|
Posted: October 28, 2002
The growing costs that extremist rallies and marches impose on the communities in which they are held have been putting increasing fiscal strain on state and local governments - during a time of economic recession, when they can least afford it. We often think of the problems caused by hate groups such as the Ku Klux Klan solely in terms of the violence they perpetrate or the fear they instill - but these groups also do damage simply by forcing communities to divert money from other law enforcement functions.
It is authorities' duty to preserve public order and protect our constitutional rights, but fulfilling those responsibilities often comes with a steep price tag. Unfortunately, this price must be paid if law enforcement is to remain one of our best lines of defense against extremism. Law enforcement agencies need to be able to make the case to those who allocate their funding that this is a high priority - that although the monetary costs are difficult to afford, even more so, they cannot afford to back down. And it is a problem that is not going away.
Case in point: On August 24, 2002, 20 members of the National Socialist Movement, a Minneapolis-based neo-Nazi group led by Jeff Schoep, held a rally in Topeka, Kansas that cost state and local law enforcement agencies $85,400. Most of that money was spent on approximately 340 law enforcement officers, brought in to maintain order and provide security for the NSM members, 50 of their supporters - and 500 counter-protesters around the Topeka Statehouse grounds.
Topeka's plight is not unusual. The neo-Nazis and Klansmen who orchestrate such events are well aware - and proud - of the burdens they impose. NSM "Major" Tim Bishop was delighted to learn of his rally's high cost to the city of Topeka. To him, it not only guaranteed additional free publicity, but it also hurt a government he detests. In an Internet message to followers, Bishop suggested that his group "Rally again, and again, and again. We've got their attention. We nearly banrupted [sic] the state."
Although no arrests were made at the NSM rally, many white supremacist rallies, marches and demonstrations are marked by violence, dictating that police protection usually must be at the highest level. Communities that do not provide an adequate police presence run the risk of violent confrontations and riots. Such violence can even occur when there is a police presence but its security plan is flawed, as happened recently at events staged by the World Church of the Creator, in towns in Pennsylvania and Connecticut.
Ironically, the greatest threat of violence usually does not come from the white supremacists themselves, but rather from counter-protesters who flock to such events in misguided attempts to "fight" racism. There are a number of groups, many of them left-leaning or anarchist, such as Anti-Racist Action, that promote highly confrontational tactics; some groups, such as the Detroit-based National Women's Rights Organizing Coalition, have at times explicitly promoted violence. Counter-protesting groups are often well-organized and have members willing to travel great distances to appear at rallies. Consequently, counter-protesters almost always heavily outnumber white supremacists, who often have to be protected by the law enforcement officers they so despise.
Law enforcement costs are usually highest when rallies take place in large metropolitan areas that are likely to attract the highest numbers of counter-protesters. For instance, in 1999, the now defunct American Nationalist Party (formerly the Knights of Freedom) organized a rally in Washington, DC, where more than 1,400 police officers were deployed at a cost of $1 million. As it turned out, only four white supremacists actually showed up. Also in 1999, the city of Cleveland, Ohio, spent about half a million dollars to deal with a rally by the American Knights of the Ku Klux Klan. There, around 40 Klan members faced off with about 200 to 250 anti-Klan protesters.
The cost of providing security can often be a tremendous economic burden, especially for small communities with few financial resources to pay for extraordinary expenses. It is not uncommon for towns and small cities to have more than a hundred police officers on hand in order to separate extremists and counter-demonstrators, prevent violence, and maintain order. When the town of Elwood, Indiana, faced a Klan rally in 2001, for example, authorities had to enlist 70 police officers from nearby local law enforcement agencies, as well as 70 state troopers. In both 2000 and 2001, Mississippi-based racist Richard Barrett cost Morristown, New Jersey, over $120,000, as local authorities had to bring in law enforcement from over 36 municipalities for the small rallies he staged there.
In addition to bringing in police assistance, smaller communities sometimes have to outfit themselves with new equipment, because they may never have dealt with serious crowd control issues before. In January 2002, a Klan group held a rally in Newport, Tennessee, which cost taxpayer agencies nearly $60,000. More than half of the $10,146 spent by the Newport Police Department went to the purchase of new riot helmets for officers.
In 1999, the American Knights of the Ku Klux Klan held rallies in the Ohio cities of Defiance (population 16,000) and Zanesville (population 28,000). The combined cost of these rallies was $50,000. Overall, communities in Ohio spent over $800,000 in 1999 to deal with a record number of Klan rallies that year - so much that the Ohio Attorney General's office agreed to make metal detectors and fences available at no cost, for Ohio communities to use during extremist rallies. The true cost of such rallies is often higher still, because local businesses in the vicinity often must close for the day.
The extensive costs of extremist rallies, as well as indignation at being asked to play unwilling host to such events, have led a number of communities to attempt to prohibit such rallies from taking place. However, such bans almost always run afoul of First Amendment rights to free speech and assembly, with the usual result that communities must not only pay the security costs of the rally in question, but must also pay significant legal costs as well.
There is no perfect solution to the problem, but some communities have had some success in reducing costs through attempts to reduce the number of protesters and onlookers, by hosting other events, such as "Unity Day" festivities, at locations distant from the extremist rally. Such events also give communities a chance to vocally express their opposition to hate and extremism. Anti-bias training and other outreach efforts combating hate, particularly in school settings, are additional tools in a community's arsenal to combat and deter extremist followers.
In conclusion, until more effective deterrents are developed and implemented, law enforcement is a crucial and effective line of defense against the potentially dangerous and violent extremist gatherings that threaten our communities. Although the cost of covering extremist gatherings may be high, it must remain a high priority. We cannot prevent extremists from meeting, but we can certainly work together to do everything in our power to limit the damage they can do in our communities.
|
