Freedom of Assembly at the Republican... Assembly

Massive police raids on suspected protestors in Minneapolis

Several of those who were arrested are being represented by Bruce Nestor, the President of the Minnesota chapter of the National Lawyers' Guild. Nestor said that last night's raid involved a meeting of a group calling itself the "RNC Welcoming Committee", and that this morning's raids appeared to target members of "Food Not Bombs," which he described as an anti-war, anti-authoritarian protest group. There was not a single act of violence or illegality that has taken place, Nestor said. Instead, the raids were purely anticipatory in nature, and clearly designed to frighten people contemplating taking part in any unauthorized protests.

Nestor indicated that only 2 or 3 of the 50 individuals who were handcuffed this morning at the 2 houses were actually arrested and charged with a crime, and the crime they were charged with is "conspiracy to commit riot." Nestor, who has practiced law in Minnesota for many years, said that he had never before heard of that statute being used for anything, and that its parameters are so self-evidently vague, designed to allow pre-emeptive arrests of those who are peacefully protesting, that it is almost certainly unconstitutional, though because it had never been invoked (until now), its constitutionality had not been tested.

Federal government involved in raids on protesters

So here we have a massive assault led by Federal Government law enforcement agencies on left-wing dissidents and protesters who have committed no acts of violence or illegality whatsoever, preceded by months-long espionage efforts to track what they do. And as extraordinary as that conduct is, more extraordinary is the fact that they have received virtually no attention from the national media and little outcry from anyone. And it's not difficult to see why. As the recent "overhaul" of the 30-year-old FISA law illustrated -- preceded by the endless expansion of surveillance state powers, justified first by the War on Drugs and then the War on Terror -- we've essentially decided that we want our Government to spy on us without limits. There is literally no police power that the state can exercise that will cause much protest from the political and media class and, therefore, from the citizenry.

Beyond that, there is a widespread sense that the targets of these raids deserve what they get, even if nothing they've done is remotely illegal. We love to proclaim how much we cherish our "freedoms" in the abstract, but we despise those who actually exercise them. The Constitution, right in the very First Amendment, protects free speech and free assembly precisely because those liberties are central to a healthy republic -- but we've decided that anyone who would actually express truly dissident views or do anything other than sit meekly and quietly in their homes are dirty trouble-makers up to no good, and it's therefore probably for the best if our Government keeps them in check, spies on them, even gets a little rough with them.

After all, if you don't want the FBI spying on you, or the Police surrounding and then invading your home with rifles and seizing your computers, there's a very simple solution: don't protest the Government.

This is why we need judicial review. I know there are people on my friends list who don't like the idea of the Judicial branch "making law," since that's the Legislative branch's job. However, the Judicial branch is here to evaluate laws that are brought to them and determine whether they're Constitutional or not. If they're not, the Judicial branch has the legitimate power to strike down those laws, effectively changing our legal code by ruling that certain parts of it should never have been passed.

By what understanding of the First Amendment is this crap okay? Our courts had better do their damned jobs here, even if it gets them labelled "activist judges." This shit, now that it's been invoked and can be challenged, needs to be thrown out and America needs to take a good hard look at itself, wondering how we let ourselves come to this.

Freedom of Assembly at the Republican... Assembly

Massive police raids on suspected protestors in Minneapolis

Several of those who were arrested are being represented by Bruce Nestor, the President of the Minnesota chapter of the National Lawyers' Guild. Nestor said that last night's raid involved a meeting of a group calling itself the "RNC Welcoming Committee", and that this morning's raids appeared to target members of "Food Not Bombs," which he described as an anti-war, anti-authoritarian protest group. There was not a single act of violence or illegality that has taken place, Nestor said. Instead, the raids were purely anticipatory in nature, and clearly designed to frighten people contemplating taking part in any unauthorized protests.

Nestor indicated that only 2 or 3 of the 50 individuals who were handcuffed this morning at the 2 houses were actually arrested and charged with a crime, and the crime they were charged with is "conspiracy to commit riot." Nestor, who has practiced law in Minnesota for many years, said that he had never before heard of that statute being used for anything, and that its parameters are so self-evidently vague, designed to allow pre-emeptive arrests of those who are peacefully protesting, that it is almost certainly unconstitutional, though because it had never been invoked (until now), its constitutionality had not been tested.

Federal government involved in raids on protesters

So here we have a massive assault led by Federal Government law enforcement agencies on left-wing dissidents and protesters who have committed no acts of violence or illegality whatsoever, preceded by months-long espionage efforts to track what they do. And as extraordinary as that conduct is, more extraordinary is the fact that they have received virtually no attention from the national media and little outcry from anyone. And it's not difficult to see why. As the recent "overhaul" of the 30-year-old FISA law illustrated -- preceded by the endless expansion of surveillance state powers, justified first by the War on Drugs and then the War on Terror -- we've essentially decided that we want our Government to spy on us without limits. There is literally no police power that the state can exercise that will cause much protest from the political and media class and, therefore, from the citizenry.

Beyond that, there is a widespread sense that the targets of these raids deserve what they get, even if nothing they've done is remotely illegal. We love to proclaim how much we cherish our "freedoms" in the abstract, but we despise those who actually exercise them. The Constitution, right in the very First Amendment, protects free speech and free assembly precisely because those liberties are central to a healthy republic -- but we've decided that anyone who would actually express truly dissident views or do anything other than sit meekly and quietly in their homes are dirty trouble-makers up to no good, and it's therefore probably for the best if our Government keeps them in check, spies on them, even gets a little rough with them.

After all, if you don't want the FBI spying on you, or the Police surrounding and then invading your home with rifles and seizing your computers, there's a very simple solution: don't protest the Government.

This is why we need judicial review. I know there are people on my friends list who don't like the idea of the Judicial branch "making law," since that's the Legislative branch's job. However, the Judicial branch is here to evaluate laws that are brought to them and determine whether they're Constitutional or not. If they're not, the Judicial branch has the legitimate power to strike down those laws, effectively changing our legal code by ruling that certain parts of it should never have been passed.

By what understanding of the First Amendment is this crap okay? Our courts had better do their damned jobs here, even if it gets them labelled "activist judges." This shit, now that it's been invoked and can be challenged, needs to be thrown out and America needs to take a good hard look at itself, wondering how we let ourselves come to this.

Freedom of Assembly at the Republican... Assembly

Massive police raids on suspected protestors in Minneapolis

Several of those who were arrested are being represented by Bruce Nestor, the President of the Minnesota chapter of the National Lawyers' Guild. Nestor said that last night's raid involved a meeting of a group calling itself the "RNC Welcoming Committee", and that this morning's raids appeared to target members of "Food Not Bombs," which he described as an anti-war, anti-authoritarian protest group. There was not a single act of violence or illegality that has taken place, Nestor said. Instead, the raids were purely anticipatory in nature, and clearly designed to frighten people contemplating taking part in any unauthorized protests.

Nestor indicated that only 2 or 3 of the 50 individuals who were handcuffed this morning at the 2 houses were actually arrested and charged with a crime, and the crime they were charged with is "conspiracy to commit riot." Nestor, who has practiced law in Minnesota for many years, said that he had never before heard of that statute being used for anything, and that its parameters are so self-evidently vague, designed to allow pre-emeptive arrests of those who are peacefully protesting, that it is almost certainly unconstitutional, though because it had never been invoked (until now), its constitutionality had not been tested.

Federal government involved in raids on protesters

So here we have a massive assault led by Federal Government law enforcement agencies on left-wing dissidents and protesters who have committed no acts of violence or illegality whatsoever, preceded by months-long espionage efforts to track what they do. And as extraordinary as that conduct is, more extraordinary is the fact that they have received virtually no attention from the national media and little outcry from anyone. And it's not difficult to see why. As the recent "overhaul" of the 30-year-old FISA law illustrated -- preceded by the endless expansion of surveillance state powers, justified first by the War on Drugs and then the War on Terror -- we've essentially decided that we want our Government to spy on us without limits. There is literally no police power that the state can exercise that will cause much protest from the political and media class and, therefore, from the citizenry.

Beyond that, there is a widespread sense that the targets of these raids deserve what they get, even if nothing they've done is remotely illegal. We love to proclaim how much we cherish our "freedoms" in the abstract, but we despise those who actually exercise them. The Constitution, right in the very First Amendment, protects free speech and free assembly precisely because those liberties are central to a healthy republic -- but we've decided that anyone who would actually express truly dissident views or do anything other than sit meekly and quietly in their homes are dirty trouble-makers up to no good, and it's therefore probably for the best if our Government keeps them in check, spies on them, even gets a little rough with them.

After all, if you don't want the FBI spying on you, or the Police surrounding and then invading your home with rifles and seizing your computers, there's a very simple solution: don't protest the Government.

This is why we need judicial review. I know there are people on my friends list who don't like the idea of the Judicial branch "making law," since that's the Legislative branch's job. However, the Judicial branch is here to evaluate laws that are brought to them and determine whether they're Constitutional or not. If they're not, the Judicial branch has the legitimate power to strike down those laws, effectively changing our legal code by ruling that certain parts of it should never have been passed.

By what understanding of the First Amendment is this crap okay? Our courts had better do their damned jobs here, even if it gets them labelled "activist judges." This shit, now that it's been invoked and can be challenged, needs to be thrown out and America needs to take a good hard look at itself, wondering how we let ourselves come to this.

The Excuse of a Killer

I love The Curvature. Every time I read it I find something that pisses me off, but at the same time it's stuff I feel I should know.

Some of the most compelling entries for me about about violence against transgender individuals. It's startlingly common for a transgender person to be murdered and then have their deaths (and lives) trivialized by insinuations that murdering people whose gender identities don't match what's in their pants is somehow more understandable and excusable than murdering people who fall in love with others of the "wrong" sex. This next entry is not her most recent example of this, but it's the best one to start with, I think.

Killing a Woman Because She’s Trans “Not a Classic Hate Crime."

Angie Zapata was murdered in July. Allen Ray Andrade, who has admitted to beating Zapata to death, supposedly became uncontrollably “enraged” upon learning that she was transgender after a sexual encounter. This is, of course, a common defense in such murders (known as “trans panic”), and one that apparently plays into bigoted public sensibilities that transgender individuals are unethically “fooling” people and of course no one would ever knowingly have consensual sex with them. It’s also worth noting that Andrade claims to have only learned Zapata was transgender by sexually assaulting her, grabbing her genitals without her consent. He then saw it as an excuse to kill her.

(snip)

“This is not a classic hate crime, where an individual is beaten to death because of their orientation. This is a case when an individual reacted irrationally and unlawfully to learning they had been fooled,” said Robinson.

“Fooled.” “Not a classic hate crime.” Why isn’t it a classic hate crime? The argument doesn’t hold up — the defendant did kill Zapata because of her gender identity. He sexually assaulted a woman, in the process discovered that she was transgender, and as a direct result he chose to beat her to death. Ergo, he killed her because she was trans, and this is not hard to follow logic. So allow me to translate. What Robinson really means is: “This is not a classic hate crime, because this time the defendant had a good reason.”

There’s no other way to put it. There’s no other reason to use language like “duped” and “fooled.” There’s no other reason to use this as an argument unless you’re trying to show that there was an understandable, if “irrational” reason for the murder.

As this blogger cites in another entry, according to the Human Rights Campaign, "transgender individuals in America have up to a 1 in 12 chance of being murdered. One in twelve. Let that sink in." This is in contrast to the average person, whose chance of being murdered is about 1 in 18,000.

Not only are they more likely to be killed because they're trans, but their killers can get their charges reduced because even if you can't really excuse it, it's understandable to be faced with a transgender person (even when you were looking for one) and fly into a violent murderous rage, just because the surprise was so traumatic for you.

If anyone reading is looking for some way to help with this, I suggest making whatever donation you can to one of these organizations. At least check them out, and for the gods' sake if you hear people slurring transgender people, or you read it online or whatever, just remember how far people take that sentiment. Just remember what it really means to say, "Man, if I found out some hot girl had a dick I'd lose it." It's not just the excuse of a narrow-minded idiot. It's the excuse of a killer. Don't let anyone use it, no matter who they are.

The Excuse of a Killer

I love The Curvature. Every time I read it I find something that pisses me off, but at the same time it's stuff I feel I should know.

Some of the most compelling entries for me about about violence against transgender individuals. It's startlingly common for a transgender person to be murdered and then have their deaths (and lives) trivialized by insinuations that murdering people whose gender identities don't match what's in their pants is somehow more understandable and excusable than murdering people who fall in love with others of the "wrong" sex. This next entry is not her most recent example of this, but it's the best one to start with, I think.

Killing a Woman Because She’s Trans “Not a Classic Hate Crime."

Angie Zapata was murdered in July. Allen Ray Andrade, who has admitted to beating Zapata to death, supposedly became uncontrollably “enraged” upon learning that she was transgender after a sexual encounter. This is, of course, a common defense in such murders (known as “trans panic”), and one that apparently plays into bigoted public sensibilities that transgender individuals are unethically “fooling” people and of course no one would ever knowingly have consensual sex with them. It’s also worth noting that Andrade claims to have only learned Zapata was transgender by sexually assaulting her, grabbing her genitals without her consent. He then saw it as an excuse to kill her.

(snip)

“This is not a classic hate crime, where an individual is beaten to death because of their orientation. This is a case when an individual reacted irrationally and unlawfully to learning they had been fooled,” said Robinson.

“Fooled.” “Not a classic hate crime.” Why isn’t it a classic hate crime? The argument doesn’t hold up — the defendant did kill Zapata because of her gender identity. He sexually assaulted a woman, in the process discovered that she was transgender, and as a direct result he chose to beat her to death. Ergo, he killed her because she was trans, and this is not hard to follow logic. So allow me to translate. What Robinson really means is: “This is not a classic hate crime, because this time the defendant had a good reason.”

There’s no other way to put it. There’s no other reason to use language like “duped” and “fooled.” There’s no other reason to use this as an argument unless you’re trying to show that there was an understandable, if “irrational” reason for the murder.

As this blogger cites in another entry, according to the Human Rights Campaign, "transgender individuals in America have up to a 1 in 12 chance of being murdered. One in twelve. Let that sink in." This is in contrast to the average person, whose chance of being murdered is about 1 in 18,000.

Not only are they more likely to be killed because they're trans, but their killers can get their charges reduced because even if you can't really excuse it, it's understandable to be faced with a transgender person (even when you were looking for one) and fly into a violent murderous rage, just because the surprise was so traumatic for you.

If anyone reading is looking for some way to help with this, I suggest making whatever donation you can to one of these organizations. At least check them out, and for the gods' sake if you hear people slurring transgender people, or you read it online or whatever, just remember how far people take that sentiment. Just remember what it really means to say, "Man, if I found out some hot girl had a dick I'd lose it." It's not just the excuse of a narrow-minded idiot. It's the excuse of a killer. Don't let anyone use it, no matter who they are.

The Excuse of a Killer

I love The Curvature. Every time I read it I find something that pisses me off, but at the same time it's stuff I feel I should know.

Some of the most compelling entries for me about about violence against transgender individuals. It's startlingly common for a transgender person to be murdered and then have their deaths (and lives) trivialized by insinuations that murdering people whose gender identities don't match what's in their pants is somehow more understandable and excusable than murdering people who fall in love with others of the "wrong" sex. This next entry is not her most recent example of this, but it's the best one to start with, I think.

Killing a Woman Because She’s Trans “Not a Classic Hate Crime."

Angie Zapata was murdered in July. Allen Ray Andrade, who has admitted to beating Zapata to death, supposedly became uncontrollably “enraged” upon learning that she was transgender after a sexual encounter. This is, of course, a common defense in such murders (known as “trans panic”), and one that apparently plays into bigoted public sensibilities that transgender individuals are unethically “fooling” people and of course no one would ever knowingly have consensual sex with them. It’s also worth noting that Andrade claims to have only learned Zapata was transgender by sexually assaulting her, grabbing her genitals without her consent. He then saw it as an excuse to kill her.

(snip)

“This is not a classic hate crime, where an individual is beaten to death because of their orientation. This is a case when an individual reacted irrationally and unlawfully to learning they had been fooled,” said Robinson.

“Fooled.” “Not a classic hate crime.” Why isn’t it a classic hate crime? The argument doesn’t hold up — the defendant did kill Zapata because of her gender identity. He sexually assaulted a woman, in the process discovered that she was transgender, and as a direct result he chose to beat her to death. Ergo, he killed her because she was trans, and this is not hard to follow logic. So allow me to translate. What Robinson really means is: “This is not a classic hate crime, because this time the defendant had a good reason.”

There’s no other way to put it. There’s no other reason to use language like “duped” and “fooled.” There’s no other reason to use this as an argument unless you’re trying to show that there was an understandable, if “irrational” reason for the murder.

As this blogger cites in another entry, according to the Human Rights Campaign, "transgender individuals in America have up to a 1 in 12 chance of being murdered. One in twelve. Let that sink in." This is in contrast to the average person, whose chance of being murdered is about 1 in 18,000.

Not only are they more likely to be killed because they're trans, but their killers can get their charges reduced because even if you can't really excuse it, it's understandable to be faced with a transgender person (even when you were looking for one) and fly into a violent murderous rage, just because the surprise was so traumatic for you.

If anyone reading is looking for some way to help with this, I suggest making whatever donation you can to one of these organizations. At least check them out, and for the gods' sake if you hear people slurring transgender people, or you read it online or whatever, just remember how far people take that sentiment. Just remember what it really means to say, "Man, if I found out some hot girl had a dick I'd lose it." It's not just the excuse of a narrow-minded idiot. It's the excuse of a killer. Don't let anyone use it, no matter who they are.