QUOTE: [There is no exchange between the two sides. The groups have agreed to stay on separate corners of the intersection. Each week they trade corners, and the police keep a steady presence.
Porter said the agreement came after several multi-hour meetings with the GOA organizer. So far no alternative space for dialogue has been created. "We tried. Some of them are willing to talk, but most just are totally closed off," Porter said.
Almost everyone I spoke with felt the GOA's goal was to harass them if not shut them down.] :UNQUOTE

1. First of all, Karen Porter unilaterally broke communications. Her email to Rich Davis stated she wished no further contact in any form and threatened legal action if he did. There’s also any number of CCPM emails where Porter (in her words) ordered the CCPM members to not speak with anyone, even to shun the other side. Guess the American side could wear Ahmadinejad masks and trick Porter into a diplomatic talks.

2. When there were discussions it was with Rich Davis, who is not GOA, whatever that is. He was the local guy who alone took the opposite view in that public place and was harassed, shoved and screamed at for exercising his First Amendment constitutional rights.

3. CCPM has a right to protest and everyone has a right to protest them. You have a right to say something. You don’t have a right suppress someone’s opinion about what you say.

4. Separation basically is at the WCPD’s insistence even though they paint a Happy Face on it. They want to keep it as uncomplicated as possible and schmooze their way to a solution, which is good. In many ways, the WCPD does as good a job as the Philadelphia Civil Affairs Unit created by Philadelphia Police Inspector George Fencil and recognized as the national leader in such policing.

When CCPM got out of hand and became violent against other citizens and peace officers, resulting in two CCPM members being arrested, that’s when separation became serious.

But then again, Porter has turned a blind eye to the CCPM crossing over and verbally harassing the CCVM. Carrie came over and harassed a young lady about her sign. Rick came over and harassed Rich about some flyer that had absolutely no connection with Saturdays. If two of the better know, more experienced “peace activists” can’t keep a diplomatic agreement, who can? Others have crossed to "take a photo" over the CCPM and credit the CCPM for ignoring their childish behavior. When they preach that peace is the answer and can’t be peaceful, what hope for peace can there be?

Funny to note that both CArrie and Rick claimed a fig leaf that their actions were “neutral” because they were not holding a sign while harassing someone. How childish and laughable. The CCPM, especially it’s leader need peacekeeper training in the worst way.

4. And then there’s the leadership who encourage violence. John Grant, the immediate past el-presidente of the local VFP (a/k/a Old Age Home For Vietnam Veterans Against the War) repeated has advised his members to hit back if hit. Really? “Is That What Ghandi Would Do?” Especially when it’s a very small 50 yard by 50 yard box where as reported, “…the police keep a steady presence.” Wouldn’t a true Veteran For Peace set an example and advise “Retreat loudly yelling for a peace officer” over violence and taking the law into one‘s own hands?

The court record is that the guy holding a "Veteran For Peace" sign was arrested for assault.

And then there is Porter’s dark, foreboding “Blood would flow…“ email about veterans that assure her that they would violently attack the Americans on the other side (“blood would flow”) because they would be unable to control themselves. So they stay away she claims. As an officer of the court, she has a duty to inform Chief Bohn of the identities of these peace thugs so his peace officers can identify this threat if and when it appears at High and Market Streets.

If they can’t keep themselves from giving into violent urges, which have serious consequences and should be a deterant, what’s to stop them from showing up, for which there are no consequences, hence much less of a deterant. Well until they act out their violent urges that is.

Again, as an officer of the court, knowing what she knows (assuming she didn’t lie and make it up), she has a duty to mitigate potential criminal violence. The way to do that is share the identities of these thugs with the WCPD. Ask yourself, “What Would Ghandi Do?” “What Would The Professional Review Board Decide?"

Now that that her email is out in the public domain, should these veterans she describes harm anyone, she’d be liable if she didn’t take action to mitigate the potential violence.