Recently, we have following laws targeting homeless persons — laws that could apply to a wide range of conduct but enforced only against this one group. San Francisco has now joined this group with a law barring people from sitting or lying on public sidewalks from 7 a.m. to 11 p.m. This is why the two men on the San Francisco seal are shown standing. There were three but one made the mistake of sitting down.
Obviously, many people sit or lie on public sidewalks, but officials insist that police will only enforce the law against the homeless — a problematic claim allowing arbitrary enforcement.
Mayor Gavin Newsom and Police Chief George Gascon pushed for the law over the objections of civil libertarians. We have also recently seen other normally liberal city councils rejecting civil libertarian objections to pass laws curtailing free speech.
I was just in Haight-Ashbury last month and I can only imagine how the police will enforce this law. It is a dangerous practice to give police the power to pick and choose between citizens to arrest for common conduct.
Yet, that appears precisely what residents want. Kathleen Shanahan explains “There’s a difference between an individual that’s contributing to the society and being part of the cultural fabric of a neighborhood, versus an individual that is sitting on the street with their very scary dog, to the point that I am scared to walk down the Haight with my family.” Note to self, leave scary dog at home next time in San Fran. You should also leave your Happy Meal in the car.
Source: Bay Citizen
Jonathan Turley
Buckeye,
Point by point…
1) “You keep tantalizing us with your “warnings” but never state who “they” are.”
My intention is not to “tantalize”, but I can see how it might be perceived, as such. People need to be alert and vigilant, more so than ever…
2) “Who, what, when, where, why, and how is this smart and well-funded “domestic operation” operating?”
Very smart. Very well-funded.
3) “Which group(s) is being persecuted in this “genocide”?”
Those who are vulnerable, i.e. “undesirables”, the mentally ill…
4) Is it more wide-spread than our past history of persecuting, and outlawing, any minority?
Yes.
5) How high does this conspiracy go and what do they hope to gain by it?
It’s about power and control.
6) Inquiring minds want to know.
Inquiring minds should remain open.
anon nurse
This, in my opinion, is the crux of it. I’m seeing what Jill describes — it’s already happening, but the worst of it is still invisible to many… Those behind this domestic operation are pros — they’re smart and well-funded. And, for now, they’re getting away with what I consider to be a form of “genocide” in America.
As it’s been said (Jill’s partial quote above), “first they came…”
They’ve already come…
——————————————————-
You keep tantalizing us with your “warnings” but never state who “they” are. Who, what, when, where, why, and how is this smart and well-funded “domestic operation” operating? Which group(s) is being persecuted in this “genocide”? Is it more wide-spread than our past history of persecuting, and outlawing, any minority? How high does this conspiracy go and what do they hope to gain by it? Inquiring minds want to know.
Gyges,
Yep. Well said.
One of the more effective ways to control a populace is to make it so that everyone’s guilty of breaking some law or another, that way their arbitrary punishment has a semblance of legitimacy.
Or as Buddha put it: Bad guys like arbitrary laws.
As Blouise said, “an interesting discussion”…. with many good and compelling points.
Jill wrote:
“This law proposes to strip other people of their legal rights. All totalitarian governments work in this manner. They begin by stripping the rights of “undesirables”. Many people are willing to trade out the rights of those they consider expendable for what they consider their own comfort of safety. The results of this trade are well described in the words, “first they came…””
======
This, in my opinion, is the crux of it. I’m seeing what Jill describes — it’s already happening, but the worst of it is still invisible to many… Those behind this domestic operation are pros — they’re smart and well-funded. And, for now, they’re getting away with what I consider to be a form of “genocide” in America.
As it’s been said (Jill’s partial quote above), “first they came…”
They’ve already come…
Robert Scheer is a liberal economist. Here is a good video to watch. http://www.commondreams.org/video/2010/09/07-1
Chris Hedges spoke of this very thing recently when he said he met a lot of people at Harvard Divinity School who loved the homeless as long as they didn’t have to smell them.
This law proposes to strip other people of their legal rights. All totalitarian governments work in this manner. They begin by stripping the rights of “undesirables”. Many people are willing to trade out the rights of those they consider expendable for what they consider their own comfort of safety. The results of this trade are well described in the words, “first they came…”
The work of stopping homelessness does not begin with the abridgment of rights. It begins with confrontation with the powerful. The powerful have made deliberate choices resulting in mass impoverishment and lack of help, as in lack of shelter, even for those who desire that shelter. Forcing people who are homeless to move out of sight does nothing to end homelessness. that move is simply the appeasement to power. It is direct confrontation with unjust power that is necessary. It is the willingness to never except the shrinking of anyone’s civil rights for the sake of being made to feel “safe” or “comfortable” or for any reason whatsoever.
Interesting discussion … all points are worthy of consideration
Spencer Neal: You are mistaken. All homeless are worthy, but their wants and needs can be different.
Spencer Neal I have worked with alcoholics and addicts for 27 years years. Some are homeless and some are not. I love them all, but I do realize it can become difficult to have them camped out on your lawn.
Yes indeed spencer, there are “worthy” and “unworthy” homeless. Now alcoholics and drug addicts who have money are all, a priori, “worthy” even when they refuse to get help and even when they mow down pedestrians while DUI. But homeless people, no, they don’t have rights to the streets. This is the double standard of thinking prevalent in our society.
I’m glad people like you are on this case!!!
@Swarthmore mom
People are homeless for a number of reasons. Even if they are alcoholics and drug addicts, do you think that they have no right to be in public? You make a distinction between the “worthy” and the “unworthy” homeless?
I am currently litigating a case against the City of Portland involving their “anti-camping” ordinances. The City’s position is that the homeless may not sleep anywhere outside even though it acknowledges that there are not enough sleeping spaces inside for the homeless in Portland. The City has not yet explained where those people who cannot find shelter inside should sleep. I can hardly wait for the depositions of the city council members to ask that question.
Many of the homeless are alcoholics and drug addicts that refuse treatment or they get treatment and go back to their addictions. They subsist through panhandling and going through dumpsters. I don’t know what the best solution is for this type of homeless person. They like their freedom. Many of them like the camaraderie of living in the parks with their friends. I have observed this in Boulder and among other cities that are very homeless friendly. Austin is another homeless friendly city. They are in a different category than people that have fallen through the cracks due to the bad economy and lack of jobs.
Chris Hedges has written a very good book on the moral bankruptcy of liberals in the US. “The liberal class, found it was more prudent to engage in empty moral posturing than confront the power elite. It is much safer to celebrate civil liberties than to defend them…It is easier still to defend someone else’s right to have used them years ago than to have something yourself to say now and say it now forcibly….The greatest sin of the liberal class, throughout the twentieth century and into the early part of this century, has been its enthusiastic collusion with the power elite…”
I find this to be very accurate. Most liberals will not put themselves on the line for the basic values of our society. The vast majority of our population has been/is being systematically impoverished through the manipulation of financial laws and the destruction of the rule of law. The starvation of children resulting from the corporate purchase of Congress and the Executive means no more to most liberals than the screams of children who die from Obama’s drones and massive wars of empire. Liberals remain silent in the face of suffering. They say nothing, and they certainly do not step up to confront the powerful. Hedges is correct to call them “cowards”.
Being a liberal used to mean that one fought against injustice. Now it simply means a willingness to accept any abuse as long as one grabs some money and power for oneself in the process. The liberal class needs a prophet, not profit, to wake from it’s slumber of cruelty and reemerge to fight for justice.
People are homeless because of the calculated policies of the oligarchy. The oligarchy must be confronted through “soul force” and stopped.
Buddha
That was my first thought.
Haight-Ashbury has a long and distinguished career of harboring quirky characters. Anyone that chooses to live in the area should be prepared to enjoy that quirkiness or plan to live elsewhere.
I have to agree that this would pour cold water on the right of free assembly and free speech, and as Buddha mentioned, it could be used against legal protestors, and I think if homelessness is a problem, attack the problem, not the victims of that problem.
In college, I was arrested under a similar law that was only used during disturbances. The ordinance stated that it was illegal to be in a group of 3 people or more on the street. My arrest was thrown out, but the city got what it wanted. The students off the street at that particular time. This was just after the Kent State Murders and campus demonstrations were common.
Seems to bite at Free Assembly. Laws like this expose the cowardice of their “champions”.
It seems to me the energies of the city would be better spent constructing places where homeless people could lay down or sit without having to resort to the streets, rather than spending city resources stigmatizing and harassing them for their plight as uncomfortable reminders of system failure.
There are so many homeless in San Francisco. They like it there, and they congregate there. I suppose it can get a bit overwhelming to the residents, and they call the mayor’s office and complain and complain. We will have to see how this plays out.
This could also be used against protesters.