The Safe Streets Act is an issue because it increases an officer’s power. Section two of the Safe Streets Act is vague because it defines an aggressive manner as, “a manner that is likely to cause a reasonable person to be concerned for his or her safety or security.” This definition gives officers the authority to define what an aggressive manner is, and target particular groups because the term reasonable person is subject to interpretation. The act is an example of how the law can inadvertently reproduce marginalization due to the conception of equality and equity. The Safe Streets Act represents equality because it applies to all individuals in society. However, the act is not equitable because it affects certain groups more then others. For example, the social structures in society do not force rich individuals to panhandle in order to survive. Additionally, extremely poor individuals are depicted as dangerous. …show more content…
The LGBTQ movement still exists today because absolute equality has not been achieved. Modern continuations of the movement empower individuals through clicktivism. Clicktivism allows individuals to participate in protests without physically being present. Clicktivism can be achieved by using social media to follow the movement, posting pictures/videos, and liking posts that support the movement. In fact, Justin Trudeau even made a formal apology to LGBTQ community for government persecution. This apology does not repair the past but it acknowledges and helps people understand the injustice that the LGBTQ community faced. Karl Marx would state that change can only occur once society is able to recognize the concealment of dominant class interests. Therefore, the power of the law marginalized the LGBTQ community, but it was also used as a mechanism to achieve