As the executive director for the Northwest Constitutional Rights Center, Alejandro Queral patrols the front lines of Portland's battles for human rights. Be it eco-saboteurs, fur fighters or political activists, the Center keeps its eyes on those who would watch us - and then takes them to court, defending civil liberties against the increasing scrutiny of Big Brother.
Queral joined the center in early 2006 after serving as the international policy advisor for the Sierra Club, through which he was instrumental in restoring the freedom of farmers protesting environmental destruction in Mexico. In Portland, Queral takes the baton from former director Alan Graf, moving forward to create effective and independent government accountability, from race relations and immigrant rights to the trail of questionable deaths at the hands of area police officers.
On the latter point, Queral and the Center are leading a concerted effort in the community to bring greater oversight to the Portland Police Bureau. This summer, The Northwest Constitutional Rights Center joined Oregon Action, the Center for Intercultural Organizing and other organizations to conduct listening sessions with victims of racial profiling and officers. The result was a list of recommendations to not only address the root causes of racial profiling, but also create an independent system of redress and accountability that is accessible to the public - qualities lacking under the current Independent Police Review process. In response, the City Council is expected to create a committee to examine racial profiling within the police bureau by the end of the year. In the meantime, Queral and the staff at the Center will continue to help navigate people through the system, test its practices, expose its flaws, and correct what Queral sees is one of the biggest threats to human rights in Portland.
Alejandro Queral: I think that the biggest threat is the lack of accountability and a lack of transparency in terms of our law enforcement. Not only the Portland Police Bureau but also all the other law-enforcement agencies, federal law enforcement, certainly the FBI. Portland has a long history in how it's going to relate to the FBI, and when the Joint Terrorism Task Force resolution passed saying basically we're not going to have a JTTF here in Portland, I think that was a great thing. But at the same time I think it's created a possibility that the FBI may be sharing documents and information with the PPB and other law enforcement agencies in a way that is unregulated because there are no protocols. I'm not suggesting we should have a JTTF, but there should be increased transparency in terms of how the FBI works with local enforcement agencies.
We see this at every level. We see it on the racial profiling issue. It's a very difficult thing to document, to say this is racial profiling, that the motivation for this particular stop was race. It's very difficult to prove that in the courts and in most legal systems. In fact, the Independent Police Review commission looks at these cases and says we're not going to touch them because they're so difficult to prove, so there's a whole line of cases on police abuse and unconstitutional actions that basically go untouched. Without transparency there's no way of holding government agencies accountable.
I think the same kind of profiling is applied at many levels. It's not just race, but how you're dressed, who you're hanging out with. And as long as there's no clarity as to what the standards are, it's very difficult for our community to hold those who are supposed to protect and serve us accountable for their actions.
S.R.: Or the standards are set by a special interest group.
A.Q.: Such as the business community or the Portland Police Union. The Portland Police Union's response to the racial profiling resolution before City Council was shocking, as if there is no racial profiling in their minds and there will never be and we can do no wrong. So when that door for conversation is shut, there really is no opportunity for making changes, unless it's a very antagonistic approach, whether it's going to court or denouncing them in front of the media or whatever.
S.R.: Even if they deny it exists, they don't seem to even want to address the problem as a public perception.
A.Q.: With racial profiling you have the statistics which are frankly undeniable. Look at the central precinct of Portland, the African-American population is very, very small, yet the rate in which African-Americans get pulled over is significantly higher - even higher than in the Northeast - four times higher. It's not just a matter of perception, it's a matter of numbers, and even looking at those, the Portland Police Union is not even willing to have a conversation. I think we have a serious problem. And the fact that they have so much leverage with City Council, and with other elected officials, I think is very problematic.
S.R.: NW Center has put together points on what they want to see happen with the Independent Police Review Commission. What do you think has to happen for reform to take place?
A.Q.: I believe that these kinds of changes require significant grassroots organizing. This is not a go meet with people in City Hall or go meet with the IPR. That's part of it, but the real pressure and the real changes are going to come when the community really rises and says this is unacceptable - this is just not going to work. In the past these kinds of efforts have come from moments of crisis, particularly when someone's been shot, or there's some other type of turmoil or reaction to something in the police bureau. I think what we're trying to do is create sustained momentum, by really educating the community about the IPR system. And the reality of it is that the majority of the Portland community doesn't know that there's an IPR system where you can go complain to the police about their behavior. Those who know that there is one most likely don't know how it works, so it fails them in that sense. Those who think they know how it works, often times don't report those cases because they're afraid of the police, they're afraid of retaliation. So clearly, just getting to use the system is not even a real possibility right now.
And so one of the things we're going to do is educate the community about IPR - what it's lacking, what it's not doing right, and test the system. The way that we're going to be able to show to elected officials that this is not working is by actually showing how these cases are falling through the cracks.
We're trying to show people how the process works and encourage them to file complaints when they're victims of police abuse or when they see police abuse. We're actually putting together an advocacy system with second- and third-year law students working as advocates for people filing complaints with the IPR so that we can follow it every step.
If you go and you sit at one of these hearings, you really get to see how badly the system is broken. Everything is stacked against a complainant in the IPR hearing. Certainly, how investigations are conducted is a serious problem, because you have Internal Affairs Department officers who are clearly not independent. So to say you have an independent police review when the bulk or the entirety of investigations is done by officers themselves, independence is questionable.
We need to document those problems. We need to make them real. Once we start doing that I think we'll be able to put together a pretty strong case.
S.R.: How do we compare to other cities as far as our system?
A.Q.: I think Portland is in-between - it's better that we have something, it's much better than nothing at all, but at the same time there's a lot of room for improvement. Other cities have shown how to do it. There are some really good experiences and bad experiences. As we consider any kind of policy change with the Portland Police Bureau, we have to deal with the history of the PPB and the history of the state, frankly. Because you have to look at how the bureau has dealt particularly with the African-American population. It's a history of racism, very ingrained, very deep. You still have police officers who have been in the bureau for the past 25 years, where 25 years ago, in North and Northeast Portland, there was a strong culture of independence, where individual officers could make certain decisions on the ground, and it was a very cowboy western style. And I think there's some of that still being passed on, where officers are in control of their area. To do that and maintain that status there needs to be a lot of aggressiveness. There are many officers within the bureau who are very concerned about this philosophy, this mentality that we are here to control people.
A lot of officers are concerned that this is breaking any ability for police officers to really get to know the community and know the heart of the problem We've got to start working on this because it's the only way we're going to make community policing a reality and not just a motto. I think the very first thing that needs to happen is there needs to be a relationship between the police and the community that is healthy. Because the police are not going to go away. The question is how to we create these relationships to avoid the kind of tragedy we saw with (James) Chasse a few weeks ago.
S.R.: Given the change in leadership, with a new chief of police, and increased scrutiny the bureau has been under with the wave of police shootings, and particularly the Jim Chasse case, do you think the bureau is finally in a place to adopt real change?
A.Q.: I think there's an opportunity, of course. There are also a lot of people who want to see no change at all. The police union has been very clear about it. They're not even willing to sit at the table and talk about these issues and to see if indeed there is a window of opportunity there. What I do sense is there is some political willingness on the part of the mayor and the part of Rosie Sizer to start making some change. I'm still in a wait-and-see mode. The history of the Portland Police Bureau is to say one thing and then do another. The way to keep the pressure on is not only when these crises happen, but also to make that pressure a sustained effort. I think that having all of these community organizations be a part of the racial-profiling committee is vital. At least we have a way to deliver our message to the community, to educate the community about our efforts and have the community respond by putting pressure on their elected officials that change has to happen now.
S.R.: Over the years, advocates on the homeless front have gotten involved in city committees, panels and discussions, and now many feel they were co-opted into the city's procedures toward the same old outcomes. How do you and the NWCRC intend to break through the quagmire of committees and actually change the system?
A.Q.: I think it's important to recognize that we have many tools at our disposal. Negotiating is one of them. Having a dialogue is another. They can be the same thing or different. The problem is when it all stalls and it all becomes talk. But there are a number of different tools and just because we have entered into negotiations or conversation with the police bureau, doesn't mean that we're not going to sue them or hold them accountable in the public arena. It doesn't mean that we're not going to take other actions to jump start the process.
What's interesting about the center and the work that we're doing is we're combining these tools to advance these goals. It's going to be difficult. On the one hand we're going to be suing a police officer and on the other we're going to be talking about policy changes. But that's really how change is going to happen. When you have a case that's costing the city money because they don't have the right policies in place, that's the time to talk about changing those particular policies and say see, it's not working.
S.R.: In working with the Sierra Club, you were working on defending the human rights of people fighting for environmental justice in Mexico. On the streets we see the issues of economic justice overlapping human rights. How do you see that playing out?
A.Q.: Economic issues are at the heart of the problem. You see this locally, and when you're doing international work.
The center is addressing economic justice in the sense that we're trying to present a united front to defend people's rights to do what they need to do to make systemic changes. When we see homeless individuals that are being targeted on the street, we want to do something about it so that the abuse at the individual level doesn't continue to happen, but also so they feel that we have their backs. They can come to the center for resources and support.
One reality is that you may be concerned about these issues, or you don't have time, or resources or know your rights, so you don't know how you can effect change. That's why it's important to have organizations that not only provide the services, but also provide the opportunity to have these conversations and opportunities for organizing. That's one of the things I really like about Portland. We have all of these community organizations that are really trying to deal with very specific constituencies.
S.R.: But the activist community is fractured - with the exception of the immigration rights marches, demonstrations seem to draw a mix of individual agendas. Where are the organized masses to protest the war? Where is the community coming together to protest racial profiling?
A.Q.: I have had conversations with other community leaders in positions similar to mine in other parts of the country, and one conclusion I've come to is that people are really frustrated and really tired, but it's a weird tiredness. The frustration is not being translated into action. It's a fatigue of six years of complete Republican domination. And we could have the same fatigue of six years of Democrat control, but it's a question of how things are done.
Part of it is a true sense that you don't know where this government stands when it comes to what we think of First Amendment protected activities. Political activism, whether it's going on a march, whether it's writing letters, even basic activism is now under scrutiny if you are in disagreement with this government.
I think it's a period where people are really evaluating. We kind of fell asleep at the switch for a while. And frankly, the '90s were a comfortable decade. But the history of the United States is one where government surveillance, government disruption of political dissenters, that has gone on forever. There's always been spying on political opponents on one level or another, we certainly saw it through the Nixon years, we saw it in the '60s with COINTELPRO.
What's new is the voracity with which this government has tried to tap into the private lives of Americans in their desperate search for terrorists. But also I think a lot of it is we thought it would never happen in this country again.
Right now there's a lot of other issues going on, and people are feeling that maybe it's time to take to the streets, but they're having second thoughts. When they see police officers with video cameras videotaping demonstrators that causes concern. I get calls from activists saying I saw cops videotaping me, asking if they can view the tape, wondering why they are doing it.
S.R.: What can we look forward to with the NW Center in 2007?
A.Q.: We're going to make significant strides in racial-profiling issues, whether it's through the adoption of our recommendations or through the other work that we're doing in terms of bringing these racial-profiling cases to the attention of the IPR and pursue litigation if necessary to advance those goals.
I'm also looking forward to our project using the Oregon Open Government laws and the Freedom of Information Act to understand the extent of which federal law agencies and local law-enforcement agencies are conducting surveillance on activists. We know it's happening, the question is whether it happening Portland, who is under surveillance and is it violating Oregon state law. This is one of the biggest things that we get: people very concerned about being under surveillance. The mere concern takes your right away - your right to be actively involved in a participatory democracy.
S.R.: How are corporate interests influencing politics with regard to human rights?
A.Q.: One of the issues that we're working on is the issue of the Greenscare - ecosaboteurs the government has defined as terrorists.
Pennsylvania enacted a domestic terrorism law that basically says that if you interfere with any agricultural operation, whether it's commercial or scientific, you could be considered a domestic terrorist and could be charged. Burning a crop that is being genetically engineered - that would be considered terrorism.
When Congress comes back on Nov. 9th, they're going to be voting on a similar act. It would preempt all of the state laws. But the problem is that these laws are actually being pushed by an organization called ALEC - The American Legislative Exchange Council. It is a front for Exxon Mobile, Shell, Monsanto and other major corporations that are directly affected by the actions of ecosaboteurs, and people who engage in perfectly organized, very American traditions of civil disobedience. If you have a demonstration and you interfere with some of the workers coming in to do research, you could be arrested and charged under this law for interfering with their enterprise.
It's a trigger word - as soon as the American public hears "terrorist," all the other political issues behind the actions of this individual are forgotten. Because this government has created such fear, such a mythology about what a terrorist is, they now have the ability to define it however they want and that takes over any possibility for explaining the reasons for what you're doing.
The mere fact that they're considering this bill, the mere fact that the FBI has said that these ecosaboteurs are the number one domestic terrorism concern, it really creates a sense in any realm - animal rights, environmental activists, even homeless activist - of who's next?