Last night at Bike Happy Hour we were joined by three people who’ve been on the front lines of fighting against ICE and protecting immigrants and migrants from deportation.
For activists Holly Brown, M, and Dina, it was their second time joining us at the Rainbow Road Plaza. And unlike the first time, they didn’t use megaphones to yell at Mayor Keith Wilson and Happy Hour attendees who were eager to hear from him. Instead, they used my microphone. We talked about what happened at the Mayor Wilson event, how bikes can help fight the Trump Administration’s aggressive and unlawful use of federal forces in Portland, and we learned more about the work and motivations of this trio of activists.
My first order of business was to ask if anyone had questions or feelings to share about what happened at the Mayor Wilson interview. I know some folks on hand wanted to just move on (I could see the grimaces and head shaking!), but I felt like it was important to close the loop on that episode.
Aaron Kuehn stepped up to the mic to say the way protestors acted at the interview event, “Prevented there being a productive, almost once in a lifetime opportunity to have that kind of accessibility to an elected leader.” “Almost everybody I’ve heard from and who’s talked about this said they felt really bad, that that was a miscalculation in terms of tactics, and that we felt like we lost an opportunity.”
Dina, an organizer and church group volunteer who protests at the ICE facility almost nightly and who’s been attacked by an ICE officer, replied to Kuehn. “I hear you when you say it was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, and that is a really big shame on the Mayor,” Dina said. “You are his electorate, if he’s not giving you opportunities to speak to him I think that means that guy shouldn’t be in that job position, because that is the entirety of the job. When you are an elected representative, if you’re not talking to your constituents, there’s a problem there.”
Dina explained that the reason they showed up and shouted at the Mayor was, “Because we cannot get these people to sit down with us. The only time they try to talk to us is when we are going and making them look bad somewhere. That’s the only time any of them will give us the time of day.”
“I’m not trying to sit here and belittle your points,” Dina continued. “But I’m saying that the frustrations you’re experiencing… it’s not because of us and what we did. It’s because the Mayor is choosing to make all of those choices. To not talk to his people who elected him.”
Another Bike Happy Hour regular named Fred who was at the Mayor Wilson event, spoke next: “The sad part about this is that we agree with what you’re saying; but at the same time, we also are people that ride our bikes regularly in town and would be really nice to have had a chance to talk to the Mayor. Now he doesn’t want to come back to talk to us because we can’t control the meeting to keep that from happening again.”
“I bike all the time and bike issues are very important to me,” Brown (who was one of the most vocal protestors at the Mayor event) responded. “I definitely understand. I am sorry that that did not turn out the way that it was planned.” Brown explained that the reason they showed up was because they were monitoring the Mayor’s schedule and there are very few events where they could have access to him. “Our focus was solely on the Mayor,” Brown said. “We did not come with any animosity towards people here.”
Brown wanted to emphasize that the situation at ICE and what Trump and his cronies are doing, “Is extremely serious.” “They’re deporting entire families and people are having serious side effects because of all the chemicals in the South Waterfront area. So the fact that he hasn’t talked to us about it is honestly very disturbing.”
M, an activist with family in Los Angeles who fears deportation every day, said, “At any point, the Mayor could spoken up, he could have addressed us and then continued his conversation with you guys. But that is not what he decided to do… What he did, it was cowardly.”
To shift the conversation to how bicycle riders can help fight ICE and Trump’s troops, I recounted how Portlanders created a “bike swarm” to aid protestors during the Occupy and George Floyd protests and read a passage from the excellent book, In the City of Bikes (Harper, 2013). The book traces the history of cycling in Amsterdam and author Pete Jordan documents how Holland established a Cyclists Regiment of nearly 3,000 cyclists during World War II as Nazi Germany marched toward Amsterdam. “Their motto: ‘Swift and Nimble — Composed and Dignified.’ These troops drilled and conducted maneuvers on their bikes,” Jordan wrote.
“Bikes are actually a perfect tool to fight fascism,” M shared. They described the “Barrio Walks” program they volunteer with through Portland Contra De Los Deportaciones (Portland Against Deportations). “We get into the communities that are being affected. We hand out, ‘know your rights’ information. We give them resources,” M shared. “You could also do that on a bike. You could get together with some bike buds, pick a neighborhood, and go and do that exact same thing. It’s important right now because a lot of folks are too scared to leave their house.”
M also suggested that cyclists could organize mutual aid food distribution and do community patrols. “If you’ve noticed increased ICE activity in certain neighborhoods, get on your bikes and patrol the neighborhood, get whistles, look out for ICE, and call the PIRC [Portland Immigrant Rights Coalition] hotline.”
“There are no wrong answers when it comes to advocacy. There’s a lot of different things that you can do,” Dina added.
The overall message from all three was to just do something, anything, to push back against Trump and anti-protestor narratives from elected officials and the media — both of whom Dina believes are lying to us.
“They’re not telling you how bad it is and how dangerous this moment in history is right now,” Dina said. “And I don’t want to fearmonger, I believe we can come out of this; but only if we unite as a whole city, only if everyone comes out and everyone says we treat each other as humans.”
The discussion ended on an impassioned plea from M, which you can listen to and/or read below:
“We’re city of roses, let us be the thorns that protect the roses that are our beautiful immigrant and migrant community. Let us be the the thorn in the side of this fascist administration that thinks it’s okay to come and kidnap, brutalize and send our neighbors, friends and family off to death camps. That thinks it’s okay to sick the National Guard on civilians.
Pease take all that love and all that rage in your heart and fight this fight, because it’s not just one fight. This is all of our struggle.
This is personal to me, because this is my family on the line. I come from a line of people that gave up everything to be here, and I have to worry about missing a call from a family member and thinking, ‘Oh, my God, was that the call? Did it finally happen?’
Our community is only as safe as we make it. So, if one group of people is being subjected to this violence and being brutalized and sent to these camps, it can happen to any of us, and that’s why we need a united front now. Talk to your friends, talk to your neighbors. Make a plan. Do something, do anything, because we’re gonna need all the help we conduct we can get. We need all hands on deck for this.”
After I turned off the mics, Holly, M, and Dina stuck around to talk with Bike Happy Hour attendees. Holly passed out a flyer about how to identify and report ICE agents and folks signed up to be on email lists. I know some folks disagree with how I handled this because I received criticism before, during, and after the event. But to me, it felt like a very productive evening and I’m glad we got to give these relationships another chance.
In the words of one attendee, “It was a surprisingly civil conversation at a seemingly uncivilized time.”
Thanks to everyone who showed up and took part.
Thanks for reading.
BikePortland has served this community with independent community journalism since 2005. We rely on subscriptions from readers like you to survive. Your financial support is vital in keeping this valuable resource alive and well.
Please subscribe today to strengthen and expand our work.
I thought the discussion last night was really productive. Huge props to Jonathan for his leadership and magnanimity. Thank you.
I share the widespread disappointment that we didn’t get the dialogue with Wilson about the diverters and other bike/transpo issues. If I did not believe those issues were important, I would not spend so much time here. I thought it was counterproductive and discourteous to shout down Wilson and Jonathan at the earlier event.
That being said, Dina was right to lay the blame for the lack of access to Wilson with the Mayor and his office. This whole saga comprises infighting among groups that, in my view, should be natural allies. I think Jonathan made this point eloquently with the book passages he cited. I feel like similar dynamics exist around homelessness, historically Black neighborhoods, police funding, etc. We end up fighting with competing interest groups to the detriment of our cause. However poor their past behavior, the ICE protestors brought an olive branch last night. I would encourage my fellow bike supporters to accept it despite unresolved bad feelings — as a pragmatic way forward in perilous times.
Thanks for this perspective, Micah.
Not that I think the emotional labor of this should be on Jonathan, but I would love for there to be a mulligan with Mayor Wilson on this topic.
I do agree with all the sentiment that a lot of this is on Mayor Wilson, and how he needs to get a thicker skin if he’s going to be mayor. He needs to learn, and learn quickly, that community forums like this aren’t going to be the same as corporate all-hands from his trucking company. (And that providing more avenues for constituent engagement is also on him.) But I do think it’s reasonable to give him some grace to hopefully figure this out.
Me too! I’m guessing most here would agree.
Absolutely.
If I was an elected official and those “protestors” treated me the same way, not letting me speak or respecting me when I said “I’ll answer in the Q&A”, I would walk away too.
Civility and respect go both ways, and the bullhorn crowd showed neither.
The mayor said he would address your concerns during the Q&A. Why should your off-topic conversation take priority over the discussion everyone else was there to have?
The mayor made room for both conversations, and your tactics made sure neither happened.
If he was truly making room, he would be scheduling a lot more talks with constituents.
And yes, the rise of fascism and sending people to concentration camps should take priority.
My guess you graduated from the Portland school system as you obviously have no idea what a fascist concentration camp is, as what happened so far in this country isn’t even close even as horrible as it is.
But Gulags were for re-education.
No, Gulags were work prisons. The USSR gulags never came to close to the populations of the USA gulags we have now.
Its wild how many conservatives are on this site.
You really don’t know much about the gulags, do you?
I’ve read that book by the conservative Anne Applebaum and despite her overt anticommunist bias her findings match Sky’s comment. What she writes exposes very little practical or moral equivalence.
It was more or less a system of making the centralized economy function. Unlike the holocaust rounding up people was more or less indiscriminate and even the ostensible reasoning used at the time that they were a means of reeducating political opponents was a fig leaf.
I assume you me people in prison for crimes when you refer to:
So here is the thing. A person who breaks a law and goes through due process, being found guilty of crime, and then placed in a prison is not the same as those marched off to gulags
Gulags were not “work prisons”. Any suggestion they were the same as Jim Crow era Mississippi work farms or something is an misrepresenting of a historical fact. And I’m also saying that as someone who, when he was kid in the 1980s, actually met persons who had been in a gulag before escaping to the West (USA).
I might suggest to you to do a LOT of reading on Miami University’s gulag hub. I think that might help open your eyes a bit.
That poster has been told what gulags were and what they were for several times over multiple threads. The poster has not shown any interest in learning and seems to only use the word to make America seem worse than the Soviet Union/Communism/Socialism which therefore excuses their own extremism for whatever the cause du jour is. Then Palestine, now ICE and tomorrow who knows.
Why are you concerned? Are you worried that your bicycle may be a secret MAGA Republican who’s trying to bring you over to the dark side by having you read this blog? Or are you worried that some of the debate you respond to might eventually rub off onto you and you’ll suddenly be infected with a desire to accumulate capital, buy low and sell high, replace your bike with an ebike, order a custom bike, and vote for the same candidates and expect different results?
Trump used the Alien Enemies Act, which was last used to imprison 120,000 US resident in concentration camps, to deport people with the legal right to work and live in the USA to widely-condemned concentration camps. And Trump has continued to deport people with right to live in the USA to concentration camps in other nations with some of the worst human rights records in the world. The fact that you can’t admit these basic facts, suggests to me that you may be sympathetic to fascist violence.
https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/04/29/el-salvador-inhumane-prison-lockdown-treatment
El Salvador Murder Rates:
Sorry you’d prefer 6,000+ people keep getting murdered in El Salvador to the discomfort of some gang members. Human Rights Watch should do a write up about the life of law abiding citizens and the quality of life they have before and after Bukele. It’d be a real metaphor for this article.
He didn’t say fascist, you put those words in his mouth. Our prisons and various ICE facilities are not unlike concentration camps.
“Our prisons and various ICE facilities are not unlike concentration camps.”
I’m sorry, that is just an ignorant statement. You should know better.
It’s not wrong, you’re just working with an overly contrived definition that manages to exclude things that work and act exactly like a concentration camp.
Something like “If it isn’t Jews or Japanese people in the 1930s and 40s, it isn’t a concentration camp”
Good grief!
He’s not obliged to talk to every extremist.
Just about everything I read that you post tells me you are in support of the extremist status quo we have lived under for decades.
Its very telling that you think people who dont want concentration camps are extremists. Thats something only a right wing extremist would think.
It’s not the “not wanting concentration camps” that makes someone an extremist.
Oh, it’s just doing anything at all to voice that opinion or push back against the fascists that, ironically, makes one an extremist.
No what makes you an extremist is saying and doing exteme things. There lots of ways to “push back against the fascists” that are not extremist.
You understand that your approach to discussing this topic isn’t going to change anyone’s mind, right? Shockingly, calling people fascist racists doesn’t get them on board with your cause.
Sky rightfully pointed out that the US government is now run by a fascist political movement (MAGA/America First). You may disagree with this but lying about what Sky wrote is still a really ****** thing to do.
Why do you need my or anyone elses words to you on board with the cause of justice? Why is it not the fascist actions of our government not getting you on the cause of justice? Why is it not your moral compass thay isnt getting you on the side of justice.
There is a famous poem, starts something like “First they came for the socialists, and I said nothing”
That poem is a poem of regret, because the fascists will always create a new enemy to go after. They have to or they couldnt have power. Will you be the one at the end of the poem who has no one to speak for you?
If you characterize everything that is not an open border free for all fascism, and going back to that open border free for all is justice…yeah, I’ll roll the dice on becoming a regretful poet.
If this was the one and only chance to talk to the Mayor, he’s not really doing his job.
And they are not being effective
In your initial comment you claim that
but below, in response to Chris I’s comment, you appear to agree that the mayor is avoiding the conversation for ‘obvious’ reasons. Which is your actual position (or did you change your mind between the comments)? I think the mayor’s willingness to engage on this topic is an important point. I don’t blame Wilson for not wanting to attempt to enforce the provisions of the city’s agreement with ICE, but I do think it’s reasonable to ask him to take a position on it.
To reiterate, I don’t think disrupting BHH was a good or productive move. It’s exactly this kind of interfactional conflict I’m trying to discourage among activists. The ICE activists claim shutting down BHH did allow them to get some traction, and it’s not obvious to me that they are wrong. OTOH, it is pretty obvious that much of the city government is trying to avoid the issue of the land use agreement, which just cements the perspective that it was a toothless token gesture all the time. If the city treats their (anti-ICE activists’) priorities that way, what makes you think they will take a different approach to transportation issues?
Yes, the mayor said he would address protestors in the Q&A segment, according to Jonathan’s report.
I haven’t heard anyone disputing the basic facts, so my assessment has not changed.
Is it? https://www.portland.gov/mayor/keith-wilson/news/2025/9/17/city-portland-will-issue-land-use-violation-notice-ice-facility
PS My response to Chris I’s comment was a joking reference to the fact that the protestors don’t seem to actually want a civil discussion with the mayor (I was imagining them showing up for a meeting at the mayor’s office, megaphones blaring). If they do want actual dialog (which might even include listening to different points of view), I’ve seen no evidence of it.
Thanks for the reply! I can’t speak for the ICE protesters, but I would be surprised if they would turn down a chance for a discussion with the mayor. I thought they should have waited for the Q&A, and I posted a comment to that effect on Jonathan’s story the next day. I interpreted the mayor’s deferral of discussion to the Q and A, as well the relatively timid land use violation (which has a 60 day waiting period), as stalling tactics. Engaging in this way only increases the incentive for protestors to use disruptive tactics.
And yet, by all accounts, that’s exactly what they did.
Isn’t that how land use violations work? You’ve got to follow the process, otherwise you’ll be challenged and lose.
The mayor ended the interaction by leaving, not the protesters, who remained and, in fact, did have some constructive dialogue. Again, I’m not blaming the mayor for disengaging. I’m just claiming you can’t conclude from this that the protesters don’t want any engagement, as several commenters here have claimed.
The city has long resisted invoking the agreement, which has been criticized as a performative fig leaf that allows the city to claim sanctuary status without interfering with the feds’ terrorization of suspected immigrants. It’s good that the city did issue the violation, but that’s not enough to conclude that Wilson is standing up to ICE in any meaningful way.
Do you really think that description accurately captures what happened?
The protestors had an opportunity for engagement, wouldn’t follow the rules (which most of us learned in kindergarten), and lost it. Bad on them.
The city moves slowly; that’s unfortunate, but that’s just how it is, especially where things like permit violations are involved. That’s the nature of bureaucracies. I’m sure the delicate political situation did not speed things up — I’m imagining lots of consultations with lawyers to make sure everything was done properly.
It’s not Wilson’s role to “stand up to ICE”. He has a few levers he can pull, but not many. The place to challenge ICE is in the courts and in Congress. Those are the entities that can rein in ICE, not city mayors.
It was my impression at the time that the mayor chose to end the interaction. Like I’ve said several times, I did not find the protesters’ tactics to be useful or effective. I’m sure they are sincere and serious about getting the ICE facility closed. I doubt they will succeed. I thought Wilson’s choice was defensible if unfortunate.
But, at any rate, I feel that immigrant advocacy and bicycle advocacy are related vocations that rely on similar motivating spirits. I think our community will be stronger and more resilient if we forge strong working relationships. I’m asking the BP commentariat to cut the ICE protesters some slack on this one, even if you are really pissed off. I thought the way Jonathan turned the dynamic around was pretty inspiring.
I thought the incident revealed a certain level of maturity on the part of the protestors, but I otherwise share your assessment: ineffective, sincere, unlikely to succeed.
And I agree also that building alliances is usually helpful.
This sounds like it was extremely productive. I wish I could attend more often, it’s just a tricky time of day for me.
I get that it was frustrating that they sort of took over the Wilson interview, but the explanation makes perfect sense. If he refuses to talk to them any time, then they have to get creative. Makes sense and it’s too bad he ran away and that it disrupted a different but important discussion.
When people say there are lots of ways to get involved, I just always feel like any of them are so small. It makes sense, one person is small. But like, in my neighborhood I just don’t see ICE activity. Lucky I guess, although anything could happen. But it means I just don’t SEE any of it, makes it hard to know how to be helpful.
He said he would talk to them in the Q&A!
He was willing to talk to them during the Q and A. It seems to me that they are the ones who refused to speak to the Mayor at the event preferring to smash it to bits for headlines. While I am glad that it did not occur because I know how hard Jonathan works at this stuff it would have been interesting to see how they reacted if someone had showed up with an air horn and just blasted it at them every time they tried to speak.
If every public engagement is hijacked to only discuss the loudest group, the incentive for more public engagement evaporates and every advocacy group is encouraged to be louder and more disruptive than everyone else. This is race to the bottom.
That’s not what is happening here maxD. I’m not a robot. I’m an intelligent being that experiences things, evolves and learns from them. And I also assume most other folks are the same. If another group came to shout down one of my events, I might handle it differently. And I will also assume that Holly, Dina, and M and their friends have read some of the hundreds of comments and critiques about what they did. Not saying it will change their tactics, but I’m sure they’ve gained some perspective after what transpired over the past month. I disagree this is a “race to the bottom.” I think you and some others just cannot see over your own disdain for the tactics and so you cannot see that we just managed to take a bad thing and turn it into a good thing.
I am not saying that you are a robot, I am saying that I do not buy their excuses that is is the Mayor’s fault for not meeting with them or meeting with enough constituents. He did agree to meet with you and people concerned about traffic safety and they hijacked that opportunity. Wilson offered to answer questions after the interview and they hijacked that, too. From what I read in the article, they are unapologetic about their tactics and feel justified by their righteous indignation. I share their indignation, btw, but I do have disdain for their tactics. They made community dialog and access to the mayor more difficult. I think you were very gracious to platform them and I imagine some benefit came from them sharing information, but I think you may have a bit of blind spot to the damage of their actions and their denial of responsibility for ruining the prior event.
Classic narcissists will blame everyone for problems and issues they cause. It can never ever be their fault, even partially.
What a good era to have on hand a good working definition of narcissism
Its literally the mayors fault for not making time to speak to more constituents. If politicians arent speaking to their constituents, how are they supposed to know what their constituents want?
We go way to easy on those we give power to.
You can both be correct here. Great that you want to engage, learn, etc. Keep doing that! But that doesn’t make maxD incorrect here. We all want a whole lot of better things to happen, but policing everyone over which dream positive outcome is actually the most important one while they all slip from our grasp is not the best strategy. Maybe the type of involvement you’re doing can help with that, who knows? It’s still good to point out that “my issue is important and therefore yours isn’t” is a bad way to engage. I share the discomfort with rewarding that even while I respect your willingness to hear people out.
Those groups don’t want dialog. They want submission and their tactics aren’t all that different from some other notable groups in history. It’s sad Maus seems to bow to them.
Stipulating that people are acting out, if a dozen or so of my relatives had been blown up in the course of daily life, if the government I pay taxes to were providing the bombs, and my representatives to that government were shining it on, I might well be pretty outrageous. I could be the one shouting down a chat about bike infrastructure.
I’m trying to think about which places in Portland could use a diverter versus which of my siblings, cousins, nieces, nephews, grandnieces etc could be spared. Or not spared, as the case may be. I just met my grandniece for the first time last month and she is a lovely little person–I love her.
What if nobody at the infrastructure chat had any power at all over the situation you described? Would you still be shouting it down rather than expressing yourself to people who actually could change something?
What do you imagine you would be accomplishing?
It’s a hypothetical. The mayor is a local political leader who has at least tangential power as the voice of the city. It’s for him to say ‘why are my constituents so angry, and why is there dissension in a public forum?’
Understand me, I can talk for hours about bike infrastructure with anyone who will sit in for that. It has to do with my own skin and also my opportunities, my pursuit of happiness if you will. But: At some point the outrages against remote third parties are at such a pitch that I cannot be the last to speak or to shout.
All the more reason to take the opportunity to make your case directly to the mayor when offered the chance, rather than show you cannot be trusted to hold a civil dialog even when the mayor is sitting right in front of you offering to listen.
You can keep defending the undefendable, but the results speak for themselves.
This is victimization porn. No one at that protest has any relatives or friends or anyone they even know in danger from combat in the Middle East.
So, no empathy for people in danger?
Can I at least have a voice on how my tax dollars are used, as in: Not for bombs dropped onto civilian populations using farcical rules of engagement, such as ‘our AI says a Hamas person walked into that building’?
I reject your description of my comment as porn.
Victimization fetish then?
Fantasizing what it would be like to experience violent family tragedy?
Take your pick, it’s not healthy whatever it is.
American munitions were/are blowing the crap out of Yemen, killing hundreds of thousands, dispossessing millions and inflicting mass starvation with actual deaths.
The whole idea that people only oppose Israel because it’s American tax funded is a fallacy. American weapons are in active use all over the globe, but tell me again how you’re only protesting Israel because of your tax dollars.
And it still doesn’t excuse the protestors actions.
I grew up in a community that was pro Israel, for complex reasons. Plucky underdog, that’s how we saw it in that state, in that year. The wrenching irony of the current situation is not lost on me. Yemen, yes, I remember that one, and some others.
I don’t get to say what Israel does and I have only the slightest say in what my country does, partly because I live in a Blue state. I’m not even a ‘native Blue’ voter. I believe there’s a rock solid Conservative case to stop killing when every death spawns a host of enemies.
Nice job. Thanks for doing this.
There was no way to make everyone happy with this one. Your willingness to have the tough conversation, to be open to everyone, and to foster conversation is pretty amazing, Jonathan.
Was this being “open to everyone” or simply open to a view he agreed with. Those are very different things.
I don’t go to Bike Happy Hour that often, but I left work early a few weeks ago because I wanted to hear the mayor talk about the diverter situation. The part that’s most frustrating to me is that the “diverter situation” is also related to the shadowy PEMO office that seems to take business and neighbor complaints off the public record and use those complaints to justify sweeping homeless camps and changing street infrastructure without any public process. Perhaps because we are bike people and seem less threatening, the mayor agreed to come chat with us, and some of us were going to press him on issues that I suspect these anti-ICE protesters also agree with, especially when it comes to the treatment in Portland of our vulnerable, unhoused neighbors.
I have family members who are immigrants and am terrified for them for what’s happening in our city right now, so it’s not that I’m not connected closely to this issue. I understand that these may be people who are engaged with politics and activism for the first time, and the zeal of folks newly engaged on an issue can sometimes mean they perceive anyone who is not completely aligned with them at all times as bad. I don’t know if they understand that this kind of interruption of an event with allies and potential allies can be quite damaging to coalition building.
Jonathan, you are incredibly generous to have given this time and forum to the activists, when I feel like they didn’t really display much respect to you and other attendees. What would have happened if they had reached out to you to talk before the event, to ask how they could participate? What if they had just showed up without signs and asked the questions during the Q&A? I wonder if these activists understand that, with their decision to protest the way they did, not only did the mayor not address their concerns, he was able to skirt any accountability in a public forum for other terrible things happening under his watch in our city.
I thought this was such a meaningful way to engage with the activists! I appreciate the way you’ve handled this, Jonathan, allowing for perspectives to overlap and creating the space for folks to move on from the previous conflict.
Grateful to read about what cyclists can do to support our community with small actions, and I wish you shared the full flyer Portland Contra las Deportaciones handed out to folks, so that those who missed the event can learn from it.
Hi LiudaSoFar,
Thanks for your comment. Here’s another version of that flyer if folks need the entire thing:
Great, thank you!
Right, so no megaphone this time — but still no bloody apology either?
The anti-ICE protestors who crashed Bike Happy Hour like a rogue kangaroo at a tea party finally came back — this time with a mic, not a megaphone (progress?). Jonathan, ever the community camp counsellor, handed over the mic and let people chat it out. Bit of a group therapy session, bit of a PR spin cycle.
But let’s be honest: they still didn’t say sorry. Not to the attendees or the mayor they silenced at the last event. And definitely not to people like Cloud Elvengrail — a Black, disabled woman who lives across the street from the ICE facility and is literally being tormented by these same protestors’ “actions.”
Cloud’s not some right-wing agitator. She didn’t vote for Trump. She supports peaceful protest. What she doesn’t support is the weaponized noise, threats, and trauma that come with revving engines, bullhorns, and sirens at all hours of the night — right outside her window. She’s had her ear literally bleed from the noise. She has PTSD. No A/C. And no easy way to leave. She’s stuck in low-income housing with nowhere else to go — and these people are making her life a living hell.
And now some of them are out here giving speeches about community solidarity — while folks like Cloud are still being ignored, dismissed, or, worse, retaliated against. And not one mention from Maus or the speakers about her or what she’s going through. Not even a “sorry if we harmed anyone.” Just more bike metaphors and wartime quotes.
Jonathan called the evening “productive.” But if your reconciliation session doesn’t include even a nod to someone who’s literally bleeding from the fallout of your movement — that’s not productive. That’s performative.
Justice can’t be a one-way street. If your activism doesn’t include Black, disabled women — if you’re too proud to apologise, or even acknowledge them — then maybe it’s not justice you’re after. Maybe it’s just volume.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFf6NoNrFFo
Angus. Reading would really help your credibility in my eyes. You are soo fixated on your anti-Jonathan agenda you must have missed when one of the most vocal agitators from the protest event actually said the words, “I’m sorry” last night.
It wasn’t an apology. Just children blaming others for their own selfish actions.
“Brown (who was one of the most vocal protestors at the Mayor event) responded. “I definitely understand. I am sorry that that did not turn out the way that it was planned.”“
And what about Angus’ example of all the people they are tormenting nightly? Just casualties of the cause? Sucks to be them?
I notice it has quickly become “how do we help you” rather than “how can we help each other”.
That’s not partnership, thats an abusive relationship.
Jake9, I’m not going to defend what they do over at the ICE building. I have nothing to do with that. Why don’t you ask them?
And I’m sorry but what do you mean by this:
Are you really trying to say that I’m abusive toward these folks?
Maybe they have been abusive towards you.
“Are you really trying to say that I’m abusive toward these folks?“
Quite the opposite, JM. They are being abusive towards you.
They expect you and any cycle community to help them while they offer nothing back. This after they admitted they didn’t care one bit about you or your event, they just wanted to yell at the mayor.
I’m not asking you to defend their actions at the ICE building as their actions are indefensible. I’m just asking you acknowledge it and not gloss over what’s happening there as it seemed you were trying to do with Angus.
Ah OK. Thanks for clarifying. I can see why you would say that.
And I have never and will never gloss over anything that happens. I just might not always feel like certain things are relevant to focus on at certain times. Obviously there’s a lot of shit that goes on at protests. Some people are more violent than others and I personally wouldn’t do a lot of the stuff I see happening. But again, why am I being asked about the behavior of people I don’t know at a protest I have nothing to do with? I’m not responsible for those folks and what anyone does at a protest is there own business. Activism tactics are a very personal and often emotional thing and folks have different reasons for behaving different ways. Random violence and property destruction are bad tactics in my personal opinion and I don’t encourage or take part in that type of behavior.
I never thought you would be the kind of person who would do the random violence and property destruction that you know is happening over there.
That’s the very reason I am so perplexed at your eagerness to offer aid to the groups that are doing it.
From personal experience I know full well what it is like to actively support people doing bad things whether I agreed with the morality of it or not. Because I (and others) did support them those bad things were done.
Same as with supporting the anti-ice violent protestors. Your support will allow them to be violent and destroy property. You might try to say these groups you are trying to liaison with aren’t doing anything bad, but they kinda are. You can’t wash your hands off the support you give them.
Hopefully that wasn’t overly melodramatic. These are trying times for all of us.
You’re making the usual specious connections between any random bit of vandalism and anyone who supports the anti-ice / anti fascist position that the far right makes on fox news.
You can’t paint all people who hate ice as if they’re each personally responsible for anything that happens. It’s shameful and frankly disgusting that you would do that.
Thanks for responding, Jonathan. I hear you — I get that you don’t feel responsible for what others do at protests you weren’t part of. But there’s something deeper going on here that I hope you’ll consider.
When someone in your position stays neutral or vague about violent behavior — especially behavior tied to protests with ideological overlap to your audience — it can come across as passive endorsement. You may not mean it that way, but silence or soft language on this stuff sends a message: “This isn’t important enough to call out.”
Take the recent assault on Katie Daviscourt. I know she’s not someone you’d align with politically — many of us don’t. But that’s exactly why it’s important. She was hit in the face with a flagpole at a protest outside the ICE building — a space closely tied to the local activist scene. Whether people like her politics or not, physically attacking a journalist (even a polarizing one) crosses a serious line.
You don’t have to completely agree with all her takes — I don’t either — but ignoring or minimizing violence because the target is “on the other side” only fuels more of it. And worse, it reinforces the idea that some people deserve it. That’s a dangerous message, whether intentional or not.
You’ve built a strong platform rooted in community and accountability. But accountability cuts both ways — it means speaking up especially when it’s inconvenient or politically messy. People look to your cues. When those cues are neutral or dismissive in the face of violence, it creates space for more of it — and that’s something I know you don’t support.
https://www.oregonlive.com/crime/2025/10/conservative-media-personality-reports-assault-at-portland-protest-slams-police-as-antifa.html
Thanks for this comment José G. I hear you and these are important points that you make.
My response is to consider who I am and what my role is in this community. I am one person trying to make a viable business out of community journalism and media content. Because I don’t shy away from accountability, I have leaned into being a community leader (and not just an objective journalist), and I believe it’s important to connect bicycling and transportation to larger social and political issues/movements, it puts me in a difficult place of having to think carefully about a very wide range of complicated and sensitive topics all at the same time. It’s a lot to juggle and the expectations are extremely high — as is the potential for mistakes, for which a lot of people are eager to see me make so they can tear me down. Being in that position takes a lot of mental energy and leads to burnout. I’ve also been targeted and nearly cancelled a few times and the stress and impact that has had on me is cumulative and takes a really big toll on my work and how I operate.
I’m not shying away, I’m just giving some context. It’s relevant to your comment because you’re asking me to make clear stands on a very complicated issue that is a bit out of my field of expertise and my typical editorial lane. My opinion on that topic of violence at protests is nuanced and I’ve been around enough to know the internet hates nuance. I also don’t like being pressured into making decisions about things until I am 100% ready. After all, unlike a politician or public servant, I can say whatever I want whenever I want because I’m the owner of a private, independent business and not obligated to anyone other than the hundreds of individuals who fund my work.
Sorry to ramble. I understand I am accountable to the community because of my role and platform and I embrace what comes with that. But that doesn’t mean I will be pressured into doing things online that I worry won’t be understood, will be misrepresented, and/or that take a lot of time and energy to do well. I don’t know what happened with this Daviscourt person. I wasn’t there and haven’t spent time to research it. It’s unfair for you to imply that I’m ignoring it or minimizing it because she’s “on the other side” (I always try to avoid the “their side” “our side” thing BTW.). I don’t feel like it would make any sense for me to come out with a statement saying: “What happened to [insert name of someone I have zero connection to who’s involved in an issue I’m not covering at all] is bad and shouldn’t have happened.”
So I will weigh in and make statements about important matters only when I feel compelled to do so — and that’s because of the reasons stated above — and any implication that I’m avoiding accountability or trying to play politics, is just wrong.
Protected free speech is not “violence”, no matter how much you may want it to be.
So many people in these comments seem to be on the wrong side of history. No anger about ICE but extreme anger about those speaking up for those being violently ripped from their families and communities.
It’s entirely possible to think the way ICE is behaving is a stain on America and also be upset that some protestors disrupted a community event because they didn’t want to wait their turn to have the mic.
On the one hand, creeping fascism. But on the other hand a rude protest? Just can’t figure out which one is worse.
(This just seems to be how fascism happens)
Edit: lol, I thought I was exaggerating, but watts literally said this in the next comment. Mind boggling.
Well, since the rude protest ruined the chance to get an infrastructure fix and an understanding why the diverter was removed versus the creeping fascism which is still undeterred by that group yelling at the mayor then yes, the rude protest was worse.
The rude protest did real damage and did no real good.
So because the protest was unsuccessful at singlehandedly stopping fascism, people shouldn’t protest?
If you believe fascism is really here, and they do (they’re looking more correct by the day), it seems the time for walking on eggshells is probably past. At least understand, that’s why this happened. It could be a mistake, which they acknowledged, but it seems to me understandable why they would make that mistake.
“If you believe fascism is really here“
I don’t. I think things are bad, but since I know what fascism is and have seen life I know that what is happening now is not even close.
Obama forcefully deported more immigrants than Trump and I don’t seem to remember him being called a fascist or violent protests against ICE then.
I think this is a political tantrum being waged by the left and enacted by people desperately seeking meaning in their lives. Real things are happening that are of far greater concern. You’re being played and wasting all your time and energy on this.
To be fair, the tactics Trump is using are very different than those used by Obama, and those may be fueling some of the cries of “fascism”.
All data I’ve seem suggests that that the American people generally support the deportations, but are quite uncomfortable with how they’re being carried out. I believe Trump is exploiting gaps in the law, but is generally behaving legally (but this could change at any time!), and it is my hope that some of those gaps will be closed if Democrats can get their act together and get back into power.
Of course, it seems likely that instead, Democrats will use some of Trump’s tactics to return the favor because “don’t bring a knife to a gunfight” and other BS I hear people spouting.
“To be fair, the tactics Trump is using are very different than those used by Obama, and those may be fueling some of the cries of “fascism”.“
Agreed. Trump also is gleefully advertising the process rather than Obama who kept the deportations quiet. We can see from the California redistricting legislative battle (or lack of one) that the Dems are definitely not rising above and are eager to create new law to resist. It’s not going to be pretty whoever wins in ‘28.
Meanwhile…..hundreds of thousands of feds are furloughed and waiting to see if a Reduction In Force will kick in a huge wave of firings, the Washington Post has front page articles on wasteful VA disabilities and how the French social net is wasteful and they (and by extension us) shouldn’t expect dignified retirements. The Israeli hostages haven’t been released, Gaza is still being bombed and the Ukraine war is getting hotter.
So yeah, things are a little strange.
Immigration ‘reform’ has been the top dem priority forever. There is no way they will ever get any sensible immigration policy through the senate. One reason the national dems are so unpopular is that they have proven completely incapable of delivering ANY political benefits to their supporters, immigration liberalization very much included. Obamacare was the last thing they did, and it is widely (and correctly) seen as an insufficient half-measure that doesn’t really fix the problem.
I also feel compelled to point out how, while the Trump and Obama presidencies may be similar in terms of the rate of deportations, there are huge categorical moral differences between the two.
1) The current regime uses intentionally dehumanizing rhetoric and tactics with blood and soil type references (e.g. immigrants are cast as invading hordes).
2) Trump targets people for ideological reason (and brags about it).
3) Trump does not concede that he is bound by immigration law and is happy to deport people who have played by rules/are here legally.
4) The removal of people to third countries is a moral nadir for our country, at least since the civil war.
4) Trump blurs the line between military and law enforcement.
All these (and more) are hallmarks authoritarian/dictatorial tactics. They also fit into a broader pattern of other policy unrelated to immigration. This is not a ‘normal’ situation, and there is not comparison between Obama and Trump. Our nation is in trouble.
On the one hand, disrupt an event unrelated to the cause and gain nothing. On the other, lose a chance to make our case to the mayor.
Oh wait, I think I know how we can get both!
Murder is much worse, so maybe ALL we should ever talk about is Murder. Fascism, rude protest, don’t come close so we should just ignore them as topics.
I don’t know, I don’t think murder is, in fact, much worse than fascism. Or rather, since fascism leads to mass murder.
But that’s besides the point. People are being up in arms because they didn’t like the tone of this protest, or that the protesters made a miscalculation, without keeping in perspective what it was they were protesting. I’m not saying we should only protest the most important thing. Only that when complaining on a forum about the tactics, maybe consider the severity of what is being discussed.
“People are being up in arms because they didn’t like the tone of this protest, or that the protesters made a miscalculation, without keeping in perspective what it was they were protesting. “
Absolutely not.
People are up in arms because the protestors sabotaged a chance to re-install infrastructure that the Mayor removed. The protesters did real harm to Portland without accomplishing anything positive.
I enthusiastically agree that violence is not the way forward, but any account of violence in relation to this situation needs to be put in the context of the intentionally violent intimidation using displays of state force (militarized federal agents, national guard, etc.) by the federal government. That is also violence; accepting it (or being ‘neutral or dismissive’ in its face) is also corrosive.
People are being violently removed from this country and their family, but the real violence is the protestors who have done almost no actual violence and no actual property destruction.
Even PPB has said that it is ICE who are the instigators of violence at the protestors.
When you get mad about the extremelly minimal violence from the protestors who are trying to do something about the mass violence from ICE, all you are doing is showing that you think the instituionalized violence is ok.
Nobody was assaulted.
You’re trying to connect the wild claims of a Jan6 rioter to anyone who is protesting fascism / ICE.
Hopefully people don’t fall for that claptrap.
But Jonathan, on bluesky it seems like your primary opponents are people who vocalize their problems with the tactics of the black bloc or the “hands off the houseless” attitude of a lot of Portland.
Are the people bringing up issues in Portland really the main problem or is it the problems their bringing up?
I’ve never shied away from talking about Portland’s problems. Don’t lump me in with anyone else’s beliefs. Multiple things can be true at once: Certain actors can perpetuate Portland’s problems w their irresponsible statements and media content and Portland leaders haven’t done enough to fix shit fast enough.
Sounds like an apology, and like a child you’re refusing to accept it.
Can you tell me what the apology is for in your own words?
The protests wouldnt be happening if ICE wasnt putting people in concentration camps and illegally deporting them.
Why do we blame those with virtually no power instead of those with all the power?
Im sure she is loving all the black hawk helicopters flying around, and Im sure you will blame the protestors for that to and not the people in power.
Look, credit where it’s due — someone did say “I’m sorry,” and fair enough for pointing that out. But let’s not pretend that ends the conversation. Saying “sorry it didn’t go as planned” isn’t quite the same as fronting up to how people felt being shouted down at their own community event.
Plenty were rocked up that day to talk bikes and transport with the Mayor — not exactly headline-grabbing stuff, but important all the same. And instead, the whole thing got hijacked. No warning, no dialogue, just volume. That’s what people are still chewing on.
And let’s not forget , Cloud’s heartbreaking story— and she deserves more than a passing mention. But this isn’t just about her. It’s also about the broader pattern: folks being silenced in the name of “justice”. That’s the bit that sticks in the craw.
You called it “productive,” and maybe in part it was. But a proper reckoning would’ve included a clear apology to everyone impacted — not just a vague nod and a pivot back to wartime metaphors.
No anti-Jonathan campaign here, mate. Just reckon you’re sometimes so keen to keep the peace you miss where the harm actually landed.
Cheers,
Angus
I appreciate that reply Angus. And I also appreciate feedback. Yes, call it a weakness of mine that I do tend to focus a lot on keeping the peace. But don’t mistake that for being pollyanna and naive about what’s actually going on. This isn’t my first rodeo.
With all due respect, I didn’t read them actually apologizing. I hear them offering non-apologies.
There is a difference between someone apologizing for their actions (e.g. “I’m sorry for what I did”) and apologizing for the effects of their actions (e.g. “I’m sorry you feel that way”). The latter is a non-apology because it doesn’t address what caused the effects to occur. Clever/manipulative people do this all the time, and my ears perk up whenever I hear a non-apology.
Now, I didn’t attend the event so I only have Jonathan’s quotes to rely on. Per the article above, Dina said “I hear you when you say it was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, and that is a really big shame on the Mayor.” And Brown is quoted as saying “I am sorry that [the last bike event] did not turn out the way that it was planned.” That may have sounded sincere when they said it, but they’re focusing their apology on the outcome of the meeting (how it turned out) rather than their actions during the meeting. Thus, a non-apology.
Hi Will,
So now we are splitting hairs over the quality of the apology, and not debating whether they apologized or not. OK. You and other think they didn’t apologize. I do think Holly apologized. We disagree.
It didn’t sound like an apoolgy to me, either.
That’s because you are ideologically opposed to their political positions, so nothing they say will satisfy you short of changing their political positions.
I very much doubt that any of these people voted Wilson last year.
“I very much doubt that any of these people voted Wilson last year.”
It would be news to me that an elected officials are only responsible to those who voted for them. Portlanders are the mayor’s constituents, “his people,” and we all agree to be bound by the election result and thereby elect our leaders, whether we vote for the winner or not. Do you believe that the mayor should only hear from people who voted for him? Or do I miss something substantive in what you are trying to say?
“Not to talk to HIS people who elected him” is phrased carefully to make it sound like he won’t address his constituents. The reality is that he is avoiding a very small, extreme group here, who have completely unrealistic demands for the city. Literally nothing can come out of talks with these constituents so it should be pretty obvious why he is avoiding it.
Especially if they show up with megaphones.
If he’s avoiding them, it’s no wonder they have to show up to BHH with a megaphone. It completely validates their tactics. Good point!
Young Holly Brown was utterly out-tacticed by the old guy in the yellow cap and yellow vest who swatted her bullhorn 10 feet down the street.
Do I have to explain to you how rank choice voting works (again)?
Why do we need to vote for him?
Fabulous photo by Sarah Risser!
Yet you shut down someone else’s event, which is the height of selfishness.
After 2 years of living 5 blocks from the ICE facility, and using the bike route that runs next to it; Almost every time I biked by I would hear someone yell “BIKE!” a block ahead and the crowd would part for me. Pretty cool!
That is very cool.
I had the same experience.
Did the speakers in the presentation explain why any of them chose to be masked?
Why does that matter? Ice wears masks.
Just because you are fighting against fascists, doesn’t mean you have to adopt their tactics or copy them in any way.
I think you’d have to go back to the Occupy protests to find agitators not wearing masks. They agitators have been hiding their identities far longer than ICE has.
So anybody who uses their First Amendment right to protest is an agitator? I’d say that some protestors are masked because the people in control of the national judicial system are acting at the direction of a person who is self interested, unstable, power mad and a proven liar who has screwed almost every person that ever contracted with him.
A mask is only a slight defense against the technology now in use but perhaps it takes a little more time for the powers we face to find us. If the government is just, why do its agents appear in masks? Do they wear the mask when they look at themselves in the mirror every morning?
I notice that you identify yourself only as one of nine or more Jakes.
“I notice that you identify yourself only as one of nine or more Jakes.“
Like 7 of 9 in Star Trek?? I don’t understand. You’ll have to expound on that if you have time.
So I draw a distinction between protestors that are exercising their first amendment right (yay America) and agitators who seek to cause harm and/or start fights.
As to why the ICE agents are wearing masks? It’s cause they are getting doxxed and threats made to them and their families at home. Agree or disagree with what they are doing, but thats why the masks.
“As to why the ICE agents are wearing masks? It’s cause they are getting doxxed and threats made to them and their families at home. “
so then they wear them for some of the same reasons protesters wear them. People should have the right to express disapproval of the government without fear of retaliation if they aren’t breaking any laws. It’s the same reason voting is anonymous. There are violent radical right wing lunatics in online groups who try to dox protesters as well
“People should have the right to express disapproval of the government without fear of retaliation if they aren’t breaking any laws.“
100% agree!