Parade’s Dunleavy testifies in ILGO lawsuit

By Patrick Markey

Hibernian domination over the Saint Patrick’s Day parade was tested before a Manhattan jury last week as attorneys for the Irish Lesbian and Gay Organization took New York City and the AOH to task for their refusal to allow the gay group to march on Fifth Avenue.

In the opening salvos of a civil lawsuit which will draw gritty battle lines over parade history, police barriers and bus congestion, ILGO lawyers called to the stand John Dunleavy, the parade committee’s often elusive chairman and, for some, the embodiment of the AOH’s conservative tradition.

Wearing a dark blue blazer and maroon tie, Dunleavy was questioned Thursday by ILGO lawyer Diane Knox about Hibernian culture, the AOH’s role in the parade committee and the complicated mechanics of organizing one of the world’s largest parades.

Often asking for questions to be repeated because he could not hear clearly, a ruddy-cheeked Dunleavy seemed more comfortable sketching the history of the AOH and its doctrines than with queries into his deposition and the ILGO controversy.

Although a stickler for the details of formation timing, Dunleavy said he could not recall specifics of conversations he had with city and church officials about the gay group’s protests. Smiling occasionally at the line of questioning, the parade chairman hardly appeared flustered by his hour in the stand.

Asked whether he believed ILGO marching in the parade would spoil the beauty of the day, Dunleavy replied: "Absolutely, yes."

Knox pressed Dunleavy on why the parade committee had applied to have its permit start two hours earlier than normal after ILGO first filed its lawsuit in 1996. ILGO attorneys argued the parade’s formation and line of march format had remained basically unchanged since 1991 and that the committee was perhaps trying to keep ILGO off Fifth Avenue.

"That is not correct, no," Dunleavy answered. "Because I didn’t want any interference in the parade." What interference did he mean? That other groups wanted to participate. Was he referring to ILGO? Yes, he replied.

Knox also delved into the conversations Dunleavy had with Cardinal John O’Connor and New York police officials regarding the parade and ILGO’s protests. Dunleavy said he could not recall specific discussions with either party regarding the ILGO protests.

Questioned next by AOH attorney Ernest Mathews about ILGO’s involvement in the parade in 1991, Dunleavy’s hearing difficulties appeared to be less of a hindrance. Clearly more comfortable discussing his fellow brethren, Dunleavy said he believed ILGO had the right to demonstrate as long as it did not disrupt the parade.

"You don’t care what ILGO does as long as it doesn’t interfere in the parade?" Mathews asked. "That’s correct," Dunleavy replied.

The parade was about pride in heritage, religion and culture, a message that did not fit the behavior ILGO members had displayed when they were allowed to march with AOH Division 7 in 1991, Dunleavy said.

It was a matter of honor to be involved in creating the parade, Dunleavy said, that reflected those values.

Other witnesses in the case will include traffic experts, bus transportation experts and a number of New York Police Department officials whose job it is to prepare the area for the parade and celebrations.

The ILGO civil suit contends that the City of New York, the Police Department and the AOH have violated the group’s constitutional and civil freedoms by denying it a permit to conduct a peaceful protest.

According to court documents, the city argues that allowing ILGO a permit to march on Fifth Avenue on Saint Patrick’s Day before the main parade would cause disruption to police activities, traffic and the parade preparations.

A permit for ILGO’s march would also violate the city’s "no two parades" policy, create gridlock and upset police logistics, such as setting up barriers and carrying out bomb searches, according to prosecution documents.

The city will also argue that given the annual arrests of ILGO members during protests, civil disobedience could disrupt the parade.

But ILGO attorneys dispute all the city claims. Court documents show the group’s attorneys have argued that the city has no such "two-parade" policy, and makes such decisions on an ad hoc basis.

ILGO attorneys also plan to present six scenarios that could allow the group to hold a parade past St. Patrick’s Cathedral without interfering in the parade, disrupting traffic or police preparations and without requiring additional city resources. The groups attorneys also argue that the only civil disobedience involving ILGO relates directly to the denial of a permit.

The trial is expected to continue for another week.