their Constitutional Rights. I'm one of those people; permits shouldn't be required to use public lands, after all they belong to the public, and I am part of the public, plus I pay the taxes that help fund the management of the public lands. I feel like the LEO division of the FS has bullied Rainbow folks so much that some folks feel that a permit might help end the harassment, but since permits were signed way back in the 70's & the harassment didn't stop, it doesn't really seem like signing a permit will help. It bugs me that I can go to any National Forest & camp & no one will ask for a permit but if I go to the Gathering & camp in the same vicinty as all those hippie folks all the sudden there's supposed to be a group use permit signed but I'm not there as a group, I'm there as an individual.

Then again, it's really hard for me to want to cooperate with the FS after witnessing the things that I have...

C

 

what about the liablity clause? i'm no lawyer but it's my understanding that if someone signs a permit thereby creating a group and group liablity that, because anyone attending is legally considered a member of the group described in the permit, anyone attending can be held liable for any damamges done by anyone else attending. (the signer of the permit, however, is not held liable. i guess that would be a perk for signing.) now it's true to say, percentages being what they are, safty in numbers etc, that even if the liability clause were enacted (as per contract) that you or i personally would not be the ones ending up holding the bag (it's not your car tag or mine being recorded) but somebelly would. does everyone just kinda cross our fingers and hope that the liability clause isnt engaged and then continue to keep them crossed that it's not one of us with a lien slapped on our home and land? i think sometimes some folks forget how very cagey is the gov and it's not really a smart thing to just shrug and say "it's just a piece of paper". a permit is a legally binding contract and anyone attending a permitted gathering is legally bound by it. any thoughts?

 

they dont want it signed fer nothing ....permit is like the treaty they used to get indians to sign . yep , right b 4 they genocided em . it seems once they 'define' a group and acertain who the leaders are , then they have a person to blame it on and can perceute the 'group ' once they define it . as you say otherwise were just a bunch of individuals...and they need a reason for every one they will destroy

 

OK, so how should we view these data in light of the responses to the "Why Gather " thread? None of the respondants in that thread mention going to the Annual Gathering, or a gathering, in order to protest anything, or document police abuses, or to get a test case into court, or even to network with other activists.


"You can't plough a field by turning it over in your mind."

 

if i remember correctly, there was quite a bit of politics surrounding the florida permit, and teh prerson who filled it out originally. for those reasons, i would say the florida permit is a bad idea. in other cases, surrounded by other circumstances, with a different signer, i could see how a permit might be advantageous.

 

oh I'd never presume that Rainbow Gatherings be anything other than gatherings. I don't expect protests or anything like that. that's not the kind of thing Rainbow does. if Rainbow did that kind of thing one might imagine Rainbow would be deliberately (illegally) gathering in endangered forests in an effort to prevent the trees from becoming toothpicks and fiberboard. I have no answer for the permit dilemma other than perhaps attending one of the alternate July 4th gatherings instead of the huge government permitted one. such gatherings are smaller, of course, so not as massively impressive and you might miss out on seeing some dear folks that you want to see so I'm not suggesting boycott. but some folks might not like the idea of forced membership in a group or the possibility (however remote) of being held liable for damages done by other members of the group if they knew that's what the signing of permit institutes. I just think it's important that folks understand what the signing of a permit means so they can make an informed choice as to whether to attend a permit gathering or gather elsewhere.

 

i was at the permited florida gathering and was one to stay til the end of clean-up . well , nearly the end ... all the work was done but for the last remaining camp and it's homey trashiness . so then i was gone down the road . i learned after they finally gots all our food eaten and wandered away , sho nuff , the fs called on the permit signer to clean-up that little corner of the gathering and so it happened .

 

from all accounts the LEO and FS presense hasn't lessened any and some say has increased so the advantages of being permitted to camp as an individual in your own National Park would be ... what? just curious.