The stories you want. The opinions that matter.
No, thanks
Tag: human rights campaign
Transgender pride flag

Why Republicans Are Turning Transgender Children Into Political Scapegoats

The GOP's latest culture war is focused squarely on the nation's transgender community, specifically transgender youth. It isn't a new war, simply a new front in an old war that can be traced back to the famed "bathroom bills" from some years ago that spread across dozens of states. Those bills were introduced in tandem with former President Donald Trump's targeted federal government-led attacks that included the overturning of anti-discrimination statutes protecting trans people and an outright transgender ban in the U.S. military.

Now, in the wake of Trump's humiliating electoral loss, Republicans have accelerated the state-level attacks to a breathtaking level. In just the first three months of 2021, GOP-led state legislatures introduced more bills aimed at transgender people, especially youth, than they did over the entire previous year. There are now more than 80 bills introduced this year alone that, according to Alphonso David, president of the Human Rights Campaign, "are not addressing any real problem, and they're not being requested by constituents. Rather, this effort is being driven by national far-right organizations attempting to score political points by sowing fear and hate."

I recently spoke with Jules Gill-Peterson, an associate professor at the University of Pittsburgh and the author of the award-winning book Histories of the Transgender Child, in an interview, and she echoed this claim, saying, "A lot of authoritarian political movements are using trans people as their scapegoats." She called the latest wave of anti-trans legislation "an unprecedented assault in terms of just the magnitude of the bills and the severity of what they propose to do in terms of criminalizing basic access to health care and equal access to education."

She explained that "due to perhaps their general political incompetency, a lot of [Trump's attacks on transgender people] didn't really end up making it into practice." However, "on the state level, as is often the case, the GOP is much more successful at pursuing an anti-trans agenda than they ever are at the federal level." Gill-Peterson sees this as a culmination of efforts that can be traced back to North Carolina's 2016 passage of a bill banning transgender people from using facilities of the gender they identify with.

On April 5, North Carolina Republicans continued what they began five years ago, introducing a bill called the "Youth Health Protection Act," which blocks transgender minors from accessing the health care they need upon deciding to transition. Just as the GOP has often couched its attacks on communities under the guise of protecting them (think of anti-abortion legislation presented as "fetal personhood" bills), this bill, like several others in states like Arkansas, purports to protect trans youth.

Republicans also claim they want to protect "fair competition," in the words of Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee, by banning transgender kids from sports. Lee, along with the governors of Arkansas and Mississippi, signed bills into law this year banning trans youth from playing sports in school. These transphobic bills are based on a theory that transgender kids, especially girls, have an unfair biological advantage over non-transgender girls.

Just as the GOP's stated war on voter fraud is based on an imagined assault on the nation's democracy in order to disguise the real war on voting, the conservative party's stated reason for going after transgender children's access to health care or participation in sports is based on an imagined crisis. Gill-Peterson said, "most of these lawmakers will admit they've never heard of any issue with transgender participation in sports in their state, and they've never heard of any issue around trans health care in their state, and they don't actually know any trans children."

The GOP's war on voting offers another analogue. If the GOP really cared about democracy, they would make voting easier, not harder. Similarly, if the party were truly interested in the safety of girls, it would offer up bills that protect transgender girls in particular, who face very real dangers. Gill-Peterson said, "young trans girls and trans women are extremely vulnerable to sexual harassment and violence because it's not taken seriously." Instead, the bills banning access to health care and sports only fuel greater violence against them. Every year, dozens of trans women are killed, and more transgender people were killed in the U.S. in the first seven months of 2020 than all of the previous year. It's no surprise that the spike in violence has coincided with legislative attempts to dehumanize the community.

Just as with anti-voter and anti-abortion bills, the GOP's tactic of pursuing transphobic legislation involves wasting legislative time and money by passing clearly unconstitutional bills that are invariably legally challenged, remain tied up in the courts for years, and ultimately end up at the Supreme Court. Last summer, justices ruled against an attempt to legalize workplace discrimination against transgender employees, and then in the winter, they left in place a public school's accommodation of transgender students to use the bathroom of their choice.

Whether the GOP wins or loses on this issue in the nation's highest court is almost beside the point because the party's goal is to distract its anxious base from the fact that their leaders do little to nothing about pervasive problems around inequality and depressed wages, a stagnant job market, and the ever-rising cost of living.

Moreover, the GOP's anti-trans bills fulfill part of a larger conservative agenda to create ever more exceptions to government-provided services such as health care and education, whittling away at the state's responsibility for resources to be available to all and rights to be respected universally. If hormone treatments, abortions, and medical treatments for immigrants are exceptions to government-provided health care; if public education is for everyone but transgender kids; then those services are weakened in service of libertarian fantasies of how society should function.

How to combat this brutality and inhumanity? Gill-Peterson pointed out, "the folks who are on the same side of this debate as the Republican legislators include a wide swath of extremist groups: white nationalists, anti-vaxxers, anti-maskers, anti-immigrant groups." To meet this threat will require an equally broad coalition of progressives to stand guard against attacks on transgender people.

The state of South Dakota has been a testing ground for state-level legislation aimed at trans rights. Bill after bill has failed in that state, thanks largely to a coalition that has stood firm at every turn to protest them. Alongside transgender activists are parents, teachers, and doctors as well as national organizations like the ACLU and the National Center for Transgender Equality. Having a president like Joe Biden who has reaffirmed the humanity and dignity of transgender people, rather than targeting them for violence as Trump did, is also a huge help. "We need to see trans rights as integral to a broader agenda for democracy, justice, and public good in this country," said Gill-Peterson.

Sonali Kolhatkar is the founder, host, and executive producer of "Rising Up With Sonali," a television and radio show that airs on Free Speech TV and Pacifica stations. She is a writing fellow for the Economy for All project at the Independent Media Institute.

This article was produced by Economy for All, a project of the Independent Media Institute.

Indiana Religious Freedom Act: What’s Behind The Law And The Backlash

Indiana Religious Freedom Act: What’s Behind The Law And The Backlash

By Michael Muskal, Los Angeles Times (TNS)

When Indiana approved a law designed to allow residents and business owners to use their religious beliefs as reason to deny services to some people, the conservative state braced for some fallout. But the response was quicker and harder after a campaign from critics who argued the law discriminates against gays and lesbians.

Within days, Indiana was the target of a social media boycott campaign, threatening its lucrative convention business. Top business leaders from the technology sector slammed the state. San Francisco and Seattle announced they were barring publicly funded travel to Indiana. Connecticut announced it would follow suit. Even the NCAA, a temple to what some consider to be the religion of basketball, weighed in, saying it was disappointed in the new law and wanted a clarification before deciding what to do about future events and tournaments.

Indiana legislative leaders are scrambling to contain the potential damage, announcing they will pass language to clarify that the law, which goes into effect in July, does not discriminate against gays and lesbians, despite the fear that it does. Here is a guide to understanding the issue that is a political window into the changing nature of gay rights.

Q: What happened in Indiana?

A: Gov. Mike Pence, a conservative Republican, last week signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, designed to “help protect churches, Christian businesses, and individuals from those who want to punish them because of their biblical beliefs,” he said. Twenty states have similar laws, though the exact language differs. Sixteen more states are considering passage of some form of the law.

Q: Isn’t there a federal version of the law? How does it differ from the state laws?

A: Yes. The federal version of the law was signed in 1993 by President Bill Clinton and was considered a liberal response to a conservative Supreme Court ruling in 1990. The court ruled against Native Americans who argued that their use of peyote was a religious requirement. In effect, the court decided that states could ban the sacramental use of peyote. That changed the legal standard for what states could and could not do in the area of religious practices.

Liberals quickly moved to protect the tribes by passing a measure to protect religious practices from government interference. Two decades later, it is conservatives who are seeking the new laws.

There are differences between the federal and state laws, according to a statement from the office of Sen. Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y., who was a sponsor of the federal legislation as a House member. The federal law could be used only if someone was suing the government for violating his or her right to the free exercise of religion. The state laws are broader, applying to lawsuits involving individuals, and could be used by businesses that want to prevent a service because it violates their religious principles.

Q: What do backers of the law say?

A: Pence has defended his signing of the law, arguing it is not designed to discriminate against anyone. Indiana House Speaker Brian Bosma and state Senate President Pro Tem David Long echoed those complaints at a news conference Monday, saying that other states have not gone through the same backlash as Indiana has.

“What we had hoped for with the bill was a message of inclusion, inclusion of all religious beliefs,” Bosma said. “What instead has come out as a message of exclusion, and that was not the intent.”

Both said they hoped to propose new language to amend the law to meet the criticism that it is discriminatory.

Q: What is the problem with these types of laws?

A: Gay rights advocates see the whole category of such religious legislation as part of a conservative campaign designed to allow people and companies to opt out of providing services to gays. The frequently cited example is that the law could be interpreted to allow bakers or photographers to refuse to do business with same-sex couples who are legally getting married.

Q: How would this law work?

A: Religious freedom laws are used in civil lawsuits. In one typical example, a Christian baker, whose faith opposes same-sex marriage, decides not to sell a wedding cake to a same-sex couple. The couple sue the baker, claiming they were discriminated against because of their sexual orientation.

The Indiana law asserts that the government can’t “substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion” and that individuals who believe their religious beliefs have been or could be “substantially burdened” are protected from lawsuits. The concept of substantial burden is not defined in the law. It would be up to state courts to decide the issue.

Recently in Oregon, a Christian baker refused to sell a wedding cake to a lesbian couple. That state has rules against discrimination based on sexual orientation, so a state agency eventually ruled that the baker had acted improperly.

That couldn’t happen in Indiana because the state does not include sexual orientation as a protected class. Indiana law protects against discrimination based on race, religion, and gender. Twenty-one states do protect against discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Q: Why has there been such a backlash?

A: Using social media, various groups launched a drive to #BoycottIndiana, a campaign that quickly drew influential supporters, including a Star Trek hero, actor George Takei, and other celebrities with huge Twitter followings. Apple Chief Executive Tim Cook and Yelp Chief Executive Jeremy Stoppelman also criticized Indiana’s law.

“These laws set a terrible precedent that will likely harm the broader economic health of the states where they have been adopted, the businesses currently operating in those states and, most importantly, the consumers who could be victimized under these laws,” Stoppelman wrote in an open letter.

Marc Benioff, head of tech company Salesforce, went further. “We are canceling all programs that require our customers/employees to travel to Indiana to face discrimination,” Benioff said in a tweet last week.

The business leaders were joined by another powerful lobby — especially in Indiana — basketball. The NCAA raised questions about the law and its future effect on college basketball playoffs. The current tournament, which annually traumatizes the nation in a rite of spring dubbed March Madness, ends this weekend with the Final Four playing in Indianapolis.

Q: If these laws have been around for a while, what’s changed?

A: The biggest change in gay rights has been the steady march of legalization of same-sex marriage, now lawful in 36 states and the District of Columbia. The issue will be argued this term before the U.S. Supreme Court.

“If Gov. Pence had signed this law even five years ago, it would have been a different story,” said Adam Talbot, a spokesman for the Human Rights Campaign, an influential organization that has been involved in fights over gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender rights. The group was involved in the successful effort to stop a similar law in Arizona last year.

The Indiana law “shines a light on how LGBT issues have changed and how the mainstream of American society doesn’t want to see this type of discrimination enshrined,” Talbot said.

Indiana is also the first state this year to act on a religious freedom law. Arkansas is expected to act this week on its version of a religious freedom measure.

Q: What do polls say?

A: A Pew Research Center survey last year showed the American public is divided over the issue of providing services in same-sex marriages. About 49 percent said businesses should be required to serve same-sex weddings, and 47 percent said businesses should be permitted to refuse service because of religious objections. Most Americans 65 and older (60 percent) said wedding-related businesses should be able to decline to provide services for same-sex weddings, but most adults younger than 30 (62 percent) take the opposite view.

(c)2015 Los Angeles Times, Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC

Image: Screenshot of Mike Pence being interviewed by George Stephanopoulos, via ABC

Brunei Denies Plans To Purchase New York Hotels

Brunei Denies Plans To Purchase New York Hotels

London (AFP) — The sultan of Brunei denied on Tuesday media reports that he was mulling the purchase of three landmark hotels including New York’s Plaza.

The reports had sparked a protest by the U.S. gay lobby group, Human Rights Campaign, as Brunei plans to implement tough punishments for same-sex acts.

“Neither His Majesty, the Brunei Investment Agency, nor the government of Brunei are involved in any way in the purchase of the Grosvenor House in London or the Plaza and Dream Downtown hotels in New York,” said a spokesman for the sultan on Tuesday.

The Wall Street Journal, citing people familiar with the matter, had reported on Monday that the sultan had offered about $2.0 billion to buy the three plush hotels.

AFP Photo

Interested in world news? Sign up for our daily email newsletter!