The ordinance was proposed to help the city govern the kind of parades that arose spontaneously when Brazil won 2006 World Cup matches.
If one would just take a simple look at the first paragraph in the ordinance, you would CLEARLY see that the ordinance will IN NO WAY govern "the kind of parades that arose spontaneously" during the World Cup games yet, you did not state this in your article, thus the News-Times gives the impression ONCE AGAIN that this ordinance can be used against the events during the World Cup games of last year.
Furthermore...could you PLEASE explain this portion of your statement:
when Brazil won 2006 World Cup matches.
This is a clear attempt to paint the Brazilian population (a.k.a. those pesky illegal immigrants) with this ordinance, which is outrageous at least. If my memory serves me right, there were also many celebrations in the streets from those who rooted for Portugal, and Italy as for Brazil.
In any event, THIS SO-CALLED ORDINANCE CAN NOT BE USED AS A TOOL OF ENFORCEMENT AGAINST SPONTANEOUS CELEBRATIONS! You can not stop anyone from spontaneous celebrating...period.
Parade means any march, demonstration, procession or motorcade, which the parade permit applicant believes will consist of more than twenty-five (25) persons, animals, or vehicles or a combination therof upon the streets, sidewalks, parks or other public property owned by or under control of the City of Danbury, for a common purpose as a result of prior planning that interferes with the normal flow of pedestrian or vehicular traffic upon said streets, sidewalks, parks, or other public property
Spontaneous celebrations does not fall under "prior planning" and the members of the council are well aware of this because Assistant corporation council Ric Gottschalk, the council's parliamentarian has stated this to them several times including during the ad-hoc committee meetings.
Tom Saadi outlined all of this (including Gottschalk's statement to the ad-hoc committee and Common council) when he presented his amendment, (the video of which has been widely viewed on this site). In the coming days, I will present video footage from other meetings where the parade ordinance was discussed to back up Saadi's claim that EVERYONE on the council was properly informed that this ordinance WILL NOT ADDRESS SPONTANEOUS PARADES.
The News-Times has a responsibility to properly inform the public, especially on matters as critical as this where the will of the council was ignored by mayor who feels that he knows what best for Danbury over the opinion of the Legislative Branch of government in Danbury.
This is a serious matter, which requires serious attention...not misleading statements about the effectiveness of this ordinance against immigrants.
It's bad enough that the News-Times had better things to do than even ATTEND THE COMMON COUNCIL meeting when this well-known hot-button issue came up to a vote, at the very least, the News-Times have a responsibility to get the story right.
04.25.22 (RADIO): WSHU Latino group call on Connecticut lawmakers to open a Danbury charter school
06.03.22 (OP-ED): KUSHNER: "Career Academy ‘a great deal for Danbury"
On September 26, 2007, ten plaintiffs filed suit in response to an arrest of aday laborers at a public park in Danbury, Connecticut. Plaintiffs amended their complaint on November 26, 2007.
The amended complaint states that plaintiffs sought to remedy the continued discriminatory and unauthorized enforcement of federal immigration laws against the Latino residents of the City of Danbury by Danbury's mayor and its police department.
Plaintiffs allege that the arrests violated their Fourth Amendment rights and the Connecticut Constitution because defendants conducted the arrests without valid warrants, in the absence of exigent circumstances, and without probable cause to believe that plaintiffs were engaged in unlawful activity. In addition, plaintiffs allege that defendants improperly stopped, detained, investigated, searched and arrested plaintiffs. Plaintiffs also allege that defendants violated their Fourteenth Amendment rights when they intentionally targeted plaintiffs, and arrested and detained them on the basis of their race, ethnicity and perceived national origin. Plaintiffs raise First Amendment, Due Process and tort claims.
Plaintiffs request declaratory relief, damages and attorneys fees.
On September 26, 2007, ten plaintiffs filed suit in response to an arrest of aday laborers at a public park in Danbury, Connecticut. Plaintiffs amended their complaint on November 26, 2007.
