Connect with us

Politics

Cities & Volunteers Fight Over Trying To Feed Homeless

Published

on

(Via Atlanta AP News)

ATLANTA (AP) — When Adele MacLean joined others in an Atlanta park to feed the hungry the Sunday before Thanksgiving, she left with a citation and a summons to appear in court.

The case was dropped when she showed up in court earlier this month, but she and her lawyers say the citation for serving food without a permit was improper and demonstrates callousness toward the homeless. The city and some advocates say feeding people on the streets can hinder long-term solutions and raises sanitation concerns.

“I’m still outraged this is happening,” MacLean said after her court appearance Dec. 14. “I’m concerned that the city, whenever they want to crack down on the homeless, they’re going to go after anyone that tries to help them.”

About 40 cities nationwide had active laws to restrict food sharing as of November 2014, and a few dozen more had attempted such restrictions, according to the National Coalition for the Homeless. Interim Director Megan Hustings said she doesn’t have updated numbers but that she’s heard about more cities considering such regulations.

MacLean, a volunteer with a movement called Food Not Bombs, was cited Nov. 19 by a Georgia State University police officer after her group refused to stop feeding the homeless in a downtown park, and her lawyers say city officers have been distributing a “misleading pamphlet” bearing the city seal that says a permit is required to feed people in public places.

That’s simply not true, said Southern Center for Human Rights attorney Gerry Weber, who’s representing MacLean. Permits are required for restaurants, food trucks and festival food vendors, not for people sharing food at no charge, he said.

Even though MacLean’s case was dropped, it doesn’t mean officers will stop telling people they can’t feed the homeless, and doesn’t eliminate the possibility of future citations, Weber said. The Southern Center is pushing for a clear statement from the city that people have a right to feed the homeless in public places, he said.

Conflict between city government and groups feeding the homeless in public isn’t unique to Atlanta.

A Fort Lauderdale, Florida, ordinance requiring permits to feed the homeless in a park is being challenged in federal court by another Food Not Bombs group. The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments in that case in August but has not ruled yet.

The lawyers in that case argue the ordinances violate the group’s right to free speech because group members share food “as an expression of their political message that hunger and poverty can be ended if society’s resources are redirected from the military and war.”

“I salute genuinely the good will and good nature of all these people. There is no bad guy in this,” said Georgia State University police Sgt. Joseph Corrigan, a chaplain who also leads the department’s homeless outreach program.

But instead of having feedings that pop up in different places all the time, it’s better to connect people with shelters or other established organizations that provide consistent help and services, he said.

Food safety, garbage and the human waste left behind when people are fed in a place with no bathrooms are also concerns, Corrigan said.

Additionally, many homeless people struggle with serious mental illness or addiction, which can make them wary of help, said George Chidi, social impact director for Central Atlanta Progress, a nonprofit community development organization that serves downtown Atlanta. The city has teams whose mission is to reach out, develop trusting relationships and, ultimately, connect the homeless with housing and treatment services. Public feedings can disrupt those efforts, Chidi said.

“We don’t want anybody to stop feeding people,” he said. “We just want it done in a way that’s connected to social services providers … and not on the street corner because we can’t make sure those connections are being made in these street corner feedings.”

MacLean doesn’t buy those arguments.

“Food is a human right, and you don’t force people to do what you want them to do by withholding food,” she said.

Some avoid shelters because of strict rules, safety and health concerns or because they aren’t able to be in the same place as family or friends, she said.

Hustings said restrictions on public feedings are most commonly enacted or enforced when the homeless population becomes more visible. In Atlanta, advocates say, more people have ended up on the streets after the recent closure of the city’s shelter of last resort.

“Even though the rhetoric will be around providing access to safe food or something that purports to be considering the folks who are homeless and need the food, a lot of times our communities across the country know it’s because citizens don’t like seeing large gatherings of people who look homeless,” Hustings said.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Politics

The Clash of Titans: X’s Shutdown in Brazil

Published

on

In an unprecedented move, Brazil’s Supreme Court has ordered the nationwide suspension of X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter, marking a significant escalation in the ongoing feud between the platform’s owner, Elon Musk, and Brazilian authorities. This decision stems from Musk’s refusal to comply with court orders to appoint a legal representative in Brazil and to suspend certain accounts accused of spreading misinformation and hate speech.

The tension reached a boiling point when Justice Alexandre de Moraes gave X a 24-hour ultimatum to name a representative or face a complete operational shutdown in Brazil. Musk’s response was to close X’s office in Brazil, citing threats of arrest against his staff for non-compliance with what he described as “secret censoring orders.” This move has left millions of Brazilian users in the dark, with the platform going offline across the nation.

The implications of this standoff are manifold. Firstly, it pits the concept of free speech, as championed by Musk, against Brazil’s judicial efforts to curb what it sees as the spread of dangerous misinformation. Critics argue that this is a test case for how far nations can go in regulating global digital platforms. Secondly, the economic impact on X cannot be understated, with Brazil being one of its significant markets.

The situation has also sparked a debate on digital sovereignty versus global internet freedom. While some see Justice de Moraes’s actions as necessary to protect Brazilian democracy, others view it as an overreach, potentially stifling free expression. As X users in Brazil scramble to find alternatives or use VPNs to bypass the ban, the world watches closely to see if this could set a precedent for other nations grappling with similar issues.

Continue Reading

Crime

President Trump: Military Tribunals For Traitors

Published

on

In an era where national security is paramount, the discussion around military tribunals has resurfaced, not as a relic of past conflicts, but as a necessary tool for contemporary justice. The advocacy for military tribunals, especially in the context of recent political and security challenges, underscores a fundamental truth: sometimes, conventional judicial systems are not equipped to handle threats that undermine the very fabric of national security.

The case for military tribunals hinges on several key arguments. Traditional courts, bound by extensive legal procedures, can often delay justice, particularly in cases involving national security. Military tribunals, by design, expedite the process, ensuring that threats are neutralized swiftly, which is crucial in preventing further harm or espionage. Military law, with its focus on discipline, order, and security, provides a framework uniquely suited for cases where the accused are involved in acts against the state or military. This specialization ensures that the complexities of military strategy, intelligence, and security are not lost in translation to civilian courts.

From the Civil War to World War II, military tribunals have been utilized when the nation’s security was at stake. These precedents show that in times of war or national emergency, such tribunals are not only justified but necessary for maintaining order and security. Contrary to common misconceptions, military tribunals can be transparent and accountable, especially when conducted under the scrutiny of both military and civilian oversight. The structure ensures that while justice is swift, it is also fair, adhering to the principles of law that respect due process.

Addressing criticisms, the argument for military tribunals isn’t about subverting justice but ensuring it. Critics argue that military tribunals bypass constitutional rights, particularly the right to a jury trial. However, in scenarios where individuals are accused of acts that directly threaten national security, the argument for exceptional measures holds. The Constitution itself allows for exceptions during times of war or public danger, as seen in cases like Ex parte Quirin, where the Supreme Court upheld the use of military tribunals for unlawful combatants. Moreover, the fear of authoritarianism is mitigated by the checks and balances inherent in the U.S. system. The President, Congress, and the judiciary each play roles in ensuring that military tribunals do not overstep their bounds. The judiciary, in particular, has the power to review and intervene if rights are egregiously violated.

From a broader perspective, the call for military tribunals isn’t just about addressing immediate threats but also about sending a message. It reaffirms the nation’s commitment to protecting its sovereignty and the rule of law. By using military tribunals, the U.S. demonstrates its resolve to handle threats in a manner that conventional courts might not be designed for, thereby potentially deterring future acts against the state.

In conclusion, the advocacy for military tribunals in the current climate is not about subverting justice but about ensuring it. These tribunals represent a robust response to unique challenges that threaten national security, offering a blend of efficiency, expertise, and justice that civilian courts might not always provide. While the debate will continue, the necessity of military tribunals in certain scenarios is clear, reflecting a pragmatic approach to safeguarding the nation while upholding the principles of justice.

Continue Reading

Politics

Trump / Kennedy 2024 – The Golden Ticket

Published

on

In what many are calling a political phenomenon, Donald Trump and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. have forged an unexpected partnership, transcending traditional political boundaries to reshape America’s political discourse. This unique collaboration, announced amidst the fervor of the 2024 election cycle, brings together two figures from what seemed like opposite poles of the political spectrum in a bid for a unified vision for America.

Their coming together is less about the granular details of policy and more about a shared ethos of change and national rejuvenation. Trump, known for his direct approach and strong voter base, and Kennedy, recognized for his environmental advocacy and critique of corporate overreach, are crafting a narrative that seeks to move beyond partisan divides.

During a joint appearance in Arizona, the synergy between Trump and Kennedy was evident. Trump introduced Kennedy not merely as a political ally but as a co-architect in this new chapter of American politics. Their interaction was marked by a mutual endorsement of each other’s dedication to what they describe as the welfare of the nation, rather than an endorsement of specific policies.

This partnership, while only once referred to as an ethereal alliance, embodies the spirit of transcending conventional political warfare. It’s built on the premise of respect for diverse viewpoints, aiming to cultivate a political climate where constructive dialogue overshadows conflict. They focus on broad themes like individual freedoms, government transparency, and resistance against what they see as an entrenched bureaucratic elite.

Their campaign does not delve into the contentious issues that typically cause rifts. Instead, it champions a vision where the political conversation is lifted to a higher plane, emphasizing unity, shared values, and a collective push towards what they believe could be a more harmonious America.

The public narrative they present is one of an America where political discourse can be elevated, where the focus is on what unites rather than what divides. Their speeches resonate with a call for a new kind of politics, one that’s not just about winning an election but about altering how political engagement is perceived and practiced.

This surprising union strikes a chord with those disenchanted with the usual political bickering, offering a glimpse into what might be possible when leaders choose collaboration over confrontation. It’s an experiment in political unity, where the success lies not in the triumph of one ideology over another but in demonstrating that, even in a polarized society, moments of unity can emerge.

In this venture, Trump and Kennedy are not just campaigning; they are inviting the electorate to envision a political landscape where the clash of ideas can lead to a confluence of visions, aiming to lead and heal America through an unconventional yet potentially transformative partnership.

Continue Reading

Trending

Donate to Populist Wire

*Note: Every donation is greatly appreciated, regardless of the amount.