8.26.2007

And there's more....

There is a new law attempting to pass through our "wonderful" system of check's and balances right now, or in the near future that is very bothersome to me.

I'll start by saying this bothers me for several reasons. First, the whole thing is an issue to wag the dog. Its another "side issue" with a purpose of wasting time, resources, and attracting media attention so real issues lose airtime. Second, it is a law that will aid law enforcement in the simultaneous circumvention of our fourth amendment rights, and the stigma of racial profiling. Third, it is simply a further restriction of our rights in general.

What is this law you ask? Georgia is attempting to criminalize the fashion style of baggy, low riding pants. Or, to extend that for a moment, any style of clothing that intentionally (or unintentionally) exposes your undergarments - be they boxers, thongs, bra straps - or even sweat pants worn under jeans and regular underwear. I will now dub this the "War on Saggy Pants". They are trying to legitimize this bill by sliding in as "indecent exposure". Exposure of what? More clothes? Yikes. The penalty for breaking the law of the saggy pants is a $500 fine and possible jail time.

Yes I said jail time.

From what I saw, some areas already have this law "on the books" meaning its enforceable if they want it to be. In videos showing what goes on when someone is stopped for suspicion of saggy pants, I noticed that it was always young, black men. The "search" consisted of lifting up clothing, poking around, and even a light pat down. This is a blatant circumvention of the fourth amendment. No longer do police need reasonable suspicion of a person to search them...they now have the "War on Saggy Pants" on their side, and can stop and search anyone under the pretense that its for public safety against indecent exposure. I'm sure it has nothing to do with racial profiling, and blatant spying on citizens.

Since the folks on the right are so keen on fighting "Islamofascism" and keeping burqas out of the west...perhaps they need to take a closer look at what Georgia is trying to do. They are...well regulating what their constituents can and can't wear, forcing them to "cover up" in the name of decency. Of course these people being criminalized for their sense of fashion aren't in fact being indecent, as no "private parts" are showing. But apparently they aren't being decent enough. They need to cover up more. Isn't that how Americans interpret the enforcement of burqas?

Islamofascism....Doesn't anyone worry about Americanofascism?

The other issue that needs to be addressed here is the side issue of wagging the dog. Yes, this law is a side issue. Yes there are more important things to worry about. But this is important too. Too many people complain about the multitude of less important side issues, but fail to see the significance of them when you put them all together.

Legislating morality, legislating fashion, legislating reproductive rights, legislating marital rights, legislating sexuality, legislating foods, legislating religion....the list goes on. When you put it all together what do you get?

Its OK, you can say it.....fascism.

I agree that we shouldn't miss the forest for the trees, but we do need to realize that the forest is made up exclusively of...well, the trees.

No comments: