 |
Feb. 8, 2007
|
 |
War protesters have their day in court |
|
Pair found guilty of misdemeanor charge |
|
|
|
 |
|
Mark Peters and Margot Fuchs answer questions at the Milwaukee Municipal Courthouse before their trial on charges of obstructing traffic began on Jan. 30. (Catholic Herald photo by Sam Lucero)
|
MILWAUKEE — After be-ing arrested for protesting the war in Iraq in September, archdiocesan parish consultant Mark Peters, and fellow member of Peace Action Wisconsin, Margot Fuchs, had their day in court Jan. 30.
They stood before Judge Valarie Hill in Milwaukee Municipal Court and were found guilty of a misdemeanor charge of obstructing traffic, as they assumed they would be, according to Peters.
“We never claimed we hadn’t done what we were accused of,” he said in an interview with your Catholic Herald.
The charge stems from an incident Sept. 21 when members of Catholics for Peace and Justice and Peace Action Wisconsin blocked the intersection of North Third Street and West Wisconsin Avenue to display their anti-Iraq war sentiments (Catholic Herald, Sept. 28, 2006).
“We broke a minor traffic law to bring to light law-breaking on the highest level,” Peters told your Catholic Herald at the trial. “We’re trying to get other concerned citizens to see that maybe we should do more than just vote.”
Fuchs also felt that their protesting could spark action in others.
“It only takes one person to change things,” she said. “The more people hear about the injustices, maybe that’s when this will stop. That’s what stopped the Vietnam War, people protesting.”
The pair, as well as all four people arrested in September, will pay fines of $58.60 each.
As their defense in front of the judge, Peters argued from the standpoint of Wisconsin Statute 939 which states that people may sometimes be forced to break the law in order to prevent catastrophe or death to themselves or others.
“We wanted to make people think and maybe motivate people,” said Peters. “Not to necessarily break the law, but to do more to make the war end.”
Peters was undecided when asked if, should he get arrested for protesting again, would he allow it to go to trial, or just pay the fine.
“I’d have to give that serious thought,” he said. “If I did civil disobedience again, I wouldn’t break municipal laws. If I were going to do it again, my civil disobedience would be against federal laws. But in doing that, there would be far harsher consequences.” |
|
|
|
