Tweet
Immigration is an issue that touches the LGBT community directly. Some LGBT people are immigrants, some are assumed to be immigrants because of their appearance, some are undocumented, some like me are married to “aliens” (gotta love that term) who we are unable to sponsor for citizenship because of DOMA. But even at a more basic level, LGBT people understand too well what it means to be brutalized and demonized simply for being who we are.
Looking forward to President Obama’s remarks tomorrow on the need for comprehensive immigration reform, which must include the Uniting American Families Act, I want to share some poll results that were released a few weeks ago. A new Harris Interactive poll conducted in conjunction with Witeck-Combs Communications measured people’s response to Arizona’s new draconian immigration law and found this:
With Arizona’s controversial new state immigration law due to go into effect this July, a recent national survey reveals that a clear majority of 63% of lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and transgender (LGBT) individuals oppose these policies, with 45% expressing strong opposition.In sharp contrast, and as in other national opinion polls, 6 out of 10 (60%) heterosexual adults who also have seen, read or heard about Arizona’s forthcoming statute say they support Arizona’s new immigration policies, with 41% saying they strongly support these changes.
Let me reiterate:
Reflecting general LGBT sentiment, LGBT organizations including Equality Federation, an alliance of over 50 of our state-level advocacy organizations were very quick to speak out against the Arizona law.
The LGBT community knows all too well how easily people who “look different” or “act different” can be singled out for harassment and persecution. LGBT immigrants will be doubly vulnerable under this law, which gives license to discriminate.
It is heartening to get confirmation that the majority of LGBT individuals as well as our organizations take to heart the oppression of other identity groups we as individuals may or may not belong to.
This confirmation is also especially important as we continue to build and strengthen our coalitions. And after all, coalition support needs to flow in both directions, and immigrant groups have certainly been there and continue to be there for LGBTs. Just as we LGBTs are standing now in opposition to Arizona’s draconian immigration law, a large number of immigrant groups from a diverse array of communities support the Uniting American Families Act and its inclusion in comprehensive immigration reform. Among that list is also, significantly, a large group of faith communities. According to Steve Ralls, Director of Communications at Immigration Equality, here are a few:
The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF) has been very outspoken in its support. MALDEF’s president, Tom Saenz, identified LGBT inclusion as one of the group’s top priorities for comprehensive reform . . . and he gave a keynote address as the last Creating Change Conference outlining the benefits of the LGBT and Latino communities partnering on the issue.The Asian American Justice Center has also been a steadfast ally to LGBT binational families. AAJC is a key voice – if not the key voice – on immigration issues related to family unification. And they have stood with LGBT families in ensuring that we are included in the definition of family unification.
The Center for Community Change – a large, very well-respected voice on immigration reform – has also endorsed UAFA in comprehensive immigration reform. CCC is a major player on immigration reform on the Hill, and represents a very diverse base of supporters.
And, on the religious side, we have great support, too. The Methodist Church; the United Church of Christ; the Unitarians; the Episcopal Church and others have been with Immigration Equality, on Capitol Hill, working for an inclusive bill.
The power of coalitions was well demonstrated here in Washington during the successful Approve 71 campaign to preserve the domestic partnership law at the polls, as numerous coalition partners representing communities of color and immigration concerns lent their support to the campaign to protect all of Washington’s families.
Honestly I don’t think the reciprocal support we see among LGBT and immigrant groups should come as a surprise. We’re natural allies because we’re all just people who, through a shared experience with a hostile majority, have come to understand this basic common truth expressed so well by Estela Ortega, Executive Director of El Centro de la Raza:
There isn’t just one type of family in our communities. We are a diverse community, with diverse families. They all deserve legal protections and to be treated fairly under the law especially during these times of economic uncertainty.
85 Comments
Thanks Lurleen.
Obama’s speech tomorrow should be quite interesting, unfortunately I’m not expecting much.
I guess the 40% LGBT who support the AZ immigration policy are the ones who get pissed when they are called a minority.
Interesting crosstabsespecially the one that says that only 5% of LGBTs identify as Republican while 28% identify as independent.
Yet as far back as it’s been measured, ~20-25% of LGBs vote for the Republican candidate for President.
OKThat means that 4 out of 10 LGBT favor the Arizona law. I would also like to know what Arizona’s LGBT’s think about the law, seeing how they are the only ones that have a say in the matter. Either way this is a pretty non-partisan issue, overwhelming majority of Americans support the Arizona law. A few loudmouthed outside activists are trying to force Arizona to bend to their whims.
I suspect Arizona like laws will be passed by many states, the remainder forced to go into bankruptcy because of the inflow of illegals. This law was created by the Clinton, Bush, and Obama administrations, if they did their job and secured the border, this law would be unnecessary.
The REAL reason why LGBT groups support illegals is:
1. They do whatever Obama tells them.
2. They represent the upper middle class portion of the LGBT community. They don’t care if some poor redneck or black guy loses his job to an illegal and his children starve.
The joke is on them. These immigrants are very much social conservative, and have already severely slowed progress on gay rights (Prop 8 etc). Coalitions like this help elect Democrats, but harm LGBT people.
Or…Maybe they are those poor working class gay people you never see on TV. Maybe they fear for their jobs…
No. Can’t be. They must just hate brown people.
Want some fries with that propoganda?There’s a difference between supporting legal immigration – such as that which allowed your parents/grandparents to come here in the first place – and “supporting illegals.” Oh, but that’s right, anyone with a dark complexion can’t possibly be a red-blooded American, right, zazu?
I can’t begin to express how strongly I disagree with virtually every sentence of this post. I’ll just select one. The accusation that undocumented workers have “severely slowed progress on gay rights” is laughably wrong. For one thing, if they’re undocumented they sure weren’t voting on Prop 8.
I could go on but it’s not worth it.
RACISM! RACISM! RACISM! RACISM!!!Yes, there is a big difference between legal and illegal immigration. Kind of like the difference between a house guest and a thief in the night. Legal immigration allows us to screen out drug dealers and gangsters and terrorists, as well as to decide the type of immigrant that would benefit out economy the most (for example it is madness to import manual laborers when unemployment is 10%).
Illegal immigration screws over the working lower and middle lower class, it effectively erases a century worth of employee protections and minimum wage laws. Because it is illegal, there is no means to slow it down in times of economic recession. Gotta love the way Che-t-shirted white liberals and super conservative corporate fat cats, are taking turns kicking the American working man.
Nah, I kid. Its all about RACISM!
Ask and you shall receiveonly about 3 in 10 Arizona LGBTs favor it.
Because a bit more than a third of Arizona LGBTs are brown people, most likely.
And I will note that your statement calling them illegals is, in my non-binding opinion, a violation of the site’s TOS.
I’m deeply opposed to it, and it has nothing to do with what Obama’s told anyone to do, and I certainly don’t represent the upper middle class portion of the LGBT community.
And that holds true for most of the LGBT folks in Arizona who oppose the law.
In fact, those in AZ who are for it are more likely to be upper middle class or high in status, and have voted for both Obama and Sheriff Joe.
Pretty much everything you’ve said regarding them is a fabrication. But that’s how such things work, then, isn’t it?
I’m opposed to it because the law is unfunded, it mandates a federal system that is unfunded, and it criminalizes the presence of citizens in the state — citizens like my children, who just happen to be brown.
Inclusive of my in-laws, who happen to be brown. Who have been told most of their lives that they are taking jobs away from decent hard working rednecks by indecent lazy rednecks.
The idea that they do that? That’s racist, zazu.
1070 is bad law. Really bad law. And the LGBT community in Arizona is overwhelmingly opposed to it.
Because we know the real cost of it — far too many of us live below the lne that all this bad stuff is supposed to happen at, and we know that 80% of what’s said is bullshit, dressed up and exaggerated.
You asked, and now ya know.
That’s just one of 18 different failuresin the post. I almost fisked it, but I know Pam and Autumn would lean on me if I did, lol.
AH, yes, because…“legal” immigrants are all house guests and “illegal” ones are all thieves in the night.
Way to try and disprove an accurate statement regarding racism, there.
Makes senseto me everybody wants to exploit illegals by paying them sub standard wages for their labor. It’s good old fashioned bald faced racism.
The answer is the Arizona law and Obama getting off his narrow ass and enforcing the current laws and protecting our borders.
But he won’t do that, he can’t let a good crisis go to waste.
Well…If they’re in support of a law that allows the police to harass people for “looking illegal,” it doesn’t exactly matter whether they’re explicitly racist or not — the effect is exactly the same. It’s like saying “I don’t hate brown people! I just think they should be disproportionately targeted by law enforcement!”
Or even……that a good portion of those 40% have actually read the text of the law and realize it applies the same standard – probable cause – to the police that is used for all other detentions and demands, with the various exceptions carved out by the courts.
Will it result in racial profiling? Probably yes, and that’s a bad thing. Very bad.
Is making illegal immigrant status a state crime unconstitutional? Probably yes, and that part of the law will also probably be overturned. (I would hope so anyway – immigration status and criminalizing it is clearly the province of the Federal government.)
But the text of the law is pretty clear, and some of us don’t think it’s as draconian as others do. The Arizona law doesn’t “brutalize or demonize” people for who they are (to use Lurleen’s words). It’s a tool for enforcing the law, and it calls out people for their criminal behavior.
Six out of ten is still TOO LOWGays should not make prospective Nazis.
Look at what just landed in my inbox from GOProudMy friends at GOProud and I agree on the need to get rid of the fundies from the GOP, but as you can see, I can’t get on board with this description of opposition to this breathing while brown law. The org sees no direct connection to LGBT issues, therefore, no organizations should support other social justice issues.
I never considered unions when opposing this horror of a law. The law is straight up racist. Anyone who has been the target of profiling (and I have, as has Kate who has an Arabic last name), knows it can and will be abused). That something needs to be done about immigration (overall, not just illegal immigration) is something we can all agree upon. Doing ANYTHING is not better than doing nothing, in this case anything is just BS. When they can come up with objective criteria for what “an illegal” looks like — and they won’t — we can talk.
sad
hmmm…really nowwhile its nice to want to see EQUALITY for ALL peoples….esp. LGBT americans…..I honestly don’t hink for a moment IF these Illegals came here/ and were somehow given amnesty – and had the RIGHT to Vote, they’d VOTE AWAY LGBT Americans RIGHTS in a heart beat!
Well, not entirely…I’ve been following it fairly closely, and long before Gov put out her asinine puppet show video, I’d read the law itself, plus all the little amendments and outright changes to it.
Note that SB1070 as originally passed did not have the limitations on stop and Probable cause in it. Those were added in after a loud outcry in a flurry.
Next, the way the law works after the stop is still highly politicized around the nature of Identification and actually requires the violation of federal law in some cases — notably by requiring those with green card status to carry it with them at all times, when the federal law says lock it away in a safe place.
And officers are required, under the lw, to detain anyone who does not present acceptable identification to them — and there’s no laws which outline what identification is acceptable.
Plus, officers who see things like, oh, I don’t, we’ll say a male marker on something held by a person who looks like a woman to them, are required to consider the identification invalid until identified as such by the federal government.
As for profiling, the law explicitly allows for it, as long as the officer can establish that the reason for the stop was not racial profiling. TO give you an idea of how that works, if they receive a phone call from someone anonymously, they can stop someone on that basis, and then act accordingly. So there is no probably involved — it is a certainty.
The law does not fund the cost of housing these new inmates. The law does not fund a system in state to track such. The law does not fund the federal system that is required by it for work. That federal system does not exist.
The text itself is not draconian because the text itself is a dogwhistle written by people who are extremely good at doing so having had well over 150 years to hone their particular words.
As a note, the law is the same sort of law that the Republicans have written to attack LGBT people. It depends on the same core idea (fear), and uses the same sort of subtle language that is used to try and get things like the removal of the right to bodily integrity.
And to support the decision, those behind the law are using all sorts of unproven statements and exaggerations — not too much unlike the whole men in women’s restroom and gays corrupt children fabrications.
It’s bad law, and the saddest part is that it’s not the only one that’s this bad that went through. Nor is it the last targeting this whole asinine idea of illegal people (which is what saying illegal immigrant means).
Why?Why do you think that?
WHat is the basis for that belief, that opinion?
more to the pointThose working class gay people who are fearful for their jobs are most likely to be brown in Arizona.
Just saying…
Thanks…….for offering your perspective, dyssonance. Not sure I agree with all of it, but it gives me some food for thought.
I should go to Tucson…and hang with someone I know here in Ann Arbor whose Mexican American family has been in the US since the time of the Mexican-American War. (She has family in Tucson). Longtime citizens, indeed.
Then I am going to leave all my identification in my car. Speaking with a pretty darn good Irish accent, I am going to see who gets disbelieved and searched.
That will satisfy me as to whether or not this is a race based policy. There are more than a few illegal Irish immigrants in this country who came over during the Troubles. While my family lineage in this country goes back to the 1640′s, the LEO’s wouldn’t know this.
As for LGBT folks and their support/…maybe that might become grounds for suspicion of illegal alien status. No more arbitrary than skin color. Let’s see how that dog hunts.
Look up the one…… that strips citizenship from babies they are trying to get through.
Seriously.
As it stands right now, a child born in the US is a citizen of the US. If the parents are undocumented immigrants, and they are deported, the child doesn’t always go with them. Instead, they are removed from their parents custody and placed in the state foster care system.
That’s the reality.
There is, however, a myth of “anchor babies”. Which is what this new law is targeting.
A myth.
And I will note that I still have strong ties to the hispanic community here. Which has uniformly had fewer problems with LGBT people than I’m seeing many people suggest.
And given I’m Bi and Trans, I suspect that I’d get a lot worse than the usual…
Huh?I thought legal residents were required to carry proof of their status at all time-that federal law mandated that? I’m confused about this…
NoThey aren’t. Green cards are supposed to be kept in a safe location.
You are not required to carry identification in the United States. If you have it on you, you are required to present it to authorities if asked (a recent change, as well, via SOCTUS ruling), but you are still not required to carry it on you.
Passports are not recommended by the State department to be carried on you at all times, either — it is recommended you place them in a secure place unless you are in the process of traveling.
A driver’s license is required to operate a motor vehicle.
This is why the I-9 form will accept multiple forms of Identification as valid — you can be asked to provide them, but you are not required to carry any on your person at any time.
I agree with GOProudYou can be against illegal immigration but pro-gay rights. The two are for the most part unrelated.
OKThanks for actually defending your opinion as opposed to shouting RACISM at the top of your lungs. You have a link to that 3 out of 10 figure? I want to read more about it. I stand by my opinion though, and my opposition to illegal immigration.
I think the race card is just thrown around to muddy the water. I have NEVER met a single individual who opposes this law but would support it in some other form that would limit racial profiling.
OKThanks for actually defending your opinion as opposed to shouting RACISM at the top of your lungs. You have a link to that 3 out of 10 figure? I want to read more about it. I stand by my opinion though, and my opposition to illegal immigration.
I think the race card is just thrown around to muddy the water. I have NEVER met a single individual who opposes this law but would support it in some other form that would limit racial profiling.
Why am I not surprised?
Why am I not surprised at you being not surprised?
“They must just hate brown people.”Exactly.
Change thatI don’t support this law and it’s basis in not merely on the foundation of racial profiling.
Which I know quite well how it works, to a degree folks who haven’t been stopped for driving while of some other color simply cannot understand.
You may not have met me in person, but you have now “met” me via the internet. This law, even if racial profiling were completely removed, is simply bad law.
And it’s on those grounds that I oppose it. As people on your side say: read the law.
Only be sure to read it in full, from the initial passage through to it’s current format after multiple changes.
Also, be aware that this law is tied very, very deeply to partisan politics locally. It’s meant to provide cover for Sheriff Joe Arpaio and former county Attorney Thomas. It’s tied up in back and forth accusation of graft, corruption, and worse.
Arpaio’s under investigation yet again for several abuses of power, and is easily one of the most powerful Republicans in the state. Thomas has been his best friend, and the two of them are close friends and political allies of Pearce.
Arpaio and Thomas have both employed as a lawyer the same guy who drafted this law.
Arizona politics is a contact sport.
If Obama hadn’t pulled Janet for DHS, this law would never have been passed.
Well..Likely the difference between xenophobic ignorance and studied support of liberty.
Then again, I give importance to the lady on our Eastern shores…
“Its all about RACISM!”Exactly.
Immigrant and imported workers are not illegal. Racists should be illegal.
No.Racism shouldn’t be illegal, nor should racists.
It should have a greater level of stigma attached to it. But they should still be able to be racist if they desire. Racism always stems from a lack of knoweldge, an incomplete understanding. It is predicated on stereotypes and almost always expressed in fearful terms. And it requires social power and authority.
Saying Racists should be illegal is the same as saying immigrants should be illegal — two wrongs a right doth not make.
Although is surely feels good…
“Union bosses”I always have to laugh at that phrase — because the people using it unironically almost always seem to think that “bosses” are great and should have even more power and fewer restrictions in their control over workers. But when the “boss” is elected, that must be a bad thing? I mean, yeah, there are corrupt union leaders — just like there are corrupt elected politicians. But a straight-up boss can avoid the claim of the same sort of corruption because, for a manager or a CEO, looking to magnify personal profit and screwing over the workers are considered good behavior.
If racism was illegalnone of the middle class who exploit illegals would be allowed to do so.
No biteBut a nice try.
Got your attention honey.
Math geek moment:Based on their numbers the LGBT community makes up 3.5% of the population. Or at least those who will self-identify as LGBT to an unknown pollster or to anyone. Small minority that is discriminated against based on animus?
I still have yetto find someone who can tell me what an illegal immigrant looks like.
This law is the kind of thing I point to when people wonder why I ran from Arizona screaming.
There is no middle ground here.Racists, islamophobes and anti-Semites would be criminalized in any decent society. Racist leaders and thugs should be muzzled and jailed although that will never happen in a banana republic like the US where they infest the two major political parties. most cults and the ranks of the looter class.
They do vast harm to working people. Taking away their rights is essential to curbing racist violence and discrimination.
“Saying Racists should be illegal is the same as saying immigrants should be illegal” is as preposterous and wrongheaded as “saying Nazis should be illegal is the same as saying Jews, Gypsies, gays. etc. should be illegal.”
Such a statement ignores and overlooks the huge levels of everyday and potential violence created by racist leaders and thugs.
Pretending that “Racism always stems from a lack of knoweldge” is liberal twaddle and simply not true. The KKK and the Nazis knew exactly what they wanted to do. Just as today islamophobes know what they want to do. Killing, mass murder is theri only agenda.
If this is true…
…where does it end? And who gets to be the judge?
Asserting this is asserting the criminalizing of thought. I don’t want to live anywhere that criminalizes thought. This is different from criminalizing crimes based on those thoughts, i.e., hate crimes.
In other words, racists, anti-semites, islamophobes, and other -phobes should never be criminalized for being that, but should be for acting on it.
And look, I mean no offense, but if you think the U.S. is a “banana republic”, perhaps you should try living in a real one and see how glad you are to come home. I’ll take our imperfections here over some of the other places I’ve been any day of the week and twice on Sunday (as the old saying goes).
Nope
Only in a childish society that doesn’t teach their children that freedom of speech is the most valuable freedom a grown up society can have.
that’s oddin california anyway when I got mine, we were always told mto carry a greencard (or passport/I94 for the h1b’s). I think it’s technically an offence not to, eg from the uscis.gov website:
What The Law Says
Section 264 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) states, “Every alien in the United States . . . shall be issued a certificate of alien registration or an alien registration receipt card in such form and manner and at such time as shall be prescribed under regulations . . .” It also says, “Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to him . . .. Any alien who fails to comply with [these provisions] shall be guilty of a misdemeanor…”
anyways, I carry mine around, it’s way more convenient than carrying a passport around.
hmmall the internet polls I see seem to always confirm what the person paying for them wants to hear, which is fine, it’s just another tool in the marketing toolbox, but I wouldn’t put much store in these numbers vs face to face polling,
as far as I can see, to register, you provide an email address, zipcode and complete a captcha to stop the bots.
in return for doing online polls, you get reward points.
so, anyone can sign up as anything they like for whatever obscure motive they want ?
for social issues, it feels a bit like asking on a random internet board what the trolls think.
perhaps having only experienced life in california, and having a generally positive view of human nature, I’m a bit dubious of the number of straight people supporting the arizona bill.
ExactlyEntirely so. In full.
Ignorance doesn’t mean one doesn’t know what one is doing.
It simply means one is uninformed on why one is doing it.
To criminalize a person for being racist — which is a way of thinking — is no different than criminalizing them for other thoughts.
To criminalize actions derived from racism — which is a way of acting — is something different.
Cross that line, and you become as authoritarian about telling someone how to live their life as racists.
And having traveled a lot of the world, I also agree that for all our faults, I’d rather be here than elsewhere.
Ya got my attention with the first postBut discretion is the better part of valor, and AB might write something from it that makes me roll my eyes again.
Those muscles are tired…
Might want to lookinto the new passport cards. They are rather handy.
My roomie’s been going through the process for the last several months (she’s here as a refugee, and is LGBT). She’s still not completely up on the language and not wholly literate in English (despite speaking it and five other languages as well), so I’ve been having to do the whole wrangling thing.
Opened my eyes a lot.
Gucci loafersOr hadn’t you heard?
Armani jackets. It’s all about the dress code, y’know..
I have asimilar outlook to things. I tend to be more upbeat, except people to do be good, and I’ve rarely been disappointed in how people are going to act as individuals.
As a group, however, people are far more savage. THe law’s managed to get a lot of support — fairly solidly republican.
If Brewer wins her first election to the office (she’s not an elected governor — she’s in there because Obama took Janet Napolitano), it will be an excuse for others to use this law to bolster their campaigns, and we can expect more stuff like the “they are all mules” statement and the recent beheading stuff she’s bubbled over about.
The Republican field here is really heavy for Gov.
Me, I’ll be supporting Terry Goddard, lol.
yupI have a great faith in individual human nature, but my faith in a crowd diminishes in proportion to it’s size. doubled if they’re carrying flags. of any type. (tho, that’s showing my .eu alienness).
re polls: I said marketing , but I think advertising – ie, polls like this are, to all intents and purposes, outsourced ad copy designed to soften up the press release target. in this case, it’s raised my brand awareness of Wittek Coombs Communications, the nations premier LGBT aligned marketing agency, (if I need their services, I shall be sure to give them a call). tbh, the pseudo scientificy nonsense about confidence intervals and numbers is similar to the logic used to sell cosmetics, clinique. it’s math, it must be true!
anyways, harris online produced the poll triggering the ‘zomg americans think obama is the antichrist’ meme, earlier in the year (sure, ppl have issues, but ??antichrist??) which again, served to promote discussion of a particular agenda, and also, subsequently, concern over it’s accuracy.
thanksI thought a passport card was only for citizens ? anyways – I’m quite happy being an alien with a little card that totally confuses ppl when they ask for ID and expect a CA drivers license.
“where does it end…”It ends, as it should, with the suppression of racist violence.
I do live in a real banana republic and so do you. But perhaps it’s not so clear in your suburb.
Please, explain again how the KKK was uninformed. Did they have low IQs, low self esteem, a low GPA average?
Or did they know exactly what they were doing.
“And having traveled a lot of the world, I also agree that for all our faults, I’d rather be here than elsewhere.”
How very paytriotic of you. Next time you’re in Baghdad visit one of the graveyards of the million or so Iraqi dead, half of them children, and explain how genocide is a ‘fault’.
You can accept racist and homohating violence if it pleases you, but most people don’t.
That doesn’t answer my questionOnce you’ve suppressed racist violence, homophobic violence, etc., what’s next? What’s the next thought that you criminalize and eliminate, despite the fact that those thoughts may never result in a crime? Just like racist thoughts may never result in a crime.
Who doesn’t know at least someone who is a racist? But do all of those people commit crimes? No. A crime is an act.
I’m sorry you think this is a banana republic, immature jibes about where I live notwithstanding. Perhaps you should move.
Thought vs. violenceWe’re not accepting the violence, donal. We’re accepting the thought. You can’t control thought, but you can influence it for the better. You also can’t punish thought. You punish acts.
Why do you object to suppressing homohating and racist violence? . “immature jibes” Don’t be so defensive. It looks bad.
“Perhaps you should move.” How liberal of you. Where would you suggest? Guantanamo?
No thanks, I think I’ll stay and fight racists, bashers and those who defend their right to incite violence.
I don’t.I don’t object to suppressing the violence, donal. But violence is an act. You can suppress acts through criminalization (with some exceptions probably), but you cannot suppress thoughts. I can sit here and think racist thoughts all day if I want, but if I don’t act on it, I’m not committing violence.
The way you eliminate homophobia and racism (and all other bigotry) is to change thought, not by punishing those thoughts under the law.
That’s where we’re just going to disagree I suppose. Perhaps I’m reading your comments incorrectly, but you seem to believe that it’s okay to criminalize thoughts that don’t lead to actions. I do not. I do, however, believe in criminalizing the resulting actions.
The act of promoting racist violence should be illegal. Racist thugs and those who push them towards violence should be jailed for life at hard labor if they can’t be convincingly rehabilitated.
That won’t happen because racism and other forms of bigotry are woven into the institutions and history of the banana republic and have been since colonial times.
That will not change until the looter class is swept from power. They use racism, gynophobia, homohating, union busting and class prejudice to divide and rule. Their success is measured by the bleat that goes up every time the left calls for an end to their violence.
I think it pretty clear that defending the right to promote violence is acceptance of that violence.
way to goI disagree with you, one thing I love about america is you have a written constitution, you have freedom of speech.
the obscenity (to my liberal eurotrash eyes) of incarceration rates in the USA, particularly of minorities, is because , I suspect, the prison system here has become the acceptable way to soak up excess labour capacity. obviously as a corollary, either intentional or not, it serves to suppress public dissent, also the policy, in some states, of disenfranchising felons (WTF?), effectively removes them from engagement with democracy.
so way to go, find another excuse to put more ppl in prison, simply because you disagree with what they think – that’s… what the looter rich windmills you tilt against want.
Soyou believe in thought crimes?
What are you going to do when the right gets in power and outlaws thinking gay thoughts?
Most of you are so short sighted to see that when you promote making some form of speech illegal, that can always be used against you, your political agenda and your lifestyle.
Thought vs ActionJust chiming in my own thoughts, as a citizen of Canada, where we have laws prohibiting hate speech, existing (sometimes uneasily) alongside laws protecting free expression. For the record, I don’t fully agree with either of your positions, but lets be clear on one important fact.
Speech is a form of action, not a form of thought. Speech can harm, just look at the higher rates of suicide among LGBT youths who are exposed to homophobic slurs and insults. Not physical violence, just verbal harassment. In many cases, those who engage in racist or homophobic discourse, even when not promoting violence, know perfectly well that their words are painful to those they consider their enemies. That’s why they use them. It is an action and one meant to harm.
We might well disagree with how much speech should be limited and in what form, if at all, but there is a fundamental difference between hateful thoughts and hateful expression.
Don’t be silly. No one can read thoughts. But you can read this, and it’s criminal.
“I get amazed, I can’t look at it but about 10 seconds, at these politicians dancing around this, dancing around this, I’m trying to find a correct name for it, this utter absolute, asinine, idiotic stupidity of men marrying men.” (shouts from crowd)
“I’ve never seen a man in my life I wanted to marry.” (shouts, applause) “And I’m gonna be blunt and plain, if one ever looks at me like that I’m gonna kill him and tell God he died.” (laughter, applause) “In case anybody doesn’t know, God calls it an abomnation (sic). It’s an abomnation (sic)! It’s an abomnation (sic)!” (applause)
Jimmy Swaggart
So, you can’t read or comprehend.
Don’t be silly. No one can read thoughts.
But you can read this, and it’s criminal. It advocates violence by example.
“I get amazed, I can’t look at it but about 10 seconds, at these politicians dancing around this, dancing around this, I’m trying to find a correct name for it, this utter absolute, asinine, idiotic stupidity of men marrying men.” (shouts from crowd)
“I’ve never seen a man in my life I wanted to marry.” (shouts, applause) “And I’m gonna be blunt and plain, if one ever looks at me like that I’m gonna kill him and tell God he died.” (laughter, applause) “In case anybody doesn’t know, God calls it an abomnation (sic). It’s an abomnation (sic)! It’s an abomnation (sic)!” (applause)
Jimmy Swaggart
That’s hate speechand if he’d ever acted on it, it’d be a hate crime.
Being uninformed doesn’t mean one has a low IQ. Or Low Self esteem. Or even a low GPA average.
One can be uninformed and have a phenomenal IQ, amazing self esteem, and an unparalelled GPA.
One can know exactly what one is doing, and still be uninformed. People do that all the time, every day.
How were they uninformed? They relied on stereotypes and fear and falsehoods and illusions. And still do, to this day.
You seem to think that ignorance is the purview of the uneducated, the incapable of thinking, the struggling. It isn’t. It is the purview of all people, and it cuts across every line imaginable. Everyone is ignorant.
Knowing that, however, allows you to approach them i various ways to correct those errors, to introduce conflicting information that eventually they’ll have to deal with.
It allows you to see the flaws in education, to combat what is learned at home with what is learned in the wider world.
They are uninformed because they don’t have actual fact to support their views, their ideas, their hate. Granted, they don’t feel that they need it, but that, in and of itself, is part of the being uninformed.
As for my patriotism, yeah, I’ll cop to it, although that’s not why I said I’d rather be here than elsewhere.
And I was in Iraq. I’ve been in Iran. I’ve walked Baghdad’s streets. All of it long before we marched in and occupied the nation. I didn’t wear a uniform then, either — but I saw plenty of them. I also saw plenty of graves and was told to overlook them, as they were not a subject that was to be discussed.
Forget not that that a fault it is,indeed — a bad thing, without argument — and that the excuses used to put us there were asinine and capitalized on the fear used by those who would hate; but also that what we replaced was not exactly all that great either.
Two wrongs don’t make a right — they just make two wrongs.
good point!
“That’s hate speech and if he’d ever acted on it, it’d be a hate crime.”Saying it is a hate crime.
Being a paytriot is just dead wrong.
Don’t be daft, veranda. Racism will never be suppressed in a society run by the looter class.
This discussion has nothing to do with things as they are but with things as they should be.
Within a few years, Iranian students, women, workers, trade unionists and GLBT folks are going to defeat the mad ayatollahs, and it won’t be in some farsical ‘election’ but in the streets. Then they’re going to give the ayatollahs, a few hundred cops and torturers and scum like Ahmadinejad a fair trial (something the thousands of young gay men they butchered never got) and then relieve them of the burden of life.
You and all the other centrists will then rant and rant about the unfairness of it all, and dysonnance, unable to tell the difference betwen right and wrong, will tell the Iranians that two wrongs don’t make a right, etc.
All meaningless.
If they fear for their jobsthey would be on the streets advocating MUCH tighter CAPITAL controls.
Capital is allowed to move freely in search of cheap labour. That is what is causing the job losses. Something you right wingers know full well.
More liesWhat screws over the working class is capital, capital owned by the rich and the upper middle class, being allowed to move freely all over the world in search of higher returns.
It is madness to allow more and more jobs to be offshored, it is madness to allow Apple to make its IPods and Ipads with ultra cheap labour in horrendous working conditions, when unemployment is 10%. All the while racking up great profits for Apple, its shareholders, its top executives.
Where do you draw the line thenOnly at outright violence? Do you tolerate advocacy of violence, incitement to violence?
Understand where you’re coming from.This really sort of the detail level where you and I differ, I suppose. Speech can be a criminal act. The law already provides for criminal sanctions against people for certain kinds of speech – it’s called incitement. It has very specific requirements (like all crimes), and Swaggart’s statement, while vile, probably wouldn’t qualify. You think it does. Fair enough.
Honest question for youI know we had a few jibes back and forth above about “banana republics”, but am I honestly curious about your position on something here – related to the spelling “paytriot” of course.
If you think the U.S. is so bad, what would it be like if it met your expectations (wrong word maybe?)? Because I admit I always scratch my head over this. I’ve been to a few really ugly places in the world (and I don’t mean ugly in the aesthetic sense), and though we’re far from perfect, I’ll take here (and most other Western democracies/republics) over the other options. At least here we can work to make it better. Even when our opinions might radically differ.
Your rights end at my nose and my character.
In a grown up society that is the line in the sand so to speak.
Everybody has a right to hate whomever they want, and to say hateful things. Look at all the straight bashing that goes on around here and elsewhere. Look at all the hate speech directed at straight folk in articles here and elsewhere.
Do you really want to outlaw that, some of yo seem to enjoy it.
There is a certain TG person of color who has a blog and is always spouting hate speech toward straight people and white TS folk. Shouldn’t She have a right to her free speech.
Why is it some of you want inflict on others what you won’t tolerate being inflicted on you?
6/10!My question is: What are the other four thinking? 6/10 is barely a majority. What is wrong for one is wrong for everyone.
As Martin Luther King so eloquently put it in his Letter From A Birmingham Jail:
“I cannot sit idly in Atlanta and not be concerned about what happens in Birmingham. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly.”
Smarten up people!
What we need is what every country needs. Political democracy, currently just a sham, and economic democracy, the suppression of the looter class and an economy controlled by workers and consumers.
If you want to see ugly try looking at the burgeoning Obamavilles fro the homeless, or the world’s largest, most racist prison system, or how people are treated on the res, or how working class African Americans and Latinos and Latinas are treated, and examine the suicide rates of young LGBT people pushed on the street by their loving christian parents.
Or check out what the US has done in Tegucigalpa, Gaza, Chiapas, Baghdad, Manila, Kabul, Medellín or Pakistan’s Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.
And etc., and etc., and etc.
The suburbs are not the real world. That’s the truth, not a jibe.
Maybethe other 4 are thinking the law only applies to legal citizens. Maybe the other 4 have actually read the constitution.
You’ll need to be more specificI say this because a democracy is rule by majority.
Flat out. Saying “democracy”, by itself, is meaningless unless you do actually mean rule by the majority. We have a democratic society here — and in that society, the ideal is that the tyranny of the majority does not erase the rights of a minority.
Right now, we are in those wars because of people who holler democracy.
Incidentally, saying that is not a hate crime — at least, not universally, and not in a country where the right to freedom of speech is held in high regard.
It is hate speech, and in many countries hate speech is criminalized, and even in some jurisdictions in the US it’s on the books as such, but not as a criminal action in and of itself, only if if it is done in conjunction with some other criminal action.
Your “Paytriot” may be wrong, but my Patriotism is not, as it reminds me of things like the freedom of speech and the freedom from the tyranny of the majority — the tyranny of pure, political democracy.
Your comments are dead wrong. “We have a democratic society here…” That statement is shouted. day in and day. out from high atop Mt. Merde.
1. In every election 1/3 to 1/2 of voters boycott the election. In 2008 Obama got a bit over 1/3. McCain a bit under 1/3 and ‘none of the above’ (by boycott) about 1/3 from elegible voters.
2. Political democracy is impossible without economic democracy.
3. Workers are the majority and we most certainly do not rule. Rather we are ruled by the looter rich.
“Right now, we are in those wars because of people who holler democracy.” As a defense of the war your statement is, to put it mildly, wildly untrue. The war is about oil and the theft of natural resources and nothing else.
Republican Senator CHARLES HAGEL: “People say we’re not fighting for oil. Of course we are. They talk about America’s national interest. What the hell do you think they’re talking about? We’re not there for figs.” (Speaking at Catholic University, Sept. 24, 2007)
Former Federal Reserve Chairman ALAN GREENSPAN, in his book The Age of Turbulence; Adventures in a New World: “I’m saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: The Iraq war is largely about oil.”
Democratic Senator JOHN TESTER: “We’re still fighting a war in Iraq and people who are honest about it will admit we’re there over oil.” (Associated Press, Sept. 24, 2007)
General JOHN ABIZAID, retired commander of CENTCOM: “Of course it’s about oil, we can’t really deny that.” (Speaking at Stanford University, Oct. 13, 2007)
No vote to continue or end the wars has been taken or ever will.
The polls are antiwar and have been, with rare exceptions, since they started.
“The pollfound that 53 percent of respondents disapprove of how Obama is managing the war in Afghanistan (just 37 percent approve)-a reversal of opinion since February, when 55 percent of Americans said they supported the president’s plan and just 27 percent disapproved.
Your paytriotism is based on wishful thinking.
Dayum…I realize you’ve got a violent wedgie over the whole war thing, but, um, well, the war thing has nothing to do with what I pointed out.
Nothing. That’s your personal agenda getting in the way of a discussion.
Your whole idea of attacking this non-existent “paytriotism” thing you seem to think I have is based on literally knowing nothing about how I feel about any of the things you talked about.
Indeed, you completely bypassed my entire comment to run off about something utterly unrelated to what I wrote.
That zealotry you display there is admirable in your pursuit of the cause you are so dedicated to (which, I should note, is a form of jingoism and is the kind of mindset that leads to the sort of things you actually are railing against).
But you completely ignored the content of my post in order to make a wider statement on something unrelated to it.
You apparently haven’t put a lot of thought into the nature of democracy, which, in it’s pure form, actually allows for two people out of ten to become a majority.
All that’s needed is for the rest to either abstain or not agree with anyone else. So long as those two people agree, they have the majority. You can put rules in that say 60% is required, but that’s not a pure democracy, that’s a limited one — limited by the requirement for 60%.
I asked you to be more specific when it comes to the kind of democracy you are talking about.
The United States is not a democracy. It is a democratic society, but politically, it is a Republic that elects Representatives democratically.
If you want to condemn people for not voting, fine — but you can’t make them vote. Just as you can’t make them vote the way you want.
IF you did that, you’d be destroying the nature of democracy and making it something else.
And if you did it with the power of authority, you’d be totalitarian.
Dead wrong on all counts. Political and economic democracy will begin when workers and consumers control the government. Not before.
Paytriotic support for the mass murder in Iraq is sad and outrageous.
Alright.Thank you for answering the question. Gives me a better idea where you’re coming from. Of course I disagree, but reasonable people do.