As more people end up experiencing homelessness, they’re also facing increasingly punitive and reactionary responses from local governments and their neighbors. Such policies could become legally codified in short order, with the high court having agreed to hear arguments in Grants Pass v. Johnson.
Originally brought in 2018, the case challenged the city of Grants Pass, Oregon, over an ordinance banning camping. Both a federal judge and, later, a panel from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals struck the law down, saying that Grants Pass did not have enough available shelter to offer homeless people. As such, the law was deemed to be a violation of the Eighth Amendment.
The ruling backed up the Ninth Circuit’s earlier ruling on the Martin v. City of Boise case, which said that punishing or arresting people for camping in public when there are no available shelter beds to take them to instead constituted a violation of the “cruel and unusual punishment” clause in the Eighth Amendment. That applied to localities in the Ninth Circuit’s area of concern and has led to greater legal scrutiny even as cities and counties push for more punitive and restrictive anti-camping laws. In fact, Grants Pass pushed to get the Supreme Court to hear the case, and several nominally liberal cities and states on the West Coast are backing its argument. If the Supreme Court overturns the previous Grants Pass and Boise rulings, it would open the door for cities, states, and counties to essentially criminalize being unhoused on a massive scale.
What’s gonna happen is they’re going to get arrested and sent to a private prison who will then profit off their free slave labor. And in states with three strike rules that’ll happen a couple times back to back and then you have permanent indentured servitude.
The desire to enslave people is a fundamental conservative trait.
In fact, there has never been a point in human history when conservatives were opposed to slavery, even a little bit.
Name a more iconic trio than capitalism, Christianity, and conservatism.
Centrally organized religions in general. Let’s not let the others off the hook. It seems like the second prayer gets away from it’s community ideals it turns sour.
The desire to fuck children is a fundamental progressive trait
In fact, there has never been a point in human history when progressives were opposed to child rape, even a little bit.
Do you see how stupid you sound?
My statement is based on observable, documented fact. Yours is based on nonsense.
Conservative apologists gotta conserve, I guess.
The hell it is. The Liberal party of Canada, for 5 years all about digital ID for tracking citizens movement, suddenly is against the same concept when it comes to minors and porn. I’m against both, being an actual conservative, but it’s fucking telling about the mindset.
Oh boy… Digital ID is not about tracking citizens movement. If you file your taxes every year or change your mail delivery at the post office they already know where you are roughly. It’s a government services key meant to streamline services and provide insurable encryption protection for government sign ins to try and keep service Canada digital information more secure. Those service Canada sign ins already exist and they already log location data the same way your Gmail account does to flag potential insecurity in the system. The Digital IDis just designed to try and be an anti phishing measure. The thing is also completely voluntary because like any encryption it isn’t perfect.
The reason the Liberals are not happy about the whole individualized digital ID for porn is that they are listening to the techs and have concerns that even if the porn people were watching was kosher the encryption would have to handshake with the sketchiest sites who would be able to mine location data from users by default and potentially cause issues with identity theft issues. If some phishing scammer manages to crack the system you could have a situation where people start cloning the IDs and creating prime blackmail material. Imagine if you will someone telling you that they have your Digital ID and they are gunna go use it on some kiddie porn if you don’t do what they want.
There’s also just logistical concerns because the handshake has to go both ways. To make it work you have to give the code that can be easily backwards engineered to the owners of the websites.
The Digital ID the Conservatives are proposing crack downs would also be would be basically semi mandatory. Honestly it would probably just drive more people to get their wanking material from even less legitimate places that don’t require the ID…funneling more people into the porn black market.
To add to Drivebyhaiku’s excellent post…
You are pointing at a neo-liberal party, not a progressive party. The word “liberal” can include conservatives, such as the neo-liberals (conservatives) who dominate the Liberal Party of Canada. Progressives (non-conservatives) in Canada can be found in the NDP.
The NDP has agreements with the Liberal Party to defend against the the Conservative Party, who are farther right than the Liberal Party. But, make no mistake. Neo-liberals are conservatives by every international standard.
The last state, (I can’t remember which red state it was), to pass an anti homeless law caught flack because they included it in stand your ground reasons. However also in that bill was a nice little pathway to felony for the homeless and a three strikes law.
So yeah. That’s exactly it.
While I broadly agree with the sentiment of your post, three strikes laws usually only apply to felonies, and criminalized homelessness is typically misdemeanor stuff. Not a defense of three strike laws, they’re fucking garbage, but the truth matters.
And while I broadly agree with your point, it is far too easy for law enforcement to tack on additional charges like resisting arrest. And, yes, in most states resisting arrest is also a misdemeanor, but incidents can be raised to felony resisting arrest if they involve assault on an officer. Unfortunately, it is easy for any innocent physical contact with police to be interpreted as assault, if an officer decides to portray it that way. The truth matters, but so does ACAB
How many times do you let yourself be arrested non violently, knowing all of your stuff and money is going to be gone before you get back?
And by non violently we mean doing exactly what the cops say, when they say, no questions asked, mid conversation after they’ve declared they’re arresting you. And hoping they don’t beat you up and charge you anyways for annoying them or imagined disrespect.
Putting anyone in adverse contact with police routinely is creating a pathway to being a felon.
You’re correct, of course. All I’m saying is that the anti-homeless laws don’t directly apply to three strikes laws. What you’re pointing out is a feature of all law enforcement contacts, though, including traffic enforcement. Vehicle codes are sprawling and that’s by design, it gives law enforcement nearly carte blanche to initiate a contact first and come up with a justification afterwards. And, of course, each traffic stop for “your windows look tinted” is a potential pathway to a felony. That is, the felony potential stemming from police contacts isn’t unique to homeless laws, it applies to virtually every petty contact police make.
It’s indirect in the same way that court fees and orders to pay private debts are an indirect way to create debtor’s jails. They left a written step out but it is understood to be there by everyone involved in the system.