Friday, April 3, 2015
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
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
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.
Tuesday, February 17, 2015
Some were surprised by the ruling by the United States Court Of Appeals For The Ninth Circuit on Desertrain v. City Of Los Angeles. Anyone that bothered to listen to the Desertrain v. City Of Los Angeles proceedings probably wasn't surprised. The bench was obviously upset by the case, as presented by Los Angeles, and their assertive opinion was a hope filled reminder of common decency. The citable result of Desertrain v. City Of Los Angeles (2014): 'car habitation' is no longer a crime, within the jurisdiction of the 9th Circuit. A serious question remains; how long before new 'ugly law' strikedown workarounds become freshly oppressive ordinances?
More recently, the California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District ruled on Allen v. City Of Sacramento. To me, it isn't clear if the 3rd rejected arguments because of filing technicalities or because of substance, although the opinion is laced with 'sleep is a crime' sentiments. While the 3rd rejected many of the arguments, they did acknowledge equal enforcement as a problem that needed to be addressed. My guess is that the 3th was very aware of the strong 9th opinion, given the similar class of victims of oppression, and didn't want to be embarrassed by the 9th striking down the ruling in Allen v. City Of Sacramento.
Meanwhile, back at the PeaceCamp 2011/2012 case; Ed's procedural trivia appeal held, and the substance of the matter is headed back to the Santa Cruz Appellate. I assume the Santa Cruz Appellate will rubber stamp the initial ruling, yet again, and then perhaps an appeal on substance will occur. Or perhaps not. It's difficult for me to know because, in practice, the case is not mine.
My overall impression; the United States Supreme Court ruling in Papachristou v. City Of Jacksonville (1972), as poetic as it is at times, has been and will continue to be ignored at all levels of executive and legislative influence. Just as the debates leading to the 9th Amendment, as well at the 9th Amendment itself, have been and continue to be ignored. Perhaps because the wealthy are not often found sleeping and when they are, they are excused from any rules of law that might apply.
Wednesday, July 2, 2014
After years of no response, when questioning people and public figures, I've decided to start PeaceCamp2014 by listing possible motives for the criminalization of sleep, because petty tyrants (even the judicial branch) have demonstrated a clear and persistent lack of courage, when asked a simple, direct question.
Why is sleep a crime?
Pride. Walled people are burdened with the belief they are better, allowing them to feel it is acceptable to criminalize the fundamental biological needs of others.
Wrath. Their unchecked feelings of hatred and anger toward others drives a grotesque fetish, controlling minute details of existence.
Gluttony. Their indulgent and consumptive lifestyle is not held back by their walls, generating the need to control every space, resource, and person.
Avarice. Trapped in their cycles of unfulfillable lust, desire forces them to claim sovereignty over the dreams of others.
Envy. Seeing others free from the materialism they cling to so desperately, destroying lives becomes a sick and twisted projection of self loathing.
Sloth. Having failed to develop spiritually, they fail to act when their aggressive cohorts create inhumane laws used to persecute others.
Perhaps you disagree, and have a perfectly reasonable and rational explanation for the criminalization of sleep. I dare you to state it.
Wednesday, April 16, 2014
Perhaps as public relations spin, there have been echoes amongst the organizations that receive payment to speak for the poor, as well as some of the government agencies that have been slumbering for so long. Whatever the reasons and motives, it is encouraging to see terms like human rights being used more widely, when addressing the systemic and chronic persecution of the poor and homeless.
Here are some recent examples, via the National Law Center On Homelessness And Poverty website (apparently the NLCHP is bringing a Constitutional challenge against the camping ban in Boise, Idaho!)...
Criminalizing Homelessness is Costly, Ineffective, and Infringes on Human Rights
From Wrongs to Rights: The Case for Homeless Bills of Rights Legislation
3 Reasons to Address Homelessness as a Human Rights Issue
U.N. Human Rights Committee Calls U.S. Criminalization of Homelessness "Cruel, Inhuman, and Degrading"
Friday, September 27, 2013
Has political science failed, as an intellectual discipline? Is brand loyalty driving the lack of well known (and used) concepts and terminology? Political debates rarely cover results in detail. Results over time, as societies under brand influence evolve, and ignorable failure modes become ignorable no longer.
Why is accountability for results so rare, often late, and brutal?
Thursday, August 22, 2013
I actually have some respect for their explicit bigotry. It will be interesting to see if their attempt will stand in court. Surely other cities are watching, waiting to see what happens (similar to the wait to see how eminent domain plays out in Richmond, California), preparing similar efforts (ask TBSC).
What did Columbia, South Carolina make illegal? Being downtown. Yeah, that is it, just being downtown. If accused, and refusing to go to the holding area, jail is the solution. Once at the holding area, permission is required to leave, and returning downtown is not allowed. Their police chief seems troubled, possibly because he might be the fall guy, should the effort run into legal trouble.
Illegal to be downtown, you ask? Why??? All it takes it being the 'wrong race'. No, just kidding. All it takes is being the 'wrong religion'. No, just kidding. All it takes is being the 'wrong gender'. No, just kidding. All it takes is being the 'wrong sexual preference'. No, just kidding. All it takes is being the 'wrong political party'. No, just kidding. All it takes it being homeless. No kidding.