Although what Catherine says in point #3 might technically amount to a rejection of the concept of private ownership if consistently applied, I don't know that this is necessarily what she was really trying to say. I kind of doubt she would oppose allowing the police to remove burglars from someone's home by force, for example, if they refused to immediately comply.
I don't know that the incident is something the LPSF really needs to take an official position on, nor do I recall even Phil or mesha suggesting that we should. I don't think most other local organizations are necessarily lining up with positions one way or the other.
I do suspect that Catherine's version of events is largely true. When the incident happened, she was evidently on her own in a room full of people who probably either actively disagreed with her cause or did not have a strong view on the matter. If her account were substantially untrue, I suspect there would be no shortage of people coming forward to say so. I think Board of Supervisors members, those politically cautious animals that they are, would also be unlikely to have weighed in supporting her if what happened were more in dispute.
If it's true that the security physically grabbed her and dragged her out simply for trying to leave a flier on a table -- or even multiple fliers in multiple locations as she was heading for the exit -- it seems clear to me that they acted inappropriately. Escalation to that kind of physical force, in the absence of any physical aggression or forceful disturbance from the target of the force, is excessive, imho, when the person is moving to comply, if not as quickly as the evictors might desire, and there is no pressing reason the person needs to be removed immediately. I'm unaware of any such reason; HRC's general control over the event does not appear to have been in any jeopardy. I don't know whether what happened justifies a lawsuit, but I think they at least owe her a refund and an apology, perhaps reasonable medical expenses if security did not pay proper attention to avoiding injuring her in the course of removing her and she has evidence of having been significantly injured. If not even a refund or an apology have been offered, going to court begins to sound more reasonable.
In a practical sense, those most likely to be running events with heavy-handed security are government bodies, or large and thus usually pro-establishment organizations. And the farther things move toward a police state, the more likely it becomes that those attempting "guerrilla" actions like fliering events where they're not wanted in order to spread a political message will be persons whose message we would applaud. Thus while there is inarguably an ideological grey area around exactly what responses are proper when dealing with an unwanted guest, limiting the prerogatives of security forces seems likely to have a pro-liberty impact in terms of actual consequences, and I feel we should not overlook this.
Regarding ENDA, while we can agree the law is wrong, if we believed otherwise I'm sure we would not have favored a deal that excluded transgendered persons from this protection, but stood up for equality under the law across the board. HRC and its political allies in Congress miscalculated the level of support for transgender rights by cutting a cynical deal to sacrifice that principle of equality and throw transpeople under the proverbial bus, and now that action has blown up in their faces. I'm not sorry to see it happen.
Even were this not the case, my sympathies would personally be with Catherine if for no other reason than I can easily imagine myself or one of us being in her place in a similar situation, while I cannot easily imagine myself or one of us being the kind of security person who would physically grab someone and haul them roughly out the door merely for leaving a flier on a table.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))