Thoughts at the end of the Summer of Violence

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

The marriage vacuum and the future of the LGBT movement

I've been doing some thinking about the Uniting Against Hate conversation I was involved with last night. It's led me to some reflections -- not altogether uplifting -- about the state of the LGB[sometimes]T rights movement, and where we might go from here.  

At some point in the conversation, I noted that lesbian, gay and bi people have been known to be especially transphobic, and haven't really been the advocates for trans rights that they could be.  An audience member questioned me about that observation, and expressed an alternative view.  In my response, I noted that there were, indeed, abundant examples of the LGB leaving behind the T, the 2007 debacle over the Employment Non-Discrimination Act chief among them.  My critique was (and is, and has been for some time) that the focus on marriage rights above all else has done a huge disservice to other, frankly more important fights.  Marriage is a policy goal of the relatively well-to-do who can afford such things.  Sadly, too many in the LGBT community (such as it exists), have other, far more pressing issues to deal with.  I constantly harp on the four issues that the Sylvia Rivera Law Project so poignantly mapped out:  healthcare, education, employment, and housing.  

Keep on jumpin' (that means read more...)

Thoughts on hate crimes and their impacts on trans communities

I was asked to speak at a panel earlier today called Uniting Against Hate, following a showing of Robert O'Hara's new play BOOTYCANDY at Woolly Mammoth Theatre Company. Below is the essay I wrote to frame my remarks for the event. Thanks for reading.

Keep on jumpin' (that means read more...)

Diving into deep waters in re: millenials and IR

Yesterday Daniel Drezner raised the question of how millenials (meaning folks in their 20s like me) think about international relations.  There are some really thoughtful responses in the comments, mentioning things like the interconnectedness of our current world, the massive sea of information in which we swim, how a huge growth economy that precipitously tanked on us impacts our lives, and how we see a role for the United States to play in the world without necessarily resorting to hyper nationalist imperialist misadventures. 

I want to respond to the piece, but I want to do so by altering the premise a bit.  Like one, if not more, of the commenters, I was a student of both history and political science.  But then, influenced by a Quaker educational setting and my own personal struggles for social justice, chose to pursue graduate work in international conflict resolution, rather than straight up international relations.  Because jobs in conflict resolution are just a wee bit scarce, I've ended up working in international education, while continuing to do very local level activism at the same time.  And in these past few years, an insight that sparked as an undergrad has become a core belief:  we cannot separate the local from the global.  Or, in other terms, the distinction between domestic policy and foreign policy is purely academic.  As I see it, such a division doesn't actually exist.

This insight first came to me, somewhat unexpectedly, while writing my senior project for my history major oh so long ago.  Through a someone circuitous path, I ended up writing on the domestic political constraints that impacted U.S. decision-making in the Korean War -- a war that could have ended two years sooner had Truman not been afraid of appearing soft on communism at home.  Today, we see that a faulty immigration system impacts our relations with our immediate neighbors.  Our unwillingness to provide healthcare to our citizens evokes scorn from some of our allies.  Because we have a massive array of ill-conceived farm subsidies, we dump unneeded foodstuffs in foreign markets and crush local farmers' livelihoods, all the while calling it aid.  We can't actually cut the bloated military budget because people need the jobs.  The United States lectures the world on human rights, and yet contains fully a quarter of the world's prison population -- jails filled predominantly with young black men serving time for petty crimes in an attempt to keep our longstanding racist history going full steam, but with less overt fanfare.

As I see it, the lesson for my peers is that we must recognize that our domestic politics have impacts on our foreign relations -- beyond the obvious choices in fighting wars, managing economic crises, or cleaning up oil spills.  It is arrogant and hypocritical to claim to be a shining city on a hill so long as children are going hungry, the elderly can't afford their medicine, and it is legal in about 30 states to deny employment and housing to people just for being gay or transgender.  We have enduring cycles of poverty and repression in this country, based on racism, classism, sexism, heterosexism, cissexism and all manner of xenophobia's other children that we consistently fail to address.  My family came to this country 400 years ago, and yet I was the first of the line to get a college degree.  It wasn't until my grandfather's generation that my someone in family was even able to earn a steady paycheck, and yet my father has been unemployed for at least two years.  It's still far too likely that if you're born poor in this country, you'll die poor.  In our society, you either have privilege or you don't.  And if you don't, getting it takes work.  And that's an understatement.

In my mind, politics should be about the pursuit of justice.  We have a moral obligation to pursue it domestically and abroad, concurrently.  I don't just mean justice in a legalistic sense.  I mean justice in its fullest context -- social, cultural, economic, political, legal, and everything else.  But that isn't happening in our national politics.  Turn on cable television any night of the week and you'll find blabbering dunderheads of both the left and the right nannering on in a language that isn't the least bit powered by a brain.  Rather than focusing on issues that actually matter, politicians and commentators have spent fully two weeks debating where exactly one single mosque ought to go.  Stephen Walt points out that this kind of blubbering reminds him of the political discourse of the Weimar Republic -- not exactly high praise given what happened next.  If this is the kind of leadership my forbears want to demonstrate to people of my generation, then I'm afraid I must protest.  

Thus it is my sincere hope that my generation embraces a politics -- domestic and international -- rooted in justice that honors our fundamental humanity.  It is incumbent upon us to act where our predecessors have failed, namely to address some of the huge systemic problems we face.  I don't have any grand illusions about what can or might be achieved before my eventual demise, but I do know that we have to do better.  That we have to march on.  That we have to realize that justice is peace and that peace is justice.  And finally, I know this:  we damn sure better get to work. 

My question for the final DC mayoral debate

The Washington Post, WAMU and NBC 4 are hosting the final debate for the DC mayor's race at high noon on Wednesday, September 1.  Because I'm a nerd, I managed to get a ticket to the event before they were all gone.  Even better is that members of the public can submit questions in advance by email.

As you know, I do some grassroots organizing work with members of DC's trans community.  As an activist, I've always been into fighting for rights and justice, and I'm usually drawn to struggles that don't always get the attention they should.  I've written several times before that the fights over gay marriage or Don't Ask Don't Tell have never animated me, for a variety of reasons.  There are much more basic rights that are denied every day to LGBT people who are poor, rural, trans, youth, people of color, to name a few.  Those categories don't necessarily apply to me, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't join the fight against such discrimination, and I frankly believe that you should too.

I know I've got a snowball's chance of getting this answered in what's sure to be a madhouse event with a packed agenda, but nonetheless, my question: 

Mayor Fenty:  In 2008, your administration tried to exempt District custodial agencies from complying with the gender identity and expression provisions of the Human Rights Act.  Your administration failed to report hate crimes against transgender people and failed to include the same population in your recent LGBT health report.  Your Office of Human Rights persistently refuses to enforce laws allowing transgender people to safely access public accommodations.  Overly aggressive enforcement of prostitution free zones has led to rampant and blatant profiling of transgender people as sex workers.  And in 2009, a year in which a transgender woman was brutally murdered in broad daylight, your LGBT affairs director refused to attend the annual Transgender Day of Remembrance because he had hockey tickets.  Is there a particular reason your administration is targeting an already extremely disenfranchised part of the population for additional abuse?  For both Mayor Fenty and Chairman Gray, how do you intend to rectify these problems, including addressing persistent unemployment in the transgender community and the growth of hate violence against transgender people of color?

I'm sure you'll be hearing from me again on September 1 to see whether or not it gets answered.  

You should submit a question too!   Blog it, tweet it, facebook it.  Too often people have said that the race between Fenty and Gray is about style, not substance.  But in this, and in other areas, there are real substantive problems that need to be addressed. Let's make sure those problems see the light of day before this race is over. 

Sunday news: out of character edition

There's been much to report on lately, and I'll freely confess to being largely absent.  This, in part, has been due to not really feeling the need to add to the din lately, and also due to my being in the thick of things.  I'll have a few reflections on those things later.  Meanwhile, a few snippets of interest.

• I rarely find myself in agreement with Our Lord and Savior the Kristof, but in this case, I agree that you must go see the film Budrus, about the nonviolent struggle against the boundary fence in a small Palestinian village.  I have faith that a nationwide nonviolent movement is possible in Palestine (and don't necessarily think it means lining up all the women).  And, I had the pleasure of seeing this film at the Capitol a few weeks ago, followed by a panel featuring Ayad Morrar and Reps. Keith Ellison and Brian Baird.  See the film when it's in your town.  You will be moved.
• A Kansas City barber (nice town, btw) sums up Obama's image:  "That man has a hell of a workload, and Bush left a hell of a mess. I like what he's doing. But I can't feel it." 
• Maybe it's summer fluff, but I still suspect that Sonia Sotomayor will be my favorite justice.
• In spite of all the myriad issues that people have on their minds, I'm increasingly convinced the DC mayor's race is going to come down to education.  Here's the WaPo's take on Gray's plan.  I generally support the age 4-24 approach to education that Gray backs, but share concerns over how to pay for it.
• And while we're at it, what's the role of literature in the fight for justice?  One opinion on To Kill a Mockingbird.

Finally, I want to plug two events this week at the DC Council (Wilson Building, 1350 Pennsylvania Avenue NW):

• Monday, 4pm, room 500:  Committee on Public Safety and the Judiciary hearing on ICE's Secure Communities Program.  The Council has already unanimously blocked MPD's planned participation through emergency legislation.  Come here advocates speak about why that rejection should become permanent.  DC would be the first jurisdiction to reject participating in the program, which requires mandatory immigration checks.  More details are here.
• Wednesday, 2pm, room 123:  Committee on Aging and Community Affairs roundtable on DC's recent LGBT health report, which notably failed to include information on transgender folks in the District.  My fellow members of the DC Trans Coalition raised a stink over this last week, and a hearing was scheduled 48 hours later.  How's that's for effective advocacy?  Details are here. 

Government for the racists, by the racists... wait...

I would like to take just a brief moment to thank the president for continuing to govern as though he has no spine.  In an act of blatant pandering, he has decided to send 6,000 National Guard troops to the states that share a border with Mexico, half of whom will be sent to Arizona.  

Just so we're clear, we need immigration reform, not an immigration army.  This does nothing to fix our extremely convoluted immigration system.  Not one thing.  (But this would.)  It simply lets hypocritical racists who view immigrants as aliens and not people get a victory in an election year. 

Filed under: things I don't understand

As the scandal around the repulsive George Rekers continues to swirl, Sean Bugg over at MetroWeekly raises a question that I share myself:  why is it that in these scandals, the powerful man who falls from grace ends up relatively unscathed, while the sex worker involved gets the short shrift? 

I don't seem to understand why people can't see sex work as legitimate work (ignoring, for a moment, that it's illegal in most places in the U.S.).  Some people do indeed choose this line of work as their preferred means to support themselves, while others find that economic hardship and systemic discrimination have limited their employment opportunities elsewhere.  Clearly there is a demand for people to do this work, and clearly there are dangers associated with partaking in it -- much moreso for the sex worker than the client.  Why can't we focus on making the work safer instead of ostracizing those who engage in it.  Moreover, why can't we do more to end the systemic discrimination issues (towards, say, transgender women of color), that make sex work the only option some folks have?

Obviously I have no answers here.  In the meantime, support groups like these friendly people.

Sunday news: pesky kids edition

Every now and again there's a month of Sundays (or two) wherein I don't read the news religiously, because other things are going on that require my attention.  Sometimes that's my bunny, sometimes my garden, sometimes some sort of community event/thingy, and sometimes it's just my bed.  In any event, here are some of the stories that benefited from my attention this morning.

• Texas politics:  still weirdly entertaining.
• Burma:  We're not tyrants anymore cuz we totally changed our clothes!
• Annoying little twits who make less money than me party at bougie places I can't afford.  Oh, and they work at the White House, so they'll be powerful annoying little twits their whole lives (and they probably went to fancy schools and are bankrolled by their daddies).  Oh, and they wear pleated pants.
• A friend tells me there's lots of space for a wind farm in central Illinois, and the white noise might help him sleep better.  But why do that when overconsuming fossil fuels is so much more fun?
• Somebody please glue me to the BBC on Thursday.

And that's that.

Quick take: social conservatism in South Africa

Sean Jacobs over at Africa is a Country links to this piece on social conservatism in South Africa and how it threatens the nation's uber-liberal constitution.  Well worth a once over.  One can pretty easily see how similar trends could affect the implementation of rights guaranteed by a slightly less all-inclusive document, like the U.S. constitution. 

A positive direction for foreign policy?

It looks as though the State Department is gonna look into the state of LGBT rights in Africa.  This is an important step, and it's essential that international human rights law and norms be abided by.  However, I think it's also important that State not move so fast in this area (not likely, really) so that the United States ends up appearing hypocritical.  As I commented at Africa is a Country the other day, the poor and working class experience for LGBT South Africans -- the only country on the continent with progressive laws related to LGBT rights -- isn't necessarily dissimilar from the poor and working class experience for LGBT Americans, and the United States, frankly, has fewer legal protections for LGBT folks than South Africa does.  Thus while I welcome holding other nations accountable for their disregard of human rights, it's concurrently equally important that the same level of accountability be required at home. 

Are you French enough for the French?

Chances are, the answer is no. And with the lovely new patriotism inspiring, French identity protecting "Prove your Frenchness, you nasty immigrants!" gauntlet that the ever enlightened French government has laid out, your new answer is "really, no."

Way to be oppressive, racist bastards, French government. I assure you that no amount of headscarves will ever threaten your national security or your precious and clearly fragile identity. Besides, isn't religious freedom somewhere in all those French law codes? I'm personally no fan of religious or cultural subjugation myself, but it seems that it'd be more logical and better for all concerns to have a robust legal structure that protects a person's right to wear or not wear religious/cultural clothing. Demanding conformity seems destined to backfire, particularly when it affects populations that are already disgruntled at the severe levels of discrimination they face.

Besides, making school kids sing the national anthem every morning just makes them hate singing it for the rest of their lives. Just ask the Canadians.

Chile's transition and historical memory

I've been rather fascinated by some of the speculation of whether or not Chile has finally moved on from the Pinochet era. I only have a cursory understanding of that time and place, based mostly on my grad school studies of reconciliation processes.

On the one hand, some are arguing that Chileans must never forget the atrocities of the Pinochet regime, as brought most boldly to light by last week's opening of the Museum of Memory and Human Rights. On the other hand, others say that the election of the first right-wing government since Pinochet's ouster marks a closing of the books on that era, and gives both the left and the right wings new opportunities. The truth may be somewhere in the middle, and perhaps they're both correct. The recent election could symbolize a normalization of back and forth political discourse, now that the principle actors in both the atrocities and the recovery are largely out of the day to day political scene.

Anyway, fascinating to watch. I'm wondering what a vaunted scholar like Martha Minow thinks about all this.

Brilliant blogging by others causes writer's block

I came across this post this evening about the release of the Lockerbie bomber and the politics of the UN Security Council and how its evolution has helped alter the international legal environment.

I've sat here for a good little bit now, trying to think of something to add to this discussion. But mostly, I just think it thought provoking, so enjoy, and analyze for yourself.

It's not like anyone is paying me to do this. ;)

Update on LGBT rights in DC

I realize blogging has been light this month, and for that I apologize, but I did want to (perhaps belatedly) alert your attention to some very local issues that have been going on.

The DC Trans Coalition (DCTC) has been running a long campaign to improve human rights protections within the district for transgendered and gender non-conforming individuals. While the DC Human Rights Act now includes those protections, and progress has been made in getting the Metropolitan Police to improve their policies in this area, engaging the DC Department of Corrections (DOC) has been far more challenging. This summer, after an Inspector-General's report found the DOC to be out of compliance with the law, and after DCTC and DOC had already been negotiating some, the DOC convinced the Office of Human Rights to propose new regulations that would exempt it from the Human Rights Act, which would magically clear up the little problem of their not-complying with the law.

Clearly, this couldn't stand. During the comment period, dozens of local and national organizations wrote to oppose the regulatory change, and DCTC also collected comments from around 200 citizens through an online petition. Out of all that, not one single response agreed with the proposed rules, and thus the Office of Human Rights and the DC Commission on Human Rights did not move forward with enactment. A local resident had also filed a complaint against DOC policy, and received a response in early October that made several specious arguments aimed at proving that the DOC was doing nothing wrong, and in fact was exemplary in its choice of housing people based on their genitalia and nothing else.

All of these various documents pointed the way back to the desk of DC's acting attorney general Peter Nickles. The mayor's general counsel until he forced the resignation of then-attorney general Linda Singer, Nickles has been a controversial character on any number of counts, including his failure to actually live in the District. But his fooling around with the Human Rights Act and a legal opinion he wrote opposing a clarification of domestic partner parenting rights led the DCTC and the Gay and Lesbian Activists Alliance (GLAA) to oppose his nomination to be permanent AG.

Showdown: DC Council Chamber, Committee on Public Safety and the Judiciary, October 17. Nickles' confirmation hearing ran for roughly eight hours that Friday, and included some 20 or more witnesses, including representatives of DCTC and GLAA. DCTC members in the audience came equipped with bright neon stickers that said "No to Nickles" which garnered the attention of some Council members. After testimony, each member grilled Nickles on this issue, and expressed extreme concern that he would mess with the Human Rights Act, which is cherished as being among the most progressive in the nation.

Since then, DCTC, GLAA and others have met with 8 of the 13 Council members' offices, and had an initial meeting with Nickles himself. We can be hopeful for a positive outcome, but there is much still to be done. Regardless, this issue has received scant media attention since this summer, so I thought I would bring it to light.

Transitional justice in Zimbabwe?

So apparently some folks at the Institute for Security Studies have proposed that Zimbabwe go through a transitional justice process. I've yet to read the full report in detail, but it seems to me that this isn't the best idea in the current situation. Yes, I grant that the crimes committed under both the Rhodesian and Mugabe regimes need to be investigated and those responsible held accountable. Yet at the same time, Mugabe is still in power, so clearly 20 years are off the investigatory table. Plus, a big long unburying of Rhodesia era atrocities would be just what Mugabe needs to convince people he's still relevant.

This reminds me of Uganda's attempt at running a reconciliation commission back in the 1980s. The process got stalled when it had the audacity to question anything done by people acting under current president Museveni, either as a revolutionary leader or head of state. Eventually, the thing was shut down years after its reporting deadline, and not much resulted from the process. With lessons like this, it's probably best for Zimbabwe to wait until it isn't under the fist of one repressive regime seeking justice for another.

Thinking about the Hamdan verdict

I was going to do a little write-up on yesterday's Hamdan decision, but the NYT editorial page expressed my various thoughts (including outrage) so well, that I'm just going to link to them.

For a more detailed account of why the verdict is bunk, check out Opinio Juris.

I leave town for 36 hours

... And all this happens.

On the first thing, good. About time. Curious to see if he makes it to The Hague though.

On the second thing, I'm not holding my breath.

And on the third thing, I'm wondering what happens next, as this is a thing I don't know much about but has piqued my interest.

The media and torture

This morning I was glumly reading the NYT's article about the Hamdan case moving forward (an issue which I won't weigh in on as I lack sufficient knowledge of the relevant laws) when I stumbled upon this lovely gem of a quote in the bit covering former attorney general John Ashcroft's testimony on Capitol Hill yesterday:

“I don’t know of any acts of torture that have been committed,” [Ashcroft] said, adding that all the techniques fell within legally approved guidelines, including waterboarding, in which water is poured into the mouth and nose to produce a feeling of drowning.

My beef isn't with Ashcroft's denial of authorizing or know about acts of torture taking place -- that's to be expected from current and former members of the Sleaze Administration. What bothers me is the part that goes "to produce a feeling of drowning."

Let's be clear, waterboarding doesn't cause "a feeling of drowning." It actually entails drowning someone, hopefully stopping before someone has actually fully drowned, and is thus deceased. How many more journalists have to volunteer to get waterboarded (Christopher Hitchens being the most recent example) and how many more videos of 16-year-old kids held at Guantanamo do we have to release before the media actually stops believing whatever horse swill Bush and company throw at them?

Maybe this person will be a helpful critic of this kind of crap. Time will tell.

Sudan and the ICC

As expected, we learned today that the International Criminal Court will indeed bring charges of genocide against the president of Sudan, Omar al-Bashir. Part of me says "fantastic!" Yet my more pragmatic side thinks that the road ahead will be fraught with disaster.

For some far more detailed analysis than I could ever hope to provide, see this post by Alex de Waal over at Making Sense of Darfur. It includes a synthesis of the posts he solicited last month on what might happen if Bashir is indicted. Very much worth taking a look at.