Re: Don't make us call you chicken: take the public debate challenge!

[ltrwritr@moscow.com (Mark Rounds)]

Mr. Dickison

Based on your comments below stating that you do not support this ordinance,
can we count on your signature to put this to a public vote?  This would
probably be the best barometer of how the members of this community actually
feel.   We can certainly have some one stop by at your convience and collect
it so as not to impact your day.

This is not an attempt to be facitious but the point that I would like to
make is that the bulk of your commentary here doesn't deal with the
ordinance.  It is an expression of your opinion and world view.  You are
totally within your rights to make these statements but there are some very
real issues that this hastily drawn up ordiance brings up that haven't been
addressed.  They include the following:

1.      Potential court challenge and the cost we will all pay when it happens.
2.      Language that outlaws a great deal of what is current fashion and
that will either be ignored or actaully cause the challenge above.
3.      An inappropriate degree of selective enforcement that has been
dumped on the police department without any training.
4.      A violation (in my humble opinion) of the 14th Amendment of the
constitution.
5.      Violation of privacy on private property.

If you are bored with this issue, you are totally within your rights to
ignore this or not.  You are also competely within your rights to share with
us again, your world view.  It still won't change the facts.  I don't intend
to debate the religious side of this argument because frankly, my views do
differ from yours but I think you have the right to do and be what you
choose as long as it doesn't impact me.  

But my rights allow me to have a different view of how things should be and
I'll go right on working for it.  I am stubborn that way ;-)  I also suspect
that you will continue to work for what you believe in just as stubbornly
and that is also they way it should be.  

But I think both sides of this can discuss and debate this with respect and
calmness.  The name calling that has been indulged in by both sides isn't
needed.  You aren't a member of the Taliban.  Garrett Clevenger is neither
an inconsiderate slob or a boorish frat boy.   Clashing sabers at one
another won't help solve this.  This issue, if not resolved by a public vote
will be resolved in the court room.  I would rather not pay for that
challenge with money that should go for parks, police and fire protection,
and the like but if you think that is how it should be handled, sally forth
and so shall I.

Respectfully,

Mark Rounds


At 03:33 PM 9/3/2002 -0700, Gregory Dickison wrote:
>You keep invoking the Taliban when you want some really nasty way to dispose
>of those who disagree with you. How you put me in that category after I
>called for a rich celebration of the truly feminine is beyond me. The
>Taliban oppresses women because it does not understand truth, beauty,
>goodness, male or female. Because they do not understand, they cover women
>from head to toe. Because you don't understand, you flaunt their bare
>breasts. The only difference I can see between the two is the amount of
>cloth.
>
>To clarify my position on The Ordinance, I don't support it. It is a sad
>commentary on our culture that we need policemen with guns enforcing dress
>codes. But it was not brought about because people are squeamish about
>breasts. It was brought about because some people are inconsiderate slobs.
>As long as some people think it is acceptable to wear skateboard pants to a
>wedding, we will have prudes who throw them out. As long as some people
>think the female birthday suit is acceptable attire for window shopping, we
>will have nudity ordinances.
>
>If you want to debate or discuss what truly matters here, how rich
>masculinity and feminity interact with each other in all their glorious
>difference, I am all for it. But if all you want to do is parade your tired,
>crass notion that women are only equal to men if they can be just as boorish
>as any frat boy, then no thanks.
>
>Still licensed to practice law and think out loud,
>
>Gregory C. Dickison
>Lawyer & Counselor at Law
>Post Office Box 8846
>312 South Main Street
>Moscow, Idaho 83843
>(208) 882-4009
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Muscovites for Equal Rights" <idahomer@hotmail.com>
>To: <gdickison@moscow.com>; <johnguy@moscow.com>; <peg_hamlett@msn.com>;
><jmack@turbonet.com>; <steveb@moscow.com>; <comstock@moscow.com>;
><jmhill@moscow.com>; <mtethoma@moscow.com>; <vision2020@moscow.com>
>Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2002 2:45 PM
>Subject: Re: Don't make us call you chicken: take the public debate
>challenge!
>
>
>> Gregory et al,
>> Have you read the ordinance 2002-13?
>> The fact is this ordinance does more than restrict women from walking
>> downtown topfree.  It sweeps onto private property.  Women who enjoy
>> sunbathing, gardening or whatever on their property now must cover their
>> breasts if they are in public view.  Even if they are in their home, if
>> someone can see in from a public space, they face a $500 or 6 months in
>jail
>> if their breasts are exposed.
>> On top of that, certain bikinis and other apparel are now banned from
>public
>> view.  As well as the infamous "plumber's butt."  If you bend over and
>> expose the cleft of your buttocks, you are now breaking the law.
>>
>> Perhaps Attorney Dickison does not think this law is extreme because he is
>> exposed to extreme laws during his work, but for me and many others, this
>> law represents another attempt to regulate women in order to prevent the
>> corruption of men.  This is no different than the Taliban's motive for
>> forcing women to cover themselves completely.  Most men, perhaps even
>> Gregory, would admit that men can be turned on by legaly exposed parts of
>a
>> woman.  Why not cover those parts as well?
>>
>> I would assume that Attorny Dickison knows about the nudity ordinance
>Moscow
>> had that was thrown out by the courts a few years ago.  I would assume he
>> knows about the ordinance in Boise that was thrown out because it banned
>> mainstream apparel.  I would assume he knows that New York state found all
>> their topfree laws to be unconstitutional.
>>
>> Perhaps Gregory doesn't think this law will be challenged in court.  The
>> fact is, there are so many holes in it that our city will end up spending
>> our money trying to defend it, when in the process we could have drafted
>> something more acceptable and saved our money.
>>
>> Our campaign is in the best interest for Moscow.  We want laws that don't
>> test the constitution.  We want laws that are thoughtful.  We want to use
>> our tax dollars for something more useful.
>>
>> We do not feel this law is necessary.  We feel the city council could have
>> addressed the issue more thoughtfully.  Thus our attempt to hold the city
>> council accountable for passing this law.
>>
>> As far as I know, there has not been a real public debate about this
>issue.
>> We feel that if our city is going to pass laws that test the 14th
>amendment,
>> we should at least debate about it.
>>
>> Gregory's response still did not indicate why this ordinance is necessary.
>> This points to the fact that no one can come up with a good reason.  If
>so,
>> let us hear it.  Let us debate this.  This is what community is: being
>able
>> to discuss controversial issues openly.
>>
>> Perhaps people are bored with us.  That is your right.  There are people
>> still concerned, however, and we would like to get all the facts out in
>the
>> open.  Our challenge to debate is in the spirit of being honest about the
>> issue.
>>
>> If someone doesn't except our challenge, we can only assume that is
>because
>> no one has a good response to our arguments.  If someone does, don't be
>> chicken, come down to the park and debate this with us.  It'll be fun:)
>>
>> We have no intent of oppressing Gregory Dickison with our "narrow and
>> confining vision of equality."  Just as long as he gives a good reason why
>> he feels this narrow and confining ordinance as written is necessary for
>> Moscow.
>>
>> At the very least, let's put this to a public vote so that the people of
>> Moscow can decide if they want to restrict themselves with this law.
>>
>> Garrett Clevenger
>>
>> >From: "Gregory Dickison" <gdickison@moscow.com>
>> >To: "Muscovites for Equal Rights" <idahomer@hotmail.com>,
>> ><vision2020@moscow.com>
>> >Subject: Re: Don't make us call you chicken: take the public debate
>> >challenge!
>> >Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 05:58:13 -0700
>> >
>> >Chicken? Maybe just bored. Your shallow and utilitarian notions of
>equality
>> >are getting tiresome. Saying that men and women are equal in the manner
>you
>> >do is like saying that the saprano and the tenor parts are equal. Of
>> >course,
>> >there is always some fool who sees two different things and wants to say
>> >that one is better. But to respond by asserting that they are just the
>same
>> >is to answer the fool according to his folly and consequently be just
>like
>> >him.
>> >
>> >In the real world, men and women are free to be men and women, masculine
>> >and
>> >feminine, interacting with each other in the harmonic and mutually
>> >enriching
>> >way that God intended. Men and women are different, radically so. A real,
>> >rich culture recognizes, celebrates and protects the differences and the
>> >interaction. Saying that women should be able to do everything men do
>> >completely misses the point, and squishes both men and women into an
>> >amorphous mold that gives freedom, equality and justice to neither.
>> >
>> >Please, stop trying to oppress us with your narrow and confining vision
>of
>> >equality. We prefer the freedom of true sexual diversity.
>> >
>> >Gregory C. Dickison
>> >Lawyer & Counselor at Law
>> >Post Office Box 8846
>> >312 South Main Street
>> >Moscow, Idaho 83843
>> >(208) 882-4009
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> Join the world's largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
>> http://www.hotmail.com
>>
>
>