Could a peace demonstration that gets out of hand -- perhaps with a fight breaking out between protesters and hecklers -- be considered an act of terrorism? Yes, says the American Civil Liberties Union, if a bill pending in the state Senate becomes law.

Steven Brown, executive director of the ACLU's Rhode Island chapter, says the measure is so sweeping it might cover ordinary political protests and labor disputes.

But a spokesman for Lieutenant Governor Charles J. Fogarty, who helped create the legislation, says that's a stretch, since the bill amends a disaster law that deals with dangerous, large-scale disruptions. Jeffrey M. Taylor, Fogarty's legislative chief, says that if demonstrations get unruly enough to approach the riot category, they already would fall under existing riot provisions.

What's being debated is a bill to boost the ability of the governor and the state Department of Health to respond to terror incidents, including biological attacks.

Taylor says that Fogarty, as head of the Emergency Management Advisory Council, worked with the Department of Health to fit provisions of a nationally recognized "model" anti-terror bill into existing state laws. One provision would change the existing quarantine law, which allows the health director to confine a person thought to have a communicable disease. The bill would allow "less restrictive" measures than quarantine, such as immunization or treatment.

But Brown says in a small number of cases, someone might object to treatment because of religious belief or fear that it might impact personal health conditions. Taylor says an amendment is being drafted to allow an individual who objects to treatment to chose quarantine instead.

Meanwhile, there also is debate about another provision, which would add terrorism to disasters -- such as hurricanes and riots -- under which the governor can declare a state of emergency. The bill defines acts of terrorism as "the unlawful use of force, or violence, or the threat or intentional release of biological agents (viruses, bacteria, or their toxins), committed by an individual or group of individuals against persons or property in order to influence, intimidate or coerce the conduct of a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives, to interrupt commerce or to permanently endanger the environment."

Brown says the language goes too far. "This definition is written so broadly," he says, "it could encompass political acts and protest activity that ended with some sort of violence, or a labor strike where one or two pickets got out of control, or an anti-abortion protest in front of a clinic where an assault allegedly occurred."

Taylor says that to be covered by this section, protest violence would have to threaten public safety in a manner already covered by the current law.

It will be up to legislators to make any changes in the terror definition, Taylor says, as the bill goes next to a hearing before the House Corporations Committee. A Senate committee already has held a hearing, but not yet acted on the measure.

Issue Date: April 4 - 10, 2003