Protests must show respect for process

This question keeps getting raised: Why was it wrong for 5,000people to petition the City Council to elect Ald. Timothy Evans(4th) mayor and not for 200,000 people to march in Washington, D.C.,on behalf of Soviet Jews?

In its more obnoxious and accusatory form, the question is posedthis way by the few who look everywhere for racial motivations: Whyis it all right to demonstrate for a Jewish cause but not for a blackone?

Obviously, to virtually everyone on both sides of the debate, itis all right to demonstrate for both Jewish and black causes.Indeed, the Constitution protects the right of free assembly andprotest for just about any cause, irrespective of merit, under almostall circumstances when the exercise of these rights does not conflictwith the orderly processes of government.

The distinction between the assemblies in Chicago last week andin Washington last Sunday clearly was not a racial one. Thedistinction rests on where and how the protests were made. Like the1963 civil rights march on Washington led by the Rev. Martin LutherKing Jr., Sunday's anti-Soviet protest was held outside the halls ofCongress, outside of the sacred precincts where democraticallyelected representatives of all the people deliberate and make theirdecisions.

In both the 1963 civil rights and Sunday's anti-Sovietdemonstrations, no one tried to shout at or shout down the people'srepresentatives as they tried to carry out their constitutional andlegal responsibilities.

The line between the rightful petition of government andattempted intimidation of government can be a thin one. Filling thegallery seats with spectators in a legislative chamber - whetherspontaneously or by orchestration - does not cross that line.Filling the seats and repeatedly interrupting the lawful proceedingswith shouts does. Clogging the passageways to City Council chambersso that aldermen feel they must run a gantlet of verbal abuse doesalso.

So did attempts by Equal Rights Amendment supporters a few yearsago to block access to legislative chambers and vandalize publicproperty in Springfield .

This has rarely been an issue in Congress, because the decorumand operating rules of that body long have been clear, and enforced.Spectators who fail to show respect for the process unfolding beforethem are removed.

That point, however, does raise a legitimate question about CityHall and Springfield. Respect is a two-way street: When aldermen andlegislators themselves in general begin acting more as if they are ina democratic deliberative body and less like the Zoo Parade, they'llautomatically get more respect.

And fewer people will feel the need to storm the gates to gettheir point across.