Category: Uncategorized

Does Texas Need another Gold Star for Bigotry?

By Greg Moses

Pink Dome live-blogged the hearing for a proposed Texas amendment to define marriage. Hundreds poured in to oppose it. I dropped off a form opposing it. The room was stuffed full with people. Testimony lasted until 2:30 am. But the lege is a Republican greenhouse, so this bad weed will be watered anyway? We hope not.

The hearing got good headline coverage in state press, thanks to an AP story by April Castro and a wire photo of Rep. Mike Villareal (D-San Antonio) that stresses his wedding band.

Martha Wong, the Republican who represents the Montrose area of Houston told 365Gay that although she opposes gay marriage, last minute amendments to the amendment by Warren Chisum (R-Pampa) went too far in outlawing civil unions or other arrangements “similar to marriage.” If Chisum holds firm with his amendments, the bill dies, says Wong. So hang in there Warren.

State Affairs Committee indeed. How about Committee to Restrict Affairs Pertaining to No Elected Official. CRAPNEO. Said Justice Kennedy in Lawrence v Texas:

Liberty protects the person from unwarranted government intrusions into a dwelling or other private places. In our tradition the State is not omnipresent in the home. And there are other spheres of our lives and existence, outside the home, where the State should not be a dominant presence. Freedom extends beyond spatial bounds. Liberty presumes an autonomy of self that includes freedom of thought, belief, expression, and certain intimate conduct. The instant case involves liberty of the person both in its spatial and more transcendent dimensions.

There is some philosophy in Justice Kennedy. Compare his high court eloquence with Chisum’s chump bite: “This doesn’t discriminate against anyone. It discriminates against a practice, not people.” Chisum is lead author of the bill. In addition there are three other authors and sixty co-authors piling on.

Has anyone among the 64 Marriage Cops considered that Texas needs no more credentials for illiberal geography? While they grandstand for hometown mobs, the general image of Texas as a place you’d like to raise your children or your company drags even further down. Some of these sponsors (like Rep. Will Hartnett R-Dallas) have been to Ivy League schools, and they are well aware of the sparks that fly when fabulously talented people think about social freedom and Texas at the same time. Do Texans send their kids to Harvard so they can come back home and pander for a living? Does Texas need another gold star for bigotry?

Why don’t Republicans try a line like this: “while many of my constituents may be personally opposed to marriage between two men or two women, it’s already against the law and I see no reason to waste more time or money on the issue while we have other pressing needs in State Affairs. The people of Texas should be free to work out their marriage commitments without any interference from lawmakers. And while many of my constituents have concerns about this issue, they generally agree that I should be busy with things that have clear government interest, like providing an environment for prosperity, health, and education.”

Not only does the proposed bill pander to homophobia during the legislative season, it sets the stage for an obnoxious public campaign when the amendment hits the ballot box in some future election. A cautionary announcement out of Washington D.C. this week warns us that officialized homophobia is problem enough in Texas. As reported by OutSports, “an award-winning teacher and basketball coach” was fired from her job in Texas because of homophobic bigotry. The school board president “testified under oath in a deposition that the board’s decision to terminate [Merry] Stephens was based on the personal anti-gay animosity of several school board members.” With that testimony on the record, settlement was quick to follow.

Compare the news out of Texas this week to the news out of Connecticut, where the state Senate “has approved a bill that would make Connecticut the first state to recognize same-sex civil unions without pressure from the courts.” In the contrast between state house leadership in Texas and Connecticut, news consumers everywhere will see which state is a happier place to do business for “award-winning” professionals.

Is this a civil rights issue? Yes it is. Whenever the majority gangs up against the rights of a minority, we have classic features of civil rights at play. In such cases, the progressive use of constitutions is to preserve equal protections, not to grandfather discrimination. Message to Rep. Chisum: you have gay and lesbian constituents, many of them award winning professionals, and you are misusing your power of office when you conjure public opinion into moblike behaviors against them. Make no mistake that your actions contribute to a threatening environment for all Texans. The appropriate use of public power in a constitutional democracy is to preserve civil rights under majority rule, not to pander to illiberal mobs.

See the Goddess of Liberty high atop the Pink Dome? She has transcendent potential. At the Texas legislature, however, they just keep that woman outside, bolted to her pedestal. Maybe we should have an image of her at ground level, where she can look folks in the eye?

Here’s a link to the bill status page, just type in HJR 6

Note: article modified and expanded Apr. 7.

by Nick Braune
Mid-Valley Town Crier
by permission

Last week I attended Holy Spirit Affirmation Night, an annual event for over two decades. Although the event was once formally connected to McAllen’s Holy Spirit Catholic Parish, the current bishop came into conflict with the energetic group and cut it off from the parish a few years ago. But the annual event keeps going and is always important.

Last year the national director of Pax Christi spoke. And Sister Helen Prejean, who wrote “Dead Man Walking,” was here several years ago as was Fr. Roy Bourgeois, a famous priest concerned about the U.S. military role in Central America.

But this year’s Affirmation Night did not have an out-of-town guest speaker: This year was a retrospective on, and tribute to, Valley activism back in the 1970s and 1980s. Some topics back then: the first exposes of Port Isabel’s federal detention center, “sanctuary” for political refugees from El Salvador, and stopping police brutality.

I caught one speaker afterward, Richard Flores, who now has a private practice in Edinburg but was a young lawyer in 1979 and 1980 with the ACLU’s South Texas Project. He and their executive director at the time, Jim Harrington, represented some clients who were reporting being beaten by the McAllen police in the police station.

On a miraculous tip from a client, the lawyers found out that the police — incredibly — had installed a video camera in the booking area. “Once we had these tapes,” Flores told us, “we had proof and went to the court to get an injunction. We demanded that the beatings stop, that proper training and psychological exams be given police and that a citizen’s board be set up to process complaints.”

When Judge Jimmy Deanda saw the tapes, he was noticeably shocked and immediately sent his court bailiff to reach the U.S. Attorney’s office. Things started rolling, and they started identifying the cops from the tapes. The story broke in the local media and soon hit national TV.

Braune: You saw these tapes. Were there really beatings?

Flores: Yes: fists, kicks, everything.

Braune: I am trying to picture this. Was it Anglo cops doing the beatings in the police station? Was this racism, targeting Mexican Americans?

Flores: Actually, the cops were mostly Hispanic with a few Anglos in the mix. It was not directly racism but rather power. The police thought they were untouchable: how could anyone believe a common criminal or drunkard over a police officer? (Police were held in such high regard.) This was a situation where bravado and tough guy attitudes became the norm, especially between 11:00 pm to 7:00 am. That was considered the toughest shift, requiring tough cops to handle all of these criminals.

Braune: Why were the police so clueless as to allow this gross misconduct to be filmed?

Flores: Actually the camera was placed to protect the cops from frivolous claims. The police thought that they were untouchable, so the camera was never a deterrent to their misconduct. Frankly, they never suspected it would come back and be used against them.

Braune: I write occasionally about the Blue Wall of Silence, the “police culture” code which encourages police to lie for each other. It is very hard to get a cop to testify against another cop. Most of the violence, you told us, was on the graveyard shift. But didn’t the other police know about this problem? And what about the chief?

Flores: Everybody knew of the actions of this group of police officers. The tapes were reviewed each night, but not one single thing ever came up about it. The chief would turn his head and the C-Shift would flaunt their toughness. They called themselves the “C-Shift Animals” and even printed T-shirts with that name and wore them around. Everybody at the police department knew about this. You are right: it was a culture of silence.

Braune: How did it end?

Flores: After these tapes hit the air, local and national, there was an uproar. Some indictments followed and two or three officers lost their jobs; other tough ones were disciplined and some left by attrition. (There were some good officers too, by the way, who stepped forward to help us.) Significant institutional changes were made.

As a consequence of all this, one of the entrenched powers, Mayor Othal Brand, who was a produce magnate, was challenged in the elections by a reformer, Dr. Ramiro Casso, a very well respected physician. Two other prominent Mexican-Americans also got on the ticket to oust council members. It was a hell of a race. This was the first time a Mexican-American had run for mayor — historic. Brand won, but by a very narrow margin.

Braune: Thanks, attorney Richard Flores, for this interview.

We got the song from Roberto Calderon who got it from Jorge Mariscal at UCSD

El Primero de Mayo

Coro:
En el Primero de Mayo
Dejamos de comprar y trabajar
Luchamos por Justicia
Y la Libertad
En el Primero de Mayo
Dejamos de comprar y trabajar
Con todo el mundo entero
En el Primero de Mayo Compañeras y Compañeros
Les quiero hablar de una cuestión
Tan solo un día necesitamos
Para demostrar nuestra convicción
Ese día tan especial
Se nos acerca ya
Hay que anunciar
Por todos lados
Nuestra Solidaridad/Coro:

Sin papeles o con papeles
Es la hora de educar
Que el racismo y leyes malas
Nos quieren quitar la libertad
Hay que anunciar por todos lados
La importancia de organizar
Toda la familia debe de actuar*Coro

No somos malos ni criminales
Venimos aquí pa’ trabajar
Este país nos necesita y estamos aquí para ayudar

En este mundo tan complicado
Que quiere decir ser ilegal
Hay que aceptar que este mundo esta cambiando

Y las fronteras se van a eliminar*Coro

Tenemos, que prepararnos
Para poder aprovechar este momento
Hay que hacer, todas las compras
Antes del día 30 de abril
Debemos, de tener
Los alimentos, la gasolina
Y una veladora

De nuestra virgen de Guadalupe*Coro

By Joaquin y Neri McWhinney To hear the song, go to:
http://calacapress.com/gigantedespierto/mp3/PrimeroDeMayo.mp3

Immigration activists call for nationwide boycott

April 5, 2006

By MICHAEL DOYLE McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON — Immigrant advocates called Tuesday for a nationwide boycott of jobs and schools on May 1, even as senators appeared stymied in their efforts to finish the immigration bill that’s provoking controversy.

The proposed “Great American Boycott of 2006” is being organized by some of the same activists who rallied an estimated half a million demonstrators in Los Angeles on March 25. Now, in a bid to show nationwide clout, they want immigrants and supporters to avoid work, school, buying and selling on May 1.

“We realize that we have been absent from the political debate in Washington, although we are the voices of those most affected by the legislation,” Juan Jose Gutierrez, director of Latino Movement USA, said at a Washington news conference.

The nationwide boycott is also being organized through the ANSWER Coalition, whose member groups range from the Free Palestine Alliance to the Party for Socialism and Liberation and the Korea Truth Coalition.

The boycott, along with upcoming nationwide rallies scheduled for April 10, represent the loudest aspect of a debate that has meandered on Capitol Hill for the past week. On Tuesday, despite some ongoing Republican compromise negotiations, increasingly irritated senators acknowledged they lack the 60 votes necessary to pass legislation.

“I’m very frustrated right now,” Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist conceded early Tuesday evening, adding, “We’re making no progress whatsoever.”

Eight hours of debate Tuesday, interrupted by frequent quorum calls, did not result in any substantive progress and yielded only one, symbolic, vote.

One hundred amendments still await action, prompting some senators — including Republican Sen. John Cornyn of Texas — to suggest that the Senate might have to postpone action until after a two-week April recess now scheduled to start Saturday. Throughout most of Tuesday, Democrats used the Senate’s procedural rules to block voting on amendments.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid complained, in turn, about past Republican intransigence on issues like the minimum wage. He insisted Democrats would block amendments that “damage the integrity” of the 478-page bill.

“We’re still looking to find the magic formula,” Republican Sen. Mel Martinez of Florida allowed Tuesday afternoon.

Martinez has begun seeking a compromise deal with Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, a potential 2008 presidential candidate. Still a work in progress, their proposal would treat illegal immigrants differently depending on how long they have been in the United States.

Illegal immigrants who could prove they had lived in this country for at least five years could obtain legal U.S. residency under the newest proposal. Newer immigrants would have to first return, even if briefly, to their home country.

“We’re not anywhere near a final agreement,” Hagel said, but “I think we’re moving along here.”

The immigration bill approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee would not differentiate among the estimated 11 million to 12 million illegal immigrants now in the United States. All could seek legal U.S. status good for six years, if they met certain requirements. They would face background checks and pay fines starting at $1,000. Eventually, by paying an additional $1,000, taking a medical exam, paying back taxes and meeting other requirements, they could obtain permanent U.S. residency.

Democratic Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, a chief proponent of the legalization effort, dismissed the latest Republican compromise proposal as one that “doesn’t make a great deal of sense.”