COUNTERING MILITARY RECRUITMENT
Articles: War Protests: General
With 'Grannies' in Dock, a Sitting Judge Is Bound to Squirm
Anemona Hartocollis, New York Times
April 27, 2006
Imagine having grandmotherhood on trial in your courtroom. This is the awkward situation in which Judge Neil Ross finds himself in Manhattan Criminal Court.The defendants are 18 women who call themselves grannies — somewhat loosely, since although all of them are old enough, a few of them do not actually have grandchildren. They are on trial for, as Judge Ross put it in a casual aside, "protesting," and more specifically, protesting the war in Iraq, by sitting outside the Times Square military recruiting center last October.
But the defense is trying to portray the trial as a referendum on grandmotherhood itself, and they are milking that all-American concept to the hilt, almost as deftly as the defense in "Miracle on 34th Street," the 1947 feel-good chestnut, milked the American belief in Santa Claus.
The prosecution's case consisted of testimony from police officers about how the women blocked the door of the recruiting center, impeding entry for anyone who wanted to sign up, although the evidence suggests that the only people who wanted to enlist on the afternoon of Oct. 17, 2005, were the women themselves, who said they wanted to give their lives for those of younger soldiers. But they were not allowed in.
The defense, which began on Monday, has consisted of putting the 18 women on the witness stand, one after the other, to explain just what they thought they were doing that day in Times Square. Their lawyers, Earl Ward and Norman Siegel, former director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, have carefully asked a series of questions intended to elicit what Mr. Ward called the credentials of each defendant.
Mainly, these credentials consist of the women's ages and the number of children and grandchildren they have. Only one, Vinie Burrows Harrison, an actress, took the Fifth on the question of her age.
Carol Husten's reply was, "Seventy-four. Two kids."
Judy Lear's was 62, with "three adult children and two granddaughters."
Diane Dreyfus answered "Fifty-nine and three-quarters," with "one stepchild, no grandchildren."
And so forth, up to Marie Runyon, who is 91, with one daughter, two grandchildren.
But even without the cold hard numbers, the granny-ness of these defendants is hard to miss. These are not resort grannies, with dyed hair and manicures. For the most part, they have let their hair go gracefully, defiantly gray. Some carry canes; others use walkers. Ms. Runyon, whom the judge allows to sit next to the witness box so she can hear, wields the white cane of the blind.
They are also women of accomplishment. Ms. Husten testified that she had a master's degree in guidance, plus 60 credits, from Hofstra, and had worked as a guidance counselor "for truant and dropout children" at James Madison High School in Brooklyn.
"I was very, very rarely a truant, Ms. Husten," Judge Ross interjected. Then he added sheepishly, his face reddening: "For the record, I was not a student at James Madison High School."
Lillian Rydell, 86, testified that she graduated from high school in 1936, and that instead of college, "went to the school of hard knocks," to which Judge Ross observed: "I see that your education in that school is ongoing?"
Judge Ross has frequently looked mortified, squirming in his seat as if wondering how in the world he, of all judges, had the bad luck to be chosen to rule on the grannies' fate.
Like the unfortunate Judge Harper in "Miracle on 34th Street," Judge Ross clearly recognizes that ruling against grandmothers — like ruling against Kris Kringle — could be political suicide, or at the very least make him a villain to grandchildren everywhere.
The prosecution is represented by two fresh-faced assistant district attorneys, Amy Miller and Artie McConnell, who, unlike the grannies, declined to give their ages. They have been taking cues from a supervisor in the front row.
To the prosecution, this is a case of disorderly conduct. To the defendants, it is a test of the constitutional right to free speech, and the morality of war. One of them, Joan Wile, testified yesterday that her group had even had a demonstration permit, although she had not noticed, until Mr. McConnell pointed it out, that the permit was for Duffy Square, two blocks north.
In the end, it may come down to more prosaic questions, like whether the grannies were inches or feet from the recruitment center door.
Isn't it true they were blocking traffic? Ms. Miller asked, cross-examining Ms. Lear. Ms. Lear replied that if someone had wanted to go through, she would have moved over. "I'm a very polite person," she said.
"I'm sure you are," Ms. Miller agreed.
Wasn't their real objective to get publicity by being arrested? "Did you personally believe you were going to be allowed to enlist?" Mr. McConnell asked Ms. Dreyfus.
"I wasn't sure," she replied. "I do have a skill set." She is a facilities manager and "could be used to deploy equipment," she said.
But, the prosecutor insisted, was she prepared to go to war?
"Yes," Ms. Dreyfus replied. "I was totally prepared. I had just recently gotten divorced. I was ready."
The grannies burst out laughing, and a red blush spread, once more, over Judge Ross's face.
"The defense rests," Mr. Siegel said yesterday after the last defendant testified, and the grannies seemed to collectively sigh. The judge has promised to rule today.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/27/nyregion/27grandmothers.html?
This archive consists of a topically organized selection of
articles culled by members of the Counter-Recruitment List Serve from printed
publications and web sites. The archive is not complete. We have chosen
material relevant to the work of