Does that mean women have to wear those silly hats and dress like a ho?
Giuliani resurrected the prohibition era Cabaret Laws. Look it up.
It was part of the "quality of life" campaign to crack down on noise etc.
And yet Cagey is still one of his staunchest supporters.
Does that mean women have to wear those silly hats and dress like a ho?
http://www.lawandsocietysummerinstitutes.org/workshop05/paper9/Laam%20Hae.DOC
Excerpt:
In the early to mid 1990s, mayor Giuliani provided profuse tax incentives to corporations to move into Manhattan, and initiated a “quality of life” campaign in order to cleanse the urban space of cultural and social elements undesired by these corporate citizens. As part of this campaign, Giuliani established the Multi-Agency Nightclub Enforcement Task Force in 1997, in order to monitor violations of the cabaret law. What distinguished the enforcement of the cabaret law by Giuliani from that of his predecessors is that he rendered it illegal for more than three patrons to move rhythmically together in an unlicensed place, and therefore, any incidental dance to the music that could happen by patrons in any bar not zoned for dancing became a violation of the cabaret law. It is next to impossible for live rock music venues or DJ bars to stop customers from head banging or dancing, and get them to sit down and quietly listen to the music. The landscape inside bars that has a “No Dancing” sign next to “No Smoking” has become common.
In response to this increased harassment during the Giuliani regime, an organization, called No Dancing Allowed, later renamed as Legalize Dancing New York City (LDNYC), was formed by cultural critics, club owners, DJs, performers and promoters. The tension that has arisen between LDNYC and NYNA is worth a mention here, because it shows how the city’s club industry has been divided within itself, how this division has been enmeshed in the government’s drive of zoning out dance clubs, and how this division signifies who are the winners in the city’s club industry. LDNYC has been employing street performances and mobilizing the local media in order to secure public support for their drive to ease or get rid of the legal provision that criminalizes dancing in the cabaret law. However, NYNA, which has significant political and financial power, has not been in favor of repealing the provision. NYNA represents licensed establishments, indicating its members are affluent proprietors who can afford the expensive cabaret licensing process, and who are primarily concerned about catering to celebrities, tourists, or newly transplanted dot.com corporation workers. It goes without saying that NYNA’s objection to abolishing the cabaret law is, to a significant degree, latched on to its members’ desire to retain a monopoly in the industry. So, people point to the reality that the cabaret regulation has effectively created a club cartel composed of a few mega clubs and expensive bars, while little venues featuring obscure DJs or experimental music and are not able to afford a cabaret license are more and more closing their businesses.