[Mpls] Campaign lit incident

[jon.kelland]

On Oct 10, 2004, at 9:57 AM, Michael Atherton wrote:
>
>  Ms. Kahn should not
> be apologizing to the candidates, her associates, or her constituents.
> She needs to apologize to the citizens from whose literature she
> removed.  Although many people in this state and on this list may
> see the democratic process as just one big political game, what that
> game is really about and what so many people in American History have
> died for are the hopes, dreams, and goals of individuals. Ignoring the
> rights and dignity of individuals is to deny the primary intention
> of our legal system and the reason this country was founded.

Though I agree with Michael that an apology to the folks who lost out 
on some campaign literature would be in order (do we know this has not 
happened, I have not been following the details of the event), Rep. 
Kahn closes Part II recognizing civil society - which, I would claim 
contra Atherton, is "the primary intention of our legal system".  It 
seems to me Atherton is arguing against himself in valorizing the 
sacred rights of the individual (the kind of expression that might be 
illustrated through the egoistic acts of removing campaign literature) 
instead of valuing community and civil society.  Again against (and 
for?) Atherton's rhetoric, yet in the spirit of our legal system and 
country, this type of behavior is par for the course.

Atherton continues: "What still brothers me is the unabated arrogance 
that would have been required to remove something intended for someone 
else from their doorstep."  This I have a question about, consider Rep. 
Kahn's claim is true that literature dropped out of a door when she was 
placing some in, is she legally required to return it?  If it was a 
Super Value circular, would it also need to be returned?  Is there 
special protection for political literature?  Does this protection 
cover non-campaign political literature?

If Michael is really concerned with the rights of the sacred individual 
he would probably also hold that these campaign workers have no right 
to trespass and littler MY PROPERTY.  Not a position I hold, but it 
would seem to be the logical conclusion of an individualist ideology, 
one certainly inconsistent with the ideal of democracy he seemingly 
wants to embrace.

Rep. Kahn posts are valuable for the myriad of additional important 
points addressed:

Instead of seeing her claim that other people also do this as a 
scape-goating claim, how about acknowledging this behavior as a more 
widespread problem;

How the media runs with, and candidates disseminate, non-relevant 
issues.  I think Kahn is right to point out her fear that this would 
become a campaign issue, something the candidate may have had nothing 
to do with yet stands in for the candidate's values or character.  How 
the issue is taken up by the candidates is of course telling, but using 
the specifics of the incident I see as being the typical, politically 
expedient cop-out;

Rep. Kahn rightly points out the lack of attention other more serious 
issues receive - this is on both the media and the candidates;

The seemingly aggressive manner in which Rep. Kahn was met by police, 
being warned that she could be put in handcuffs.  This does seem to be 
overkill, and the issue of use of police force is certainly an 
under-discussed issue;

That the "lurking with intent" charge is always used with 
African-Americans (and potentially Mpls' white activists).  What is 
such a law on the books for?  Seemingly just an excuse to harass 
someone when cops don't have anything else to go on.  Should we as a 
society be concerned when laws are only used on a certain group of 
people?  I should hope so;

Ethics of the press (and legal profession).

I reckon there are other valuable lessons in Rep. Kahn's posts and I 
hope these are taken up as well.

jon. kelland
chicago, formerly bryant