Rights of peaceful protesters must be protected at Democratic National Convention

During the mass movement for racial justice in summer 2020, Cook County State’s Attorney Kim Foxx introduced a policy to not prosecute peaceful protesters for some of the most common charges used to criminalize protest. The policy acknowledges an essential First Amendment value: In a thriving democracy, peaceful protest must be protected from state prosecution, violence and repression.

Yet when a broad coalition of organizers applied for a permit to demonstrate outside the upcoming Democratic National Convention in Chicago, the city denied all permits. We have already seen concerning statements from Chicago police leadership that "protesting peacefully doesn’t always mean you’re protected by the first amendment." And the Chicago Inspector General has sounded the alarm that CPD is not prepared to handle DNC protests safely and legally. Clearly, our leaders’ commitment to the right to gather, protest and demand change without violent state repression will be tested this summer.

As director of antiracism and equity for the Jewish Council on Urban Affairs, I work to promote and defend multiracial democracy. Our group regularly engages in peaceful protest alongside grassroots coalition partners fighting for economic and racial justice in Illinois. I’m mindful that our work draws on the tradition of civil rights, Black Liberation and other historic movements for justice. We build on victories hard won by those who faced horrific violence for asserting their basic human rights. In this moment, our leaders have the opportunity to take a different approach from that shameful, violent legacy of repression.

For years, the council has contended with police violence against Black and Brown communities in Chicago. I know too well the danger of militarized riot cops unleashed on the people of Chicago. That danger will be exacerbated if state and federal agencies support CPD in suppressing dissent through violence.

Many leaders in the Democratic party argue that democracy itself is in danger this election cycle. This danger demands that we fiercely defend the right to protest throughout this summer and for the next four years. One cannot campaign against the threat of authoritarianism and meet criticism with tear gas and prosecution.

I hope that in responding to protests at the DNC, Kim Foxx will continue applying the policy she created to safeguard free speech and the people’s right to advocate for a better world and that the city won’t repress protests with violence.

Jackie Baldwin, director of antiracism & equity, Jewish Council on Urban Affairs

Pat Nabong/Sun-Times

Next time, Latinos could be key to passing Bring Chicago Home

In TV commercials, online, and in print, Chicagoans heard a daily drumbeat that Bring Chicago Home would "raise taxes" and become a "hidden rent increase." It was not. It never was. This was a win for misinformation, not a failure in message.

"The messaging wasn’t the issue," said Sandra Puebla, Chair of United Neighbors of the 35th Ward: “When we talked about taxing the rich, people were on board with that. People want the rich to pay their fair share, because they are feeling the burden.”

Canvassers at the doors mostly found that those who had the actual terms of the measure explained to them, supported it. In every area Palenque LSNA canvassed, the vote went majority "yes." In fact, in all the Latino neighborhoods where grassroots campaigns covered their wards — the 25th, 26th, 33rd and 35th – Bring Chicago Home won.

Yet, while majority white areas tended to vote no, and the Black South Side and West Side tended to vote yes, the remaining Latino areas were split. The Bring Chicago Home Coalition made strategic decisions not to focus on Latinos and did not produce Spanish language materials, betting on Johnson supporters in Black communities. Neighborhood activists like Marcela RealesVisbal were doing overtime translating BCH posters in the final weeks. The "no" side invested heavily in Spanish language media and online ads, and in the final month Telemundo, Univision and Spanish social media repeated the same fears of property tax hikes.

There is political trauma after years of abandonment, displacement, and the property tax system used as a lever of gentrification. Past mayors vowed not to raise property taxes, and all of them raised property taxes. Given the histories of political double talk, it is a miracle so many people voted past their pain to try to solve homelessness in Chicago.

The proposal to fund affordable housing built an outstanding precedent for addressing homelessness and recentered grassroots community movements. With greater interracial unity, and stronger relationships between Black and Latino community members and leaders, backed by consistent community organizing, it can still pass.

Carolina Sternberg and Jesse Mumm, DePaul University faculty

Reject cuts to SNAP food benefits

There's a new proposal from the House Republicans: Cut billions of dollars from the SNAP food stamp program. At a time when we have a growing hunger problem, with 1 out of 5 children not getting enough to eat, this evil, shameful proposal is being made by people who supposedly have a heart and brain.

This while places across the country such as the Greater Chicago Food Depository struggle to alleviate hunger. What's their motivation?

Apparently, they believe that most, maybe all people who get food help are lazy, unwilling to help themselves, wanting to rely on SNAP and other assistance. Is this true? Where are the facts behind this distorted, hateful view? What about the children? Are they also to be punished? What have they done to deserve enforced hunger?

Let's reject this dog-eat-dog, me-first mentality. Please, if you have a heart and fear God, contact your members of Congress and tell them to oppose strenuously any cuts in food assistance.

Anthony Buttitta, Des Plaines