Monday, December 25, 2017

Expensive Obviousness

There, in II. E., in the middle of page 11/12, amongst the footnotes for II. E. page 11/12; the Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, in an annual report, mentioned sleep. You can read their report if you have JavaScript and tracking cookies enabled, or can open MSWord documents.

II. Disproportionate and different impact of civil and political rights violations on the poor
E. Restricting the access of the poor to public places
Criminalization of homelessness
30. If being unable to afford shelter, decent food, a warm bath or even the use of a private toilet is not humiliating enough, homeless people can be, and commonly are, further stripped of their dignity and freedom of movement. The criminalization of homelessness is becoming increasingly well documented. Shortages of affordable housing and emergency shelter beds force people onto the streets, where they can then be fined and imprisoned. "Quality of life" offences, such as "camping" in public, sleeping in a public place, begging in public, loitering, sitting or lying down in public places and sleeping in vehicles, can be impossible for the homeless to avoid. To add insult to injury, the enforcement of such laws is very costly; a cruel irony when public funding could instead be directed to poverty alleviation for this group.

I wonder how much money the U.N. spent, and how much cheese was chewed, in the production of the obvious, for their tardy homework.

Thursday, August 24, 2017

Rule Of Law Continues To Be A Farce, Especially In The USA

While the NLCHP publishes a handy list of legal failures and prepare for yet another exclusionary cheese chewing party in Washington D.C. USA, the Supreme Court of India issued a unanimous decision, declaring privacy a fundamental right (although 'reasonable restrictions' is obvious cover for predictable government/corporate abuses).

Friday, February 19, 2016

Even Protected Class Status Would Not Be Enough

California Senator Liu is back, introducing SB-876. In 2015 SB-608 was buried in committee. This time around the DoJ Statement Of Interest and HUD 'explicit sleep crime persecution may result in municipal funding cuts' triggered by Bell v. Boise has altered the political calculus, a little. NLCHP executed a successful office party, and might get around to appealing the Bell v. Boise decision. Meanwhile, yet another year later, uncounted numbers of humans have suffered yet more cruel tyranny.

Wednesday, December 9, 2015

It Is Difficult To Trust The NLCHP

The Bell v. Boise case was a sprout of hope on a dark and gloomy judicial branch. Sadly, the all-too-typical strangulation via procedural technicalities occurred, yet again, and this time it was the NLCHP that went limp. One of the excuses used: some plaintiffs were no longer homeless, implying they were no longer at risk of citation (yet another reason why protected class status is needed, for the hate laws are obviously targeted and selectively enforced). Perhaps the NLCHP club was exhausted by the planning of their McKinney-Vento Awards cheese chewing party held at The Liason. I can only wonder if, arriving or leaving, any tipsy attendees stepped over anyone sleeping illegally.

It isn't the first time the fight for homeless civil rights has been used and abandoned. Perhaps there should be laws discouraging such predatory cynicism?

Meanwhile, back in Santa Cruz; Tristia Bauman from the NLCHP will be speaking at Sleep Is A Right. Is it a PR appearance? Prelude to a case? The food will be vegan, so chewing cheese seems unlikely.

Wednesday, August 19, 2015

The Fed Cometh

A report about the effort to decriminalize homelessness illuminates a recent change in federal posture. DOJ, USICH, and HUD are finally making life difficult for hate groups and their politicians.

The statement of interest brief filed in the NLCHP powered Boise case could lead to a landmark decision. Hopefully one citable in California!


Friday, April 3, 2015

Incentivizing Death?

The #Right2Rest bill in California, SB-608, will have a hearing on Tuesday, April 7, 2015.  Some analysis of the bill has been published (see:  In that published analysis, there is an opposition statement that makes 'incentivize' claims.  Those claims provide no factual basis.  Those claims twist logic, revealing bigoted hate.  Those claims should be deeply shameful, and vigorously challenged at all times, yet are not and have not.

The claim "may incentivize homeless activity" is perhaps more truthful as "may incentivize the pursuit of life and liberty".  The claim "establish a right to live on the streets" is perhaps more truthful as "establish a right to live".  The claim "this bill would usurp voter-approved ordinances that seek to balance the rights, health, and safety of all their residents by preventing camping, sleeping, and lying on the streets" is perhaps more truthful as "this bill would usurp voter-approved ordinances that are hate filled bigotry aimed at the elimination of 'others' by any means necessary".

The hate laws aimed at the homeless are nothing less than torture laced death sentences.  Slower than lethal injections and electric chairs but still death sentences.  The proud promoters, legislators, enforcers, and prosecutors of those murderous hate laws should be investigated, prosecuted, sentenced, and incarcerated.

Thursday, March 19, 2015

Too expensive?

If past behavior is a reliable guide, SB-608 will probably be described as too expensive, and not allowed out of committee. Too expensive to protect the civil and human rights of a persecuted group by modification of 647(e).

It would be more accurate to say it would be too expensive to recognize and respect those civil and human rights long denied. It would be more accurate to say the reversal of the blatant disregard for the civil and human rights of a group widely treated as less than human would be too expensive. A group that includes veterans that are placed in harms way by draft dodging politicians.

To be expected, I suppose, given a government founded on the concept of some humans being created equal and some humans being considered 3/5 people and 2/5 property.

Saturday, February 28, 2015

Southern California hits the ball!

California Senator Carol Liu (25th District) has sponsored CA SB 608. The Bill seeks to modify 647(e) (see bolded text below) and add new text.

647(e) Who lodges in any building, structure, vehicle, or place, whether public or private, without the permission of the owner or person entitled to the possession or in control of it. This subdivision does not apply to conduct that is protected pursuant to Section 53.81 of the Civil Code.

The new text, 53.8 and 53.81, contains classifications and protections intended to defend the rights of homeless people.