Friday, November 6, 2009
News Local Legislators and Students Discuss State Hate Crimes Law
Posted by Bianca Phillips on Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 4:54 PM
In case you missed the story in this week's Memphis Flyer, here's a piece I wrote on a hate crimes panel discussion that took place on the University of Memphis campus last week.
——————————————————————————————————————-
Equality Project
by Bianca Phillips
Just one day after President Barack Obama signed the Matthew Shepard Act, expanding the federal hate crimes law to include sexual orientation and gender identity, local lawmakers and University of Memphis law students discussed efforts to enhance the hate crimes law in Tennessee.
In a panel discussion at the U of M's Cecil B. Humphreys Law School last Thursday, state representative Jeanne Richardson and state senator Beverly Marrero discussed a bill they're co-sponsoring that would add "gender identity and expression" to existing state law. Attorney Murray Wells, Tennessee Equality Project board member Darlene Fike, and hate crime victim Jack Robinson also were on the panel.
- Jeanne Richardson
Though "sexual orientation" was added to the state hate crimes law in 2001, Richardson introduced a bill last February to enhance the law with protections for transgender people.
"One of my colleagues actually said to me, 'I don't like [expletive] queers,'" Richardson told the panel. "I've been a lifelong Midtowner and downtowner and I haven't heard those kinds of comments about gay people in years. But they're alive and well."
If the bill makes it out of the House, Marrero will have to convince her colleagues in the Senate to pass it as well.
"When I was teaching my kids right from wrong years ago, I never would have imagined that we'd still be dealing with this issue in 2009," Marrero said.
Even though the federal law encompasses transgender people, Wells said a state law would offer stronger protections.
"At the state level, we're far more equipped to deal with assaults. That's the sort of thing the Shelby County district attorney's office does, not the feds," Wells said.
Locally, Wells represented Duanna Johnson, a transgender woman who was beaten by former Memphis police officer Bridges McRae in the Shelby County Jail. McRae hit Johnson on the head with handcuffs after she refused to answer to "he/she" and "faggot."
McRae cannot be charged with a hate crime under state law yet, but he will face a judge on a federal civil rights violation on December 14th.
Richardson encouraged those who support adding transgender protections to state law to contact their representatives.
"Don't make it easy for people to do the wrong thing," Richardson said. "The more people who contact them about this issue, the more likely it is to pass."
Comments (26)
Showing 1-26 of 26
"When I was teaching my kids right from wrong years ago, I never would have imagined that we'd still be dealing with this issue in 2009," Marrero said.
A shame that this has to be argued for, much less requires new specific mention in the laws.
I keep hoping that it sinks in sooner or later that equality applies to everyone.
like
dislike
I wonder what standard Powergamz used to determine 'right' and 'wrong' that he taught his kids? That is one of the main questions facing hate crimes legislation. It seems to beg the question as to why it is morally wrong to speak or think contrary to an opposing viewpoint. Shepard was attacked for money by homosexuals. How can this incident be a foundation for the bill? The concept of hate-crimes itself is a form of hate crimes; in that it shows hatred against anyone that hates! We all 'hate' certain forms of behavior, i.e. theft of our property, physical harm from others, mockery, etc. Why is hating an unnatural form of sexual union wrong? The Constitutional right of free speech assumes that the thought behind that speech is also free. There are laws against certain forms of speech, i.e. slander, lying as a public servant, false advertisement in sales transactions, etc. The 14th Amendment gives equal treatment of all people under the law. Specially protected forms of behavioral classes such as homosexuals, are not to be singled-out as immunity from this Amendment. Physical crimes against such people are already punished by law. Why must we double the penalty and give preference to these behaviors? The only crimes the Federal Government can legally prosecute are treason, piracy, or counterfeiting. Where are the proponents of this law when religious churches are burned down?
When the prebuttal is so rich and ripe it's better sometimes to just stand back and point.
@CHG
As pointed out to you repeatedly, complete with real world examples, your postings present every appearance of playing some sort of dishonest game.
The number of deliberate lies you tell (even after irrefutable proof of their falseness is presented), the number of things other people have never said that you fabricate and regurgitate, your blatant denial that you've posted the falsehoods everyone else can see, and the schoolyard logical fallacies you hide behind, makes 'debating' with you the same sort of venture as sitting down to play cards with someone who brags about how good they are at cheating.
In short, you don't deserve any rebuttal, because you made the free choice to throw your credibility out the window.
You made the free choice to present yourself as a boastful troll who delights in bearing false witness, and who refuses to back up their assertions honestly.
You made the free choice to lay down with dogs like David Duke and the 'birthers', and now you want to pretend that it is other people who have fleas, with your phony outrage.
You made the choice to attack those who live their lives in accordance with scripture as 'not Christians', while showing yourself to be a Christ hating hypocrite of the first order.
So for you to pretend that others owe you a 'rebuttal' when you're still running away from the question of where in the Bible it commands you to be so dishonest, is simply more proof that you have nothing either correct or useful to offer.
Powergamz, You haven't refuted any points on this topic at hand, nor any others. Please provide proof of refutation. You are merely parroting lines, i.e. 'birthers', etc. Do you hate the Constitution on which the national leaders swore to uphold? The founders of the Constitution were 'birthers' and had a very good reason. I asked you about ethics and you keep using them, yet can't justify them. You expect 'honesty', but can't tell me where you derive this moral law from.
Packrat, The history of indian tribes depends upon the bias of the historian in most cases. The tribes that I spoke of were the one related to a particular area of the country; namely, the northeast. You don't read context. Restitution is required with forgiveness at the 'civil' level only.
Now, please refute this article at hand and stop the red herring personal attacks. This is the MO fallacies for those that have no defense or positive foundations in which to build a case.
Good day gents.
There are suppositions that are antogonistic to empirical truth. Otherwise, there would be predeterminalistic approaches to morality which would be a lateral falsehood. You see the tortoise was actually slower than the hare. This is irrefutable evidence of Velocity Law. And I dare anyone to question the efficacy of u=mv^2. Newton himself said that perpindicular forces act on a single point in a non-parallel manner. Anyone arguing otherwise is basing their lack of science on a lack of absolute science giver. You can see this argument again and again in the federalist papers and in the "Constitutional Framers for Dummies" handbook on wikifordummies.com. It only holds that the separation of oil and water through semipermeable barriers is a slap in the face of everything that is good and secular in our human static society.
The correct and useful response to deliberate fabrications and pretzel logic is *debunking*, not rebuttal... in order for there to be a rebuttal, there needs to have been a rational proposition, and delusional rants dressed up in wild assertions and faked references, followed by denial and running away, simply don't measure up.
I'd be tempted to join Packrat in saying that someone who is trapped in such a rut should merely be ridiculed, but at this point, as many times as his imaginary history, science, and law books, and his fabricated Consitutional, philosophical, and scriptural 'quotes' have been debunked by comparison with reality... it seems like pity is the more benevolent reaction.
Since Packrat is obsessed with nomadic or non-nomadic Indians; I'll fire a red-herring for a second here. The original topic dealt with the early founding of our country. According to Alexander Marriott, graduate student of Clark Univ. in Worcester, MA and with a B.A. in history from Univ. of Nevada, Indians were largely primitive Stone Age level savages who advanced little in the thousands of years they inhabited North and South America. Those of the Incas and the Aztecs were city builders, but most other tribes were nomadic. These 'settled' tribes in the West were mainly civilizations built upon irrationality, human sacrifice, and brutal primitivism. They did not have any organized settlements nor private property claims. The land was found unused, evidenced by the pathetic level of any kind of progress, intellectual or material, on the part of nearly all Indian tribes despite thousands of years in lands of great plenty and separated from other people of the world who could have potentially meddled with them. Consider that even children learn about the nomadic nature of Indians at the Encyclopedia Britannica at the following link:
http://kids.britannica.com/comptons/articl…
Powergamz,
Please provide examples of accusations you have listed here and how I have falsely interpreted the Constitution, philosophy, and Theology. I would like to see the rational defenses you have rather than the ad-hominem attacks that you and Packrat are only able to offer.
@CHG
Why didn't you answer the many previous times I and others have repeatedly provided those examples of your being flat out wrong? Why not address them honestly now? Are you incapable of doing so?
Indians, Hume, faked citation from non-existent law book, lies about what science claims, re-wording of the Constitution, idle boasts that you'll debate 'anyone' (even the Supreme Court?) on your specious interpretations...
And when called on it, you either run away while your frauds are debunked and come back later demanding examples that have already been given, or simply deny that you wrote what you wrote, as in the 'all Indian' falsehood where you now claim you asserted 'some' or 'most' Indians.
So no, *you* are the one proven beyond any reasonable doubt to have failed at honest rational discourse.
You are in no position to demand rational proof on your irrational assertions, or rebuttal of your falshoods, and you don't get to demand honest discourse from those you are being dishonest to.
Nice try though.
Packrat,
Here is the correct link to the Encyclopedia Britannica for kids regarding nomadic Indians:
http://kids.britannica.com/comptons/articl…
Powergamz,
You require responses, yet you never answer me. I have asked repeatedly where you derive morals from, how you account for logic, I have shown how our government violates the Constitution; in all these instances, I have never seen you provide a response to the ethical dilemma, where you get logical absolutes from, or any contrary perspective on the Constitution from a civil or historical defense against my claims. You only whine and call names. It also rude to the readers to have excessive off-topic debates in a comment section where another topic is being discussed.
You are losing it CHG...
Your original assertion was about all Indian tribes displaced by settlers and you claimed that 'the Native Americans' had no lands to be taken because they did not live in villages, they were nomadic.
When proven wrong, you tried to assert that you were only talking about a handful of tribes from the Northeast and yet you continue to bring up the Southwestern Navajo as your proof, while pretending that village dwellers like the Iroquois simply didn't exist.
http://www.nysm.nysed.gov/IroquoisVillage/…
Nothing you say can be presumed truthful.
"in all these instances, I have never seen you provide a response to the ethical dilemma, where you get logical absolutes from, or any contrary perspective on the Constitution from a civil or historical defense against my claims. "
And yet the record clearly shows you have made evasive or dishonest replies to some of them them... how did you do that if you never saw them? Did you just get caught in yet another lie?
Let me guess, you are getting ready to run away yet again after being debunked.
Predictable and boring are as bad a disingenuous CHG... you're done here.
You're quoting some obscure graduate student from Clark University??? Facts to you are what you want them to be. have you ever heard of Cahokia? The iriquois, CHickasaw, Cherokee, Choctaw, Natchez? Etc.? They all lived in settled villages you liar. Your racist ethnocentric descriptions of native Americans are downright offensive, and not shared by hardly any current experts or scholarship. next you'll be telling us they are descended from the Lost tribes of Israel. You have no credibility.
Powergamz,
Once again, you are dodging the topics I just mentioned. Resorting to name calling and no solid responses. What about the issues I mentioned; I don't see any reference to them at all.
Packrat,
What make someone truthful or valid? How do you know which source is more truthful? Appeal to 'any current expert or scholar' is laughable. I just named one such person. Does a particular college or degree count? What else would constitute valid and sound truth? Show me where Mr. Marriott's views are false.
Show me where you have studied the listed Indian tribes you mentioned. What are your sources for your claims and I'll then discuss each tribe.
Children's wikipedia; where kids can write in their own answers?
Powergamz,
You are quoting from an evolutionary museum ideology. The museum in my city holds to evolution when you examine the exhibits. There is an entire school of thought on intelligent design that is filled with scholars with many 'peer-reviewed' articles and publications that would define the exhibits in a contrary ideology. It all depends upon your source. You can simply search the web and find an equal number of contrary sources to the one you 'googled' in a quickie-type search. You are confusing pastoral nomads with settled communities. There were plenty of temporal settlements, but they were able to relocate in a moments notice or when the food source was dry. There is no archaeological significance in any of the northeastern tribes.
@CHG
Proving that you are lying isn't name calling. My responses debunking you on the issues you mentioned are a matter of record.
You getting caught lying about 'not seeing' them is just more false witness.
"http://www.nysm.nysed.gov/IroquoisVillage/…
Nothing you say can be presumed truthful."
This is the absolute source for truth? Laughable. It says in your reference, '...The Iroquois used a style of farming, known today as "slash-and-burn" or "swidden," that requires a community to move the location of its village from time to time. ' They moved from 'time-to-time'. How can they do this if they had civilized, thriving communities? Similarly, I go hiking and set up camp and 'move from time to time. The best sources are from the early Jesuits who were contemporary with the Indians. They are listed here and heavily documented, contemporary sources of their 'nomadic' lifestyle. They have shelters and left for long seasons. Shelters do not constitute 'settlements' such as productive social orders like some have suggested.
http://teachingamericanhistorymd.net/00000…
CHG, your own link says that the Inuit were nomadic, while the Iroquois were not. This is no better than your made up law book.
Nobody is questioning that you can win any argument by the simple expedient of making things up and refusing to admit it... you've proven that you can win that childish game with the best of them, time and time again.
The question is why?
You won't answer when asked repeatedly where the Bible gives you the moral authority to bear false witness.
If it is an emotional or mental issue with you, then I stand by my earlier comments.
In either case, until you start dealing in reality, you will have to play this game by yourself.
THIS WEEK'S ISSUE
SPECIAL ISSUES
