|
June 27, 2005
Racism and terrorism in Atlanta?
Has the specter of racism reared its ugly head in Atlanta? According to advocates for the homeless, the city's proposal to place restrictions on panhandling is, well, white racism, and even terrorism: Clergy and advocates for the homeless railed against the proposal, calling it harsh, unconstitutional and uncharitable. Several cited the Bible, saying that begging is an ancient practice and that giving alms is a blessing.More terrorism in Atlanta? By homeless suicide bombers? Must be a pretty tough law to inspire such selfless acts of martyrdom and courage. Intrigued by this, I decided to research the matter further. While the text of the law says nothing about race, MSNBC links to the text of the proposed ordinance: (a) It shall be unlawful for any person to solicit funds or any item of monetary value within the parameters of downtown Atlanta [the latter is defined as being bordered by certain streets].It appears to be utterly silent on matters of race, and as it turns out, the author of the law, one H. Lamar Willis, is himself black. So are the mayor, chief of police, and the black city council members who all support it. Nonetheless, the law is being called racist -- and by white people: The Rev. Murphy Davis, a white woman who runs Open Door Community to assist the homeless, dismissed the argument that the panhandling ban cannot be racist because it is backed by black council members and the black mayor, Shirley Franklin, in a city of 425,000 that is more than 60 percent black.I'm not quite sure what the logic is here. Apparently, the argument is that because a majority of panhandlers are black, that the ordinance is racist. (Or that it is racist because white "business interests" support it.) But Atlanta is a majority black city! Which means that by simple math, any law passed there will necessarily tend to have more of an effect on black citizens than on white citizens. Laws against shoplifting, vandalism, or even running stop signs could, if enforced equally, be expected to have what is called a "disparate impact" on black people. The argument made against panhandling laws could thus be made against any law. While none of the activists seem to have raised it, is there may be a legitimate first amendment issue here? Is there a right to ask someone for money? Or does asking for money cross the line from speech to conduct? According to the First Amendment Center, the Seventh Circuit has upheld laws similar to Atlanta's: The panel also determined that the ordinance, because it did not completely ban all panhandling, should be analyzed as a time, place and manner restriction on speech.According to the same web site, the United States Supreme Court turned down a challenge to a similar anti-panhandling law in Florida which prohibited 'soliciting, begging or panhandling' on a five-mile strip of Fort Lauderdale's city beach.Legally, it would appear that Atlanta is on fairly safe ground. Is there a religious issue here? Back to the white ministers who ...cited the Bible, saying that begging is an ancient practice and that giving alms is a blessing.While giving alms is charity, that is supposed to be related to taking care of actual human needs. I haven't spent much time in Atlanta, but I well remember Berkeley's experience with a form of "homeless money" which citizens could buy and hand out as alms. This was an informal sort of scrip which local businesses would honor for food. The homeless, however, treated this scrip as a joke. They wanted money for booze, not food! Needless to say, this program was detested by Berkeley's homeless and street people, even those who did not spend whatever cash they came into on booze or drugs. The coupons often were sold on the street or simply tossed as soon as the presenter was out of sight.The streets became littered with the free food coupons, and the program died. (I wonder what happened to Gavin Newsom's similar idea.....) While I use the term myself because it's so readily understood, I've often thought that "homeless" is the wrong label to place on people whose lack of housing is a result of larger problems in their lives. I've taken in homeless people, and while I'm no expert on the subject, I've known some who just wanted to be left the hell alone to live in a tent. Others suffer from mental illness or drug problems which prevent them from working normal jobs and thus paying for a home. To call them "homeless" makes about as much sense as to call them "inappropriately groomed." The name "homeless" falsely implies that a home will fix the problem. Neither free homes, nor a brand new Giorgio Armani suit, nor direct distributions of cash, will cure alcoholism, drug addiction or mental illness. But activists thrive on false labels. And poverty is violence! posted by Eric on 06.27.05 at 08:01 AM |
|
December 2006
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
December 2006
November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
Laughing at the failure of discourse?
Holiday Blogging The right to be irrational? I'm cool with the passion fashion Climate change meltdown at the polls? If you're wrong, then so is God? Have a nice day, asshole! Scarlet "R"? Consuming power while empowering consumption Shrinking is growth!
Links
Site Credits
|
|
Bums....