Through the spring and summer months, the New York City Police Department has continued its campaign to shut down, suppress and contain political demonstrations, often in a completely unreasonable, ill-informed and even insulting manner. Recently, the Police Department has outright refused or stalled permits for events organized by the African Diaspora Education Society, Gays and Lesbians of Bushwick Empowered, the PrideFest and the Audre Lorde Project's Trans Day of Action.

Yet, even as many groups scramble to assemble pro-bono teams of attorneys to fight for permission to hold events, the NYPD has secretly issued a parade permit to the largest annual unauthorized political gathering on a Manhattan street, the 15th annual New York City Dyke March. Later today, tens of thousands of lesbians and their supporters will sally forth onto Fifth Avenue in a parade of lesbian visibility without knowing that their display has received the seal of government approval.

That's right, unrequested by and unbeknownst to the organizers, the NYPD has granted legally permitted status to the Dyke March and has done so for years.

How do we know this? Because Assistant Chief Thomas Graham, the commander of the Disorder Control Unit and the NYPD's expert on managing political demonstrations, says so in sworn testimony.

In a statement given under oath on March 23, 2005, then Inspector Thomas Graham, describes what he calls the "big secret." Here is an excerpt from the court transcript in which he is questioned by attorney James Meyerson:

Q: You issue permits at the scene?

A: We actually have issued permits on the street. And I'll give you the event. We used to have - it's the Dikes [sic] on Bikes. It used to be motorcycles and it's a gay women's march.

Q: Lesbians, yes.

A: I like gay women. If you like lesbians, we'll do lesbians.

Q: Anyway.

A: Back on the ranch. They normally march down from Fifth Avenue, down Fifth Avenue from 62nd Street. They have believed for years that they have not had a permit.

Q: I'm sorry, they believed for years?

A: Most of them believe - 99 percent of them believe there's no permit for that event. But we always co-oped [sic] some of the leadership to cooperate with us. Sign a permit, have your march, leave one traffic lane open.

Legally speaking, it seems that since the Dyke March has been around so long, the right for the marchers to walk down Fifth Avenue has been "grandfathered," or exempted from the usual requirement for a permit.

But what is the interest of the police in tricking the Dyke March organizers into thinking they do not have a permit when they have been granted one administratively?

Chief Graham touches upon this in the transcript:

A: They even tell us where they're going to take their clothes off, when they expose themselves. [ed: with the safety of large numbers, some women choose to go topless, which is legal in New York State] So I know we've actually issued the paper permit in the street.

Q: The day of the incident?

A: This was the day of the incident. That, I know has gone on.

Q: Do you guys tell anybody about this?

A: No, that was a big secret. That was a big secret because we didn't even tell the marches [sic] they had a permit. Because they believed they didn't because that was one of the reasons for marching.

Ok, so the NYPD decided not to tell the Dyke March organizers they had been granted a permit so they would not be disappointed that they were involved in a political action which was legal? Because it would not seem militantly radical enough?

That explanation seems somewhat bizarre.

Could it be that the police do not want to encourage other groups to think that they too might be able to organize large events in midtown Manhattan without approval from the Police Department?

That's possible. Because in the not-so-distance past, many demonstrations were organized just that way - without ever formally seeking permission from the authorities.

In 1993, when the first Dyke March took place, it was common for protest organizers to negotiate the logistics of demonstrations with the police as the events took place on the street. There were a lot of positive aspects to that system, both for the organizers and for the police. In most instances, the model which the police used to handle demonstrators was a fluid one based on negotiation and accommodation. There was an unwritten understanding that if 1,000 or more demonstrators showed up, the NYPD would open up one traffic lane in the street to ease their passage, if only to move the group along more quickly. Groups which were smaller than that would make their way along the sidewalk while the police followed nearby to monitor the proceedings. It may seem hard to believe in today's era of over-policing and pre-emptive arrests, but at that time New York City police officers took pride in their cool-headed, unflappable manner during protests. If no unplanned arrests took place, both protesters and organizers went home thinking that they had a pretty good day.

It is terribly ironic that as NYPD fights tooth and nail to stop others from assembling and marching, they have forced a permit onto the Dyke March organizers who have never sought one and likely never will.

I look forward to the day when demonstrators can talk about lesbian rights, justice for transgender people, the cultures of the African continent, or whatever they please without having their political message subsumed in some needless fight with the police over the right to take up public space.