Skip to main content

SNR gets it EXACTLY right re Occupy Sac

OK, I may get in trouble here, but the Sacramento News & Review is spot on in their editorial this week regarding the Occupy Sac protesters' RIGHT to free speech. Here it is, en toto:
A tent in Chavez Park two days ago.
As Occupy Sacramento moves into its third week, some people—say, for instance, the local daily and the city council—seem to be suffering from protest fatigue. After all, the protest is messy (despite the fact that protesters in Cesar Chavez Plaza have been cleaning up after themselves), and, gosh, if we let them protest 24 hours a day, won’t we have to let less savory characters do the same?

But that’s precisely the point. It’s easy to support freedom of speech when you buy ink by the barrel or have microphones and cameras at ready access for each and every one of your opinions. But the main thing protesters of Occupy Sacramento have to work with is their own bodies. A 24-hour protest is a pretty stark statement of how much the principles they are fighting for matter to them.

And if the Ku Klux Klan or anti-gay protesters or pro-life protesters or—gasp!—our homeless citizens are the next to protest 24/7 in front of City Hall? Good for them, as long as they keep it peaceful. That’s what free speech, the right to assemble and the right to petition for redress of grievances are all about.

Things are much messier in democracies than in dictatorships and oligarchies. Freedom of speech and the right to protest aren’t privileges that can be revoked; they are rights, and they are not reserved for causes of which we approve. The fear of potential problems is not an excuse for prior restraint on free speech—and our city council and local daily should be the first to say so.
And, indeed, the ed is right that there is an issue of allowing Occupy to protest that lets in the Big Barn Door protest from the homeless community. [And, unfortunately, that means SafeGround and probably not the larger, needier, more-legitimate-without-crazy-underlying-politics other 90% of suffering homeless folk.]

The problem with SafeGround is that they have become -- like Loaves & Fishes and SHOC -- a money-grabby pseudo-charity that has become far more interested in garnering publicity [which brings attention, which results in donation receipts] than a group that ACCOMPLISHES anything. By constantly jonesing for a rumble, and making noise, they have come to think that that is all they need to do. They protest everything, object, nay-say, and play victim instead of engaging any path toward possible progress. If others, say the city council, has issues or problems SG rejects them. WE are poor victims, so goes the SG whine. And that trumps all else.

And, thus, SafeGround will begin their full-throttle protesting in Chavez Park the minute the Occupy crowd leaves. But for SafeGround it won't really be an exercise of free speech; it will be the same old, same old. "Get your lime-green SafeGround T-shirt, right cheer, folks. Just fifteen smackers. Help a victimized homeless dude, wontcha?"

The delicious absurdist irony is that by having a legalized place to protest, the SafeGrounders will have undermined their protest for a legalized place to be. Thus nullifying their protest. But should they leave, their complaint of not having a place to be would re-arise as something they must settle in in Chavez Park to protest.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

More Homeless Hate from Marcos Breton

There was a long spell a handful of years ago when Marcos Breton said something so fully ridiculous in one of his hateful screeds against homeless folk that it appeared to be very apparent he had been taken off the Homeless Beat by his superiors. Unhappily, after a few months, Breton was again writing disparaging columns about homeless folk

In today's Bee [3/5/17], Breton has written one of his longest columns. Online, it is titled "The price downtown Sacramento is paying for Mayor Steinberg’s homeless crusade
"
Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/news-columns-blogs/marcos-breton/#storylink= It goes on for days. The message, essentially, is this: Homeless people poop; they're getting a great deal of what they want from the overmuch-helpful mayor; and business people proximate to Chavez Park are made miserable by the forever-disgusting homeless that are there in great number.

O.K. Let's get into all this a bit. Except in Breton's mind, homeless pe…

The first-person dimension of homeless Sacramentans suffering from Schizophrenia

"Disabilities and dysfunction process from having been shunned and denied access to needed opportunitites and networks of support."
~ the brothers Lysaker in Schizophrenia and the Fate of the Self What is schizophrenia? How many are homeless Sacramentans?

Perhaps 15% of the Sacramento homeless population suffers from schizophrenia. The percentage is difficult to determine for many reasons that branch from both the fuzzy definition of the malady and that many people within the homeless community who have the illness (1) are in denial and are undiagnosed and (2) have the illness as a diagnosis only – the disability can be faked by people who are successful claimants of social security and other benefits.

What is schizophrenia? One webspace gives us this definition: The most chronic and disabling of the severe mental disorders. Typically develops in the late teens or early twenties. The overt symptoms are hallucinations (hearing voices, seeing visions), delusions (false beliefs ab…

Homelessness and Remembrance

This is a follow-up on the matter of remembering homeless people who have died and the Wall that Libby Fernandez wants to build in remembrance of the deceased. [See earlier blogpost "Tell Libby NOT to build her wall."]

This blogpost is prompted by a Philosophy Bites podcast released in the last couple days -- titled "C├ęcile Fabre on Remembrance." Fabre's take on why we honor or grieve for certain individuals or certain collections of individuals is not greatly helpful -- since his focus is mainly one of fallen war heroes and war casualties -- but it does open up the issue of why should there be a remembrance effort for deceased homeless people at all. Who is served by it? And has the effort been perverted by the avarice of charities in their insatiable drive for donations.

It is, for starters, a curious thing for "homeless people" to be a collective that is honored. I write that NOT because I don't want the best for homeless people. But, homelessn…