The left acts in haste...

In the age of easy divorce the old say­ing “Marry in haste, repent at leisure” has less bite than it once did, but the City of Boston may find out how much bite that old say­ing has when they decided to allow the “occupy Boston” folks to camp with­out license or per­mits (after all we SEIU allies have to stick together). It was noted in the Her­ald yes­ter­day with lit­tle fan­fare, today it is get­ting more atten­tion: (all empha­sis mine)

“It’s always a dan­ger­ous prece­dent when the city treats one group dif­fer­ently than another,” said civil rights attor­ney Har­vey Sil­ver­glate. “I’m opposed gen­er­ally to these require­ments, but if they are required of one group, then they should be required of all. The prece­dent (the city is set­ting) is, if there are so many peo­ple join­ing a demon­stra­tion that the city doesn’t want to tan­gle with them, then they will waive the require­ments.”

Every Tea Party group in New Eng­land should take notice. The moment the police or the city attempt to move them in the future with­out a per­mit, it is now a law­suit sim­ply wait­ing to hap­pen and don’t think that national con­ser­v­a­tive lawyers will not be wait­ing to file them.

even more inter­est­ing are these remarks:

To avoid unrest, the Con­ser­vancy, like the city and Boston Police Depart­ment, has not booted the campers off the 1⁄2-acre plot. Con­ser­vancy chief Nancy Bren­nan called the makeshift camp­site “an extra­or­di­nary sit­u­a­tion” and said it would not pave the way to allow peo­ple to ran­domly “camp out” on the Greenway.

“In addi­tion to sup­port­ing free speech, >we’re aware that ask­ing the pro­test­ers to leave will cre­ate con­flict and sig­nif­i­cant expense,” Bren­nan said.

Now why would it cre­ate “con­flict and sig­nif­i­cant expense” to ask them to leave? Appar­ently the answer is because the own­ers are intim­i­dated by them. They fear the pro­test­ers will refuse and they will have to use force or more likely will van­dal­ize the area if any attempt is made to move them.

Con­trast that with the tea party. I’ve talked to Police at Tea Party events in New Hamp­shire and Mass­a­chu­setts and specif­i­cally asked about trou­ble or trou­ble­mak­ers, invari­ably they don’t get any from the tea party, but on occa­sion they have got­ten prob­lems from their foes, not that the media cares.

And as for expense and mess lets take you back to Feb­ru­ary when the unions and the tea party faced off in front of the State house.

The city of Boston and the Con­ser­vancy had bet­ter start ask­ing them­selves this ques­tion: “What will hap­pen if the Tea Party decides to emu­late these guys instead of clean­ing up after them?“

via Glenn Reynolds says when you reward behav­ior you get more of it.

Update: Hey, maybe the city can get this lib­eral orga­nizer to help defray the expense:

A lib­eral orga­nizer told the Daily Caller on Thurs­day after­noon that he paid some His­pan­ics to attend “Occupy DC” protests hap­pen­ing in the nation’s capital.

Hey if they can pay the pro­tes­tors to come they can pay the city to clean up after them.