It amazes me that Pulitzer Prize winning editorialist Paul Greenberg follows the talking points of conservative "Christians" like Focus On The Family, the American Family Association via their "news" organization OneNewsNow, and the Concerned Women for America (CWA audio files of Rep. Trent Franks, R-Arizona and Concerned Women for America President Wendy Wright, for example) regarding hate crimes and the "thought crimes" meme.
But, in an Op-Ed of his I read just this morning in The Argus Leader by Mr. Greenburg entitled The annals of thoughtcrime, follows their lead in stating:
It's back: the criminalization of thought.This time the same old bad idea has been all decked out in the latest newspeak. It's now the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, aka HR 1913.
...But under the bill's title, like a snake under a rock, is the dubious concept that George Orwell named concisely enough in "1984": thoughtcrime...
I also learned the way a Pulitzer Prize winning editorialist makes points these days is either feigning ignorance, actually being proud of his ignorance, or just not doing his homework (emphasis added):
Another section of the bill app lies to crimes committed "because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability of any person." There must be a reason for differentiating between gender and gender identity in the law, but I'd rather not guess.
I don't have to guess. Angie Zapata's hate crime murder is a reason for the differentiation that's very fresh in my mind.
Have a read at the rest of Mr. Greenburg's column -- it reads to me as a lazy piece. Such as, the argument in his piece where he states...
The accused doesn't become eligible for additional punishment unless he's motivated by one of the designated politically incorrect hates named in the the bill. All others are, in effect, discounted.
...so do we protect no one because the law doesn't spell out all bigotries Mr. Greenburg can imagine? Is Mr. Greenburg arguing the law should be more expansive? No, he's not. He's arguing that because the law isn't incredibly expansive, it can't be made narrowly now, with a idea that we can add to this bill later. It appears to me he's putting forward an affirming the consequent argument. It appears to me that he's saying it's better that statements that tell us that the bigotry of a perpetrator in the selection of a victim isn't considered a worthy factor -- well, not a worthy factor if every kind of bigotry Mr. Greenburg can imagine isn't included.
Really. Well, my guess is he just doesn't want to include lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people to any hate crime law. He doesn't want to repeal federal hate crime laws on the books, he just doesn't want to add teh homosexuals.
And "thought crimes?" Shouldn't a Pulitzer Prize winning editorialist be familiar with R.A.V. v. City Of St. Paul, where speech essentially stops being free speech when it's tied conduct? Shouldn't he be giving us serious discussions of exactly how this federal hate crimes act winding it's way through congress is substantially overbroad and impermissibly content based? How exactly the act as written in an unconstitutional manner that prohibits free speech that isn't just limited in its reach to speech connected to violent conduct?
Shouldn't he also be giving us serious discussions of this proposed federal act by taking into account Wisconsin v. Mitchell, which states:
[More below the fold.]
In determining what sentence to impose, sentencing judges have traditionally considered a wide variety of factors in addition to evidence bearing on guilt, including a defendant's motive for committing the offense. While it is equally true that a sentencing judge may not take into consideration a defendant's abstract beliefs, however obnoxious to most people, the Constitution does not erect a per se barrier to the [508 U.S. 476, 477] admission of evidence concerning one's beliefs and associations at sentencing simply because they are protected by the First Amendment. Dawson v. Delaware, 503 U.S. 159; Barclay v. Florida, 463 U.S. 939 (plurality opinion). That Dawson and Barclay did not involve the application of a penalty-enhancement provision does not make them inapposite. Barclay involved the consideration of racial animus in determining whether to sentence a defendant to death, the most severe "enhancement" of all; and the state legislature has the primary responsibility for fixing criminal penalties. Motive plays the same role under the state statute as it does under federal and state antidiscrimination laws, which have been upheld against constitutional challenge. Nothing in R.A.V. v. St. Paul, supra, compels a different result here. The ordinance at issue there was explicitly directed at speech, while the one here is aimed at conduct unprotected by the First Amendment. Moreover, the State's desire to redress what it sees as the greater individual and societal harm inflicted by bias-inspired conduct provides an adequate explanation for the provision over and above mere dire disagreement with offenders' beliefs or biases. Pp. 485-488.
And...
Moreover, the Wisconsin statute singles out for enhancement bias-inspired conduct because this conduct is thought [508 U.S. 476, 488] to inflict greater individual and societal harm...The State's desire to redress these perceived harms provides an adequate explanation for its penalty-enhancement provision over and above mere disagreement with offenders' beliefs or biases. As Blackstone said long ago, "it is but reasonable that, among crimes of different natures, those should be most severely punished which are the most destructive of the public safety and happiness." 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries *16.
And...
The First Amendment, moreover, does not prohibit the evidentiary use of speech to establish the elements of a crime or to prove motive or intent. Evidence of a defendant's previous declarations or statements is commonly admitted in criminal trials subject to evidentiary rules dealing with relevancy, reliability, and the like.
We don't get a kind of well reasoned piece from Mr. Greenburg -- one that takes into account how the U.S. Supreme Court has handled hate crime issues in the past. Instead, we have a Pulitzer Prize winning editorialist just parroting the "thought crimes" meme.
Pathetic.
Below is the comment I left for Mr. Greenburg's article, where my comment was the first one posted. I attacked his appeal to complexity argument regarding gender and gender identity:
I was in Greeley, Colorado, covering the trial of Allen Andrade from the courtroom for the blog Pam's House Blend. Andrade was being tried for the bias crime murder of Angie Zapata, who was specifically selected as a victim of a brutal beating because she was transgender.While in the courtroom, I heard recorded jailhouse calls from Andrade where he called her "it" many times, said "Gay things must die," and said "It's not like I went up to a schoolteacher and shot her in the head or ... killed a law-abiding straight citizen."
Let's be clear - Paul Greenburg may not be able to tell the difference between gender and gender identity, but transgender community members like me know what the difference is. We also know hate crimes aren't for punishing victims for thei r crimes against the direct victim, but for the terror that these inflict on communities from selecting victims due to their community identity. Mr. Greenburg should have felt my fear as I left from San Diego for Greeley.
He also should feel my anger at him parroting the talking points of religious right organizations, but I didn't have enough characters to convey that message in my 1000 character reply.
So, now, Mr. Greenburg, with all the others who are arguing that hate crime legislation is really "thought crime" legislation, you too own the words of convicted First Degree Murderer and Bias Motivated Criminal Allen Ray Andrade; you own the terror he fostered within transgender community members like me by committing his bias motivated crime.
You can ccan choke on Andrade's words along with all the conservative "Christian" organization folk.
~~~~~
Related:
* Pam's House Blend tag: Angie Zapata
First, the story- CBS golf commentator David Feherty joked about how "any U.S. soldier would...". UGH. I can't even type it:
From my own experience visiting the troops in the Middle East, I can tell you this, though: despite how the conflict has been portrayed by our glorious media, if you gave any U.S. soldier a gun with two bullets in it, and he found himself in an elevator with Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Osama bin Laden, there's a good chance that Nancy Pelosi would get shot twice, and Harry Reid and bin Laden would be strangled to death.
Lots of outrage over this insane and bizarre attempt at humor.
But imo Keith Olbermann's smackdown from Friday sums it up quite well:
Feherty's "apology" as such and more below...
Feherty came under some sharp criticism over the weekend for his column.
But check out this apology he issued last night and see if your head explodes as high as my ex-military husband's just did:
"This passage was a metaphor meant to describe how American troops felt about our 43rd president," Feherty said in a statement. "In retrospect, it was inappropriate and unacceptable, and has clearly insulted Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid, and for that, I apologize. As for our troops, they know I will continue to do as much as I can for them both at home and abroad."
Except apologize to THOSE SAME TROOPS, that you said would be thrilled to assassinate 2 elected officials, right David?
How the hell does one declare himself to be a staunch supporter of our soldiers, when he sees them as some sort of "Rambo"esque murderous thugs and then... what? Forgets? Doesn't realize his error?
Has no clue that he didn't just insult and criminally threaten Speaker of the House Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid-, but also insulted every member of the military?
Unacceptable.
CBS, don't just distance yourself from this mess.
Do the right thing and fire this clown already.
"A Bee in a Bonnet"? I think there should be a massive swarm of outcry at this stage.
From the Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland comes the following:
Bishop Malone Issues Statement on Signing of Same-Sex Marriage BillBishop Richard Malone, spiritual leader of Maine's 200,000 Roman Catholics, said today:
"I am deeply disappointed in the Maine Legislature and the Governor for making same sex-marriage legal in our state. We believe that the vast majority of Maine's people believe that marriage is the union of one man and one woman, and that calling same-sex relationships marriage doesn't make them so. Marriage as we have known it for millennia has served as the cornerstone of society. The family, consisting of mother, father and children, has served throughout the ages as the natural place for the healthy development of children into well adjusted and prodnd productive citizens.
Same-sex marriage is a dangerous sociological experiment that I believe will have negative consequences for society as a whole. Children will be taught in schools that same-sex marriage and traditional marriage are simply different expressions of the same thing, and that the logical and consistent understanding that marriage and reproduction are intrinsically linked is no longer valid. These are profound changes that will reverberate throughout society with tragic consequences."
So nice of The Bishop to step out of his luxurious posh mansion to release a statement, wasn't it?
Note that the mansion is constructed out of brick, the choice of smart pigs, and not a "glass house", so vulnerable to stones cast by angry parishioners...
While others have wailed that Maine lawmakers should be working on economic issues rather than the now equal marriage LAW, it has been refreshing to see Malone stay far away from THAT particular discussion!
Anyone wonder why? But I digress...
Ah, the children, the children- it always comes back to the wee innocents, doesn't it?
Let's go below the fold and see what Bishop Malone and the Roman Catholic Diocese of Maine together have done to preserve the safety of the children, shall we?
Hypocrisy, Thy Name Is Richard Malone!
Actually, it seems they have done alot- and that they have HAD to... from this weekend's Kennebec Journal:
A former Maine priest has been barred from the ministry and an Augusta man prevented from church service due to a history of child abuse, according to the Diocese of Portland.
Frederick A. Carrigan, 74, who served at St. Joseph in Gardiner as well as parishes in Bath, Bangor, Dover-Foxcroft, East Millinocket and Hampden, has been assigned to a life of prayer and penance, which means he cannot have any ministry, present himself as a priest or wear clerical clothes, according to a statement released by the Diocese on Friday.
In a separate case, Paul Douin, 69, of Augusta, has been permanently removed from his volunteer position. The Diocese said it made that decision after confirming that Douin was convicted in 1977 of sexual abuse of minor.
Carrigan was permanently removed from service after The Vatican accepted the decision of a tribunal that heard Carrigan's case during a church trial last October. The judges, all from outside of Maine, found Carrigan guilty of abusing a minor.
The tribunal's recommendation was sent to Rome, which gave final approval in a letter sent to Bishop Richard Malone April 22.
Carrigan was removed from ministry in 1989 for "inappropriate behavior" with an adult, the Diocese said. Carrigan was accused in 1991 of abusing a minor in 1972. His ministry ended 2002.
Douin, who was most recently a volunteer at St. Augustine's Church in Augusta, was sentenced to four years in prison in 1977, the Diocese said. He has not been arrested for any offense since his release from prison, according to the Diocese.
Quick action there, kids- the abuses occurred decades ago?
And apparently I'm not the only one who feels handing in your robes is a pretty lame punishment:
Harvey Paul, director of the Maine chapter of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, found little satisfaction in The Vatican's decision to bar Carrigan from service."It's way too little, way too late," Paul said.
Carrigan, who lives out of state, lives in anonymity, Paul said.
"We don't know where he is. We know nothing about him," Paul said. "We really have a problem with that."
SNAP is pushing for a Diocese-run web site, similar to Maine's sex offender registry, that would list priest the diocese has determined have abused children.
The Diocese has said only they will consider a site, Paul said.
"They've been thinking about it a few months now," he said. "It should have taken about a day of thinking. In the time they're thinking about it, children are at risk."
No kidding, the kids are at risk. But these are just isolated incidences, right? Right?
Not even close.
Michael Doucette. His confession and story was covered by NYT, as well as by Time, both in 2002.
Raymond Melville. In 2005, Maine Supreme Court Justices found that a sex abuse victim can indeed sue church leaders such as the Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland. But thie was the real stunner:
The impact of the case is unclear. Lipman said it opens the door to other suits against the church by sex-abuse victims. According to a report issued in 2004 by Maine Attorney General Steven Rowe, 63 priests and other diocese employees had been accused of sexual abuse over the previous 75 years, but most of those cases would be too old for lawsuits under the statute of limitations. Also, some cases have already been settled by the church and could not be brought again.The two dissenting justices argued that the impact will be felt by a variety of institutions who could face lawsuits for failing to protect people from their employees.
"With these rulings the court invites lawsuits against businesses, schools, camps, churches and youth sports organizations for real or perceived improprieties by their members or employees that occur outside of the course and scope of the organizations' responsibilities," wrote Justice Donald Alexander.
Not 63 total cases of abuse- 63 SEPARATE PRIESTS HAVE BEEN ACCUSED. That's an overwhelming number and shows a systemic problem within the Maine Catholic community.
Lest we forget:
The late James Robichaud, who rather than face investigators last summer, killed himself in a church rectory.
Remind me again, isn't suicide a big no-no in the Catholic Church?
A priest suspected of sexually abusing a girl in 1979 was found dead Friday morning in the Dover-Foxcroft rectory where he lived.Police confirmed the Rev. James P. Robichaud, 56, an Augusta native, committed suicide.
Robichaud, who was born and raised in Augusta, became an ordained priest in April 1979 and the same year was assigned to St. Jean-Baptiste Parish in Lowell, Mass. He served at that parish until 1983.
"This is a tragic end to a story that we may never completely understand," Bishop Richard Malone Malone said in a statement released Friday by the diocese. "It is simply our mission to bring the healing presence of Jesus to this agonizing situation."
The same statement noted there is not yet sufficient information to dismiss or substantiate the abuse charge.
So, WHO'S hurting the kids again, Malone? Who's hurting families? Who's hurting Mainers?
Oh that's right- the same gender couples who just won the same rights (well, except for FEDERAL TAX LAWS AND A FEW OTHER PESKY DETAILS) that I have.
Look how same sex married couples ruined Massachusetts over the course of 5 years! Terrible, just terrible.
I'm not buying this, Mr. Malone... alot of people aren't.
When you have a link instructing people "How To File a Sexual Abuse Report" on your own Portland Diocese website under the section marked "Child and Youth Protection", you KNOW you're not doing enough- and that you never have!
Lemme point out that any other Mainer suspected of having committed abuse is taken into custody, not simply told to hand in their robes and behave themselves, as happened with Carrigan.
That the crimes are not covered up by layer upon layer of bureaucracy for decades and victims left to fight your corporation for years in court.
Leave these Mainers alone and let them live their lives in our state, without your judgements or interference, and clean up your own house, Mr. Malone...
All the exciting news from around the country makes us even stronger in our conviction that it’s time for Oregon to get on the path to marriage equality.
Also, today we’re launching a new education campaign â€" inviting you to Get Engaged in the campaign for the freedom to marry in Oregon. To lend a hand and change hearts and minds, join us online at www.basicrights.org/GetEngaged.
Share yBR>
Share your thoughts and responses here!
$13 - General Admission - Standing Room Only $35 - General Seating - Reserved Seating $75 - VIP Seating - Front Row Seats, Lounge with sparkling wine and VIP Bag Get your tickets online at www.strutpdx.com, or visit the followyour tickets online at www.strutpdx.com, or visit the following locations to purchase your tickets TODAY: IDOM - 1600 NE Alberta Popina Swimwear Boutique - 4831 NE 42nd Avenue Sofada Boutique and Show Room - 2937 E Burnside BRO Office - 310 SW 4th Avenue, Suite 730 (9am-5pm, Monday - Friday) (click hyperlink for hours information) Want to attend STRUT but can't afford the ticket? Contact Andrew Hogan at andrew@basicrights.org to sign-up for a volunteer shift today! We're ready to STRUT, are you?
No comments:
Post a Comment