If he'd been in there filming straight couples having sex, they would have called him a pervert and thrown him in jail quicker than he could blink; they were homosexual so now he's a vigilante trying to protect his neighborhood, and he gets a suspended sentence and community service. What's wrong with this picture?
A self-styled 'protector of morals' who filmed gay men having sex in a woodland was spared jail yesterday.
Colin Haw, 47, led a group of men who dressed in balaclavas and combat kit to patrol a wood near Sleaford in Lincolnshire.
They would film men meeting and post the footage on a local website, often accompanied with music such as YMCA by the Village People and the nursery rhyme Teddy Bear's Picnic.
Haw was caught after he confronted a motorcyclist in a lay-by on the A17 in June last year. The rider said he had been going to the toilet and it was none of Haw's business. Two days later, he found footage of himself on Haw's website and called the police.
Liz Harte, defending, described Haw's actions as a 'misguided enterprise'.
She added: "Mr Haw thought he was doing the right thing. The thinking was that he was a protector of morals and a guardian of children."
Prosecutor Stephen Hill said: "It's very clear that the behaviour of this group is homophobic and at times it's quite aggressive."
Pat Walsh, chairman of the bench, told Haw: "Your actions were premeditated and quite deliberate in targeting a group of people we would describe as vulnerable. Our thoughts were to send you to custody but we are not going to do that today."
Haw was sentenced to four months in prison, suspended for a year and a half. He was also ordered to do 200 hours community service work but escaped an anti-social behaviour order requested by Lincolnshire Police.
He was ordered to pay the motorcyclist he had filmed £400 and costs of £120.
Speaking outside court, Haw, a father of two, said: "We didn't go in there to cause people harm. We reported it on several occasions to the police. We tried to name and shame them but we didn't have any intention of causing them distress. We didn't put up any pornographic material.
"In our videos in Boston we have also brought attention to all the rubbish and the drug users who have thrown their syringes on the floor.
"We were not out to cause any trouble. The police wanted it covered up.
"I've got nothing against homosexual people but what gives them the authority to do it in public?"
Tuesday, May 19
Saturday, May 16
10 Council members back same-sex marriage bill
Stances contradict Washington Times report
May 15, 2009
By: Lou Chibbaro Jr.
One week after D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty signed a bill authorizing the city to recognize same-sex marriages legally performed in other jurisdictions, at least 10 of the City Council’s 13 members indicated they would vote for a separate bill allowing same-sex marriages to be performed in the District.
A Washington Blade survey of Council members this week found that 10 members were prepared to vote for full legalization of same-sex marriage in the city if a marriage equality bill were to come before the Council later this year.
The Blade’s survey contradicts a Washington Times article last week that reported five Council members were undecided on a full same-sex marriage bill and that Council Chair Vincent Gray (D-At Large) was “likely” to vote for such a measure.
Gray spokesperson Doxie McCoy told the Blade on Tuesday that Gray would vote “yes” on a full same-sex marriage bill if it were to reach the Council floor.
Gay D.C. Council member David Catania (I-At Large) has said he would introduce such a bill if the current Council-approved measure allowing the city to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states and countries clears its required review by Congress.
The Council passed that bill 12-1 on May 5 and Fenty signed the bill the following day. The Council’s legislative clerk sent the measure to Capitol Hill on Monday, when the clock began for its congressional review of 30 legislative days. The bill automatically becomes enacted into law if Congress takes no action to overturn it.
At Blade deadline, the offices of three of the 13 Council members — Harry Thomas (D-Ward 5), Yvette Alexander (D-Ward 7), and Marion Barry (D-Ward 8) — had not responded to the Blade survey on their plans for a full marriage rights bill.
Alexander, who voted for the same-sex marriage recognition measure last week, said during the debate that she was undecided on whether to vote for a full, same-sex marriage rights bill if such a measure would come before the Council.
Barry was the only Council member to vote against the marriage recognition measure. He told a rally last month organized by ministers opposed to same-sex marriage that he would vote against any same-sex marriage bill introduced into the Council, citing his religious beliefs. Barry said he supports civil unions and domestic partnerships for same-sex couples.
Thomas, who also voted for the same-sex marriage recognition legislation last week, could not be reached for comment before deadline on whether he planned to vote for a full, same-sex marriage equality bill. During his Council election campaign two years ago, Thomas told the Gay & Lesbian Activists Alliance in a questionnaire that he supported full, same-sex marriage equality in the District.
The Washington Times story, published May 6, reported that Council members Kwame Brown (D-At Large), Michael Brown (I-At Large), Thomas, Alexander and Barry indicated through staff members that they were each undecided on whether to vote for the full, same-sex marriage measure expected to be introduced by Catania later this year.
Michael Brown told the Blade on Tuesday that he reserves the right to read the full text of Catania’s marriage bill but, barring any unexpected provisions, he plans to vote for it.
“I don’t know where that came from,” Brown said of the Washington Times report. “They never talked to me. I’ve been pretty much on the record in support of this for quite a while.”
Michael Price, press secretary for Council member Kwame Brown, said he, too, was surprised by the Washington Times story, and noted he doesn’t believe the Times contacted Kwame Brown or Brown’s office.
“He supports it and he will vote for it,” Price said in discussing Kwame Brown’s position on a same-sex marriage bill for D.C.
Other Council members said through spokespersons that they remain firmly in support of Catania’s planned legislation on same-sex marriage later this year.
“We’ve heard from a few constituents who are opposed to this,” said Charles Allen, chief of staff for Council member Tommy Wells (D-Ward 6). “But we’ve heard from 10 times more Ward 6 constituents who support it.”
“I don’t think anyone would be surprised to know that I will support it and vote for it,” said gay Council member Jim Graham (D-Ward 1). “But I want to hear what people say and I’ll devote a lot to the hearing and hear people out,” Graham said, in referring to an expected Council committee hearing on the bill before it’s brought up for a vote.
As of Wednesday, gay rights advocates said they were pleasantly surprised that more opposition from a wider range of clergy had yet to surface in D.C. Activists and political observers noted that a large majority of black churches and ministers have not participated in two rallies called so far by Rev. Harry Jackson, the Prince George’s County, Md., minister who is leading efforts to oppose the D.C. same-sex marriage recognition measure approved by the Council last week.
Other developments that have surfaced since the Council passed the marriage recognition measure last week included:
• The D.C. Democratic State Committee, the governing body of the city’s Democratic Party, voted May 7 to endorse legislation legalizing same-sex marriage in D.C.
• As of Wednesday, Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) was the only member of Congress to issue an official statement in opposition to the D.C. same-sex marriage recognition bill. His press secretary, Alisia Essig, told the Blade that he had yet to decide whether he would introduce a resolution to overturn the D.C. marriage bill.
Friday, May 8
"God hates fags" preacher joins calls to block gay Scottish minister
Fred Phelps, the leader of the Westboro Baptist Church which picket dead soldiers' funerals with chants of 'God hates fags', has said the ordination of openly gay minister Scot Rennie to a Scottish church would be an "abomination".
Phelps and his daughter Shirley Phelps-Roper were banned from entering the UK this week by home secretary Jacqui Smith for their extremist views.
Phelps weighed in on the row over Rennie's ordination after a prankster added his name to a petition calling for the Kirk's decision to be overturned.
Eight thousand people, including a fifth of Church of Scotland ministers, have signed the petition.
Rennie was elected to Queen's Cross Church in Aberdeen by more than 80 per cent of his congregation but 12 members of the Aberdeen Presbytery complained over his lifestyle as an openly gay man. The Church's General Assembly will debate the appointment on May 23rd.
Speaking on her behalf of her father, Phelps-Roper said he was relaxed about his name being added to the list as he agreed that Rennie should not be appointed.
“God has set a standard for who can be a preacher in a church of the Lord Jesus Christ and they would be kicked to the kerb if this man, Scott Rennie, is appointed.
“We don’t need a petition to say this is an act of disobedience and rebellion against the standards of God," she said.
Phelps and his daughter are on a list of 16 individuals banned from entering the country since October due to their extremist views.
Home secretary Jacqui Smith said she had decided to make the list public in order to make clear what behaviour would not be tolerated in the UK.
Tuesday, May 5
California Supreme Court backs private school in bias case
By declining to review the case, the high court lets stand a lower court ruling that California Lutheran High School in Riverside County did not have to comply with a state anti-discrimination law.
By Jessica Garrison
May 2, 2009
The California Supreme Court has let stand a lower court ruling that allowed a private religious school to expel two 16-year-old girls for having a "bond of intimacy" that was "characteristic of a lesbian relationship."
The girls had sued California Lutheran High School, contending that the Riverside County school had violated a state anti-discrimination law.
An appeals court ruled in January that the private religious school was not a business, and therefore did not have to comply with a state law that prohibits businesses from discriminating.
The California Supreme Court this week declined a request from the girls' attorney to review the case; one justice, Kathryn M. Werdegar, disagreed.
Casey Mattox, litigation counsel for the Virginia-based Center for Law and Religious Freedom, called it "the correct decision."
"We think it preserves religious freedom," he said.
But the girls' attorney, Mike Grace of the San Diego firm GraceHollis, said it was "particularly disappointing . . . on a lot of levels."
He said he feared the decision would give a "green light" for private schools to discriminate not just against gay students, but against children in other legally protected classes, such as race, as long as religious beliefs were offered as a justification.
In ruling in favor of the school, the appeals court cited a 1998 California Supreme Court decision that said the Boy Scouts of America was a social organization, not a business establishment, and therefore did not have to comply with the Unruh Civil Rights Act.
jessica.garrison@latimes.com
By Jessica Garrison
May 2, 2009
The California Supreme Court has let stand a lower court ruling that allowed a private religious school to expel two 16-year-old girls for having a "bond of intimacy" that was "characteristic of a lesbian relationship."
The girls had sued California Lutheran High School, contending that the Riverside County school had violated a state anti-discrimination law.
An appeals court ruled in January that the private religious school was not a business, and therefore did not have to comply with a state law that prohibits businesses from discriminating.
The California Supreme Court this week declined a request from the girls' attorney to review the case; one justice, Kathryn M. Werdegar, disagreed.
Casey Mattox, litigation counsel for the Virginia-based Center for Law and Religious Freedom, called it "the correct decision."
"We think it preserves religious freedom," he said.
But the girls' attorney, Mike Grace of the San Diego firm GraceHollis, said it was "particularly disappointing . . . on a lot of levels."
He said he feared the decision would give a "green light" for private schools to discriminate not just against gay students, but against children in other legally protected classes, such as race, as long as religious beliefs were offered as a justification.
In ruling in favor of the school, the appeals court cited a 1998 California Supreme Court decision that said the Boy Scouts of America was a social organization, not a business establishment, and therefore did not have to comply with the Unruh Civil Rights Act.
jessica.garrison@latimes.com
Monday, May 4
Jury reaches verdict in Colo. transgender slaying
Apr 22, 2009GREELEY, Colo. (AP) — Jurors have reached a verdict in the trial of a Colorado man charged with beating a transgender woman to death with a fire extinguisher.
The verdict was expected to be read Wednesday afternoon in Greeley. Jurors deliberated for only about two hours.
Thirty-two-year-old Allen Andrade is charged with murder and a bias-motivated crime in the death of 18-year-old Angie Zapata.
Prosecutors say Andrade knew for 36 hours that Zapata was biologically male and killed her out of his dislike for homosexuals. Andrade's attorneys argue Zapata deceived him, and that he snapped when he discovered Zapata was biologically male.
THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.
GREELEY, Colo. (AP) — The case of a Colorado man charged with beating a transgender woman to death with a fire extinguisher has gone to the jury.
Prosecutors and the defense made their closing arguments Wednesday in the trial of Allen Andrade, who is charged with murder and a bias-motivated crime in the death of 18-year-old Angie Zapata.
Attorneys for the 32-year-old Greeley man say Zapata deceived him, and that Andrade snapped when he discovered that Zapata was biologically male. But prosecutors say Andrade had known for 36 hours that Zapata was biologically male before he killed her out of a dislike for homosexuals.
The trial is believed to be the first under Colorado's bias-motivated crime law involving a transgender person.
Friday, May 1
NC rep calls gay student slaying case a 'hoax'
By ESTES THOMPSON
RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) — A North Carolina congresswoman said Thursday she chose her words poorly when she called claims that a Wyoming college student was murdered because he was gay a "hoax." Republican Rep. Virginia Foxx said during debate in the House that Matthew Shepard's 1998 death wasn't a hate crime and shouldn't be invoked by supporters of a bill to expand the definition of such crimes to include violence motivated by sexual orientation.
"We know that young man was killed in the commitment of a robbery. It wasn't because he was gay," Foxx said during debate. "The bill was named for him, the hate-crimes bill was named for him, but it's really a hoax that continues to be used as an excuse for passing these bills."
Shepard died several days after he was found tied to a remote fence in Wyoming, severely beaten and robbed of $20. Prosecutors said he was lured from a bar by two men, including one whose defense attorney said reacted violently after Shepard made a sexual advance.
The House approved the bill Wednesday despite Foxx's comments. On Thursday, after Foxx drew heated reaction from several gay rights groups and others upset by her comments, she said her words didn't convey what she meant to say.
"The term 'hoax' was a poor choice of words used in the discussion of the hate crimes bill," Foxx said in a statement. "Mr. Shepard's death was nothing less than a tragedy, and those responsible for his death certainly deserved the punishment they received."
Still, it wasn't enough to quell the firestorm.
"I haven't ever heard anyone say before that Matthew Shepard's death wasn't a hate crime," said Becky Dansky, federal legislative director for the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.
She said her organization was surprised by the comments and noted the House version of the bill doesn't even reference Shepard's case. The Senate bill carries Shepard's name.
Foxx spokesman Aaron Groen said the congresswoman relied on articles that she later realized were faulty and especially regrets upsetting the Shepard family. He said she declined further comment.
"Calls to her office have been mostly from outside North Carolina," Groen said. "We've gotten our share of death threats and the like but that's to be expected on such an emotional issue."
The University of Wyoming student's slaying became a rallying point for the gay rights movement.
The two men who killed him are serving life in prison. Prosecutors' cases included evidence with elements of robbery, drugs and hatred against gays. The court found the men guilty of murder, but did not determine their motivation.
Neil Giuliano, president of the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, said Foxx's comments might help encourage discussions favorable to equality.
"She should know better," Giuliano said Thursday. "Her research is a little shoddy. The good thing is it has exposed yet another very anti-equality, anti-gay elected official at a time when public opinion is moving more and more toward equality."
Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
Tuesday, April 28
Westboro Bapist went to school… and almost got their butts kicked
In all honesty, how much of a protest can it be if there are only fourteen people protesting against homosexuality? It was a case of a flood against a puddle.Westboro Baptist Church members believe that God is punishing America for tolerating homosexuality and have drawn severe criticism across the nation for picketing at funerals of servicemen and servicewomen.
But when the controversial church protested outside Shawnee Mission East High School in Prairie Village, Kansas on Thursday afternoon, word of the Phelps family protest spread through the school like wildfire and soon counter protesters outnumbered them by the hundreds. Students held signs reading, “God is love,” “God does not hate” and “No hate in P.V.”
The Phelps klan was at the school because an openly-gay former student, Matt Pope, was elected prom king last year…
In fact, the police estimate that the number of protesters against Phelps’ group numbered almost forty times the number that the Phelps family could muster. Pope, who is attending college in Oklahoma, even drove back to his high school Thursday to be at the protest.
Among the church protesters against homosexuality were two small children, both looked to be under the age of ten. One of the children was holding up a sign saying how President Obama is the devil.
Police were out in force to keep traffic moving smoothly and to keep the two groups separate and at least a dozen police officers stood by during the protest to make sure it remained peaceful.
The Shanwee Mission School District is historic. This school district is famous, or maybe infamous because in 1949 it was the Webb v. School District 90 desegregation case in this district paved the way for Brown v. Topeka Board of Education five years later.
Written by: Sei Sei is a trans-lesbian who lives in Vermont and has a strong passion for LGBTI rights. She has a BA in History and her hobbies include sci-fi, anime, fantasy, action movies, video games, and more.
Monday, April 27
Federal court rejects Troy Davis’ appeal
Killer gets 30-day stay of execution to pursue appeals
By BILL RANKIN
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Thursday, April 16, 2009
I'm sure anyone reading my blog remembers this story, I've been following Troy Davis for quite a while. It truly amazes me how they can still be rejecting his appeals...
The federal appeals court in Atlanta on Thursday rejected death-row inmate Troy Anthony Davis’ bid for a new trial on claims he did not kill a Savannah police officer in 1989.
In a 2-1 opinion, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Davis could not establish by clear and convincing evidence a jury would not have found him guilty.
Davis’ innocence claims have attracted international attention. They rely largely on the recantations of key prosecution witnesses who testified at trial and on statements by others who say another man told them he was the actual killer.
In October, the 11th Circuit granted Davis a stay three days before he was to be put to death by lethal injection. It marked the third time Davis’ life was spared before his scheduled execution.
On Thursday, the two-judge majority noted that state courts and the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles had exhaustively reviewed Davis’ claims and rejected them.
Judges Joel Dubina and Stanley Marcus said they agreed with those conclusions. “Davis has not presented us with a showing of innocence so compelling that we would be obligated to act today,” they wrote.
The judges said they view the recantations with skepticism and, after reviewing Davis’ claims, “remain unpersuaded.”
Judge Rosemary Barkett dissented. “To execute Davis, in the face of a significant amount of proferred evidence that may establish his actual innocence, is unconscionable and unconstitutional,” she wrote.
The 11th Circuit kept in place its stay of execution for another 30 days so Davis can pursue his final appeal before the U.S. Supreme Court. The high court in October declined to consider a previous appeal.
Davis, 40, stands convicted of killing off-duty Savannah Police Officer Mark Allen MacPhail. The 27-year-old former Army Ranger was shot three times before he could draw his weapon.
Russ Willard, spokesman for state Attorney General Thurbert Baker, said the 11th Circuit made the “correct decision.”
Tom Dunn, one of Davis’ lawyers, said he was disappointed, but would fight on. “Troy is innocent and this struggle is far from over.”
Thursday, April 23
Lesbian mom saved from deportation by private bill introduced by California Senator Dianne Feinstein
Shirley Tan, who had received a temporary reprieve and was scheduled to be deported and separated from her partner of 23 years, Jay Mercado, and their two children on April 22, was saved at the last minute by a private bill introduced by Senator Dianne Feinstein [pictured], according to a message sent out by the family's rep. Melanie Nathan:
Today Senator Feinstein introduced a very rare private bill on behalf of Shirley Tan; Shirley will not have to leave the USA for now and hopefully never. The essence of its introduction is that Tan does not have to leave the USA on May 10th, in terms of the voluntary order issued by DHS. This enables her to stay in the USA, legally, until the private bill passes (a rare occurrence)- and if it does not come up for a vote then she can stay for the duration of this Congress’s session, which has approximately a year and nine months left. However Shirley's ultimate saviour will be UAFA [Uniting American Families Act] and nothing else!
Wednesday, April 22
Family of boxer fights for pardon of 1913 racist conviction
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- To this day, Linda Haywood recalls the shame she once felt for her great-uncle.
Jack Johnson was convicted of transporting a white woman across state lines for "immoral purposes."
Jack Johnson was convicted of transporting a white woman across state lines for "immoral purposes."
"I could see from the expression on my mother's face that it pained her to tell me about him," she recalled, "but it wasn't just her. The shame was there for all the members of my family."
Haywood's great-uncle, Jack Johnson, shocked the nation in 1908 by becoming the first African-American world heavyweight champion. Yet the boxer was arrested not long afterward for taking a white woman across state lines for "immoral" purposes.
That case fell apart and the woman later became his wife, but then investigators charged him with a similar offense involving a woman he had dated years earlier. An all-white jury's decision to convict him in that case has come to be widely viewed as a symbol of racial injustice.
Now Haywood is working with Sen. John McCain and others to try to clear her great-uncle's name. McCain wants the Senate to pass a resolution urging President Obama to grant Johnson a presidential pardon.
It would represent a final vindication for Haywood, a 53-year-old seamstress in Chicago who now views her great-uncle with pride.
Her parents didn't tell her until she was 12 that she was related to Johnson, even though she saw his photo at school during lessons on black history.
"I remember seeing his picture on the wall of my sixth-grade classroom in Chicago in 1966," Haywood said in a voice tinged with sadness. "It was up there next to pictures of Sojourner Truth and George Washington Carver as part of a black history week my teacher put together. I didn't have the first clue who the man was. My parents didn't want me to know."
Her parents, she said, were trying to protect her from a legacy of racial injustice at a time when the country had yet to emerge from the long shadow of segregation.
Haywood was stunned when she learned her great-uncle's story.
Less than five years after winning the heavyweight title, Johnson was convicted for violating the Mann Act, which outlawed the transportation of women across state lines for "immoral" purposes.
Johnson was black and the woman was white -- enough to get even a champion imprisoned in early 20th century America. Justice Department lawyers decried it as a "crime against nature" for him to have a sexual relationship with a white woman.
Judge Kennesaw Mountain Landis, later to become the first commissioner of Major League Baseball, set Johnson's bail at $30,000 -- the equivalent of more than $660,000 today. When a bail bondsman showed up, Landis jailed him, too, according to an account that filmmaker Ken Burns relays in his documentary, "Unforgivable Blackness: The Rise and Fall of Jack Johnson."
An all-white jury convicted Johnson in less than two hours.
"Mr. Johnson was perhaps persecuted as an individual, but ... it was his misfortune to be the foremost example of the evil in permitting the intermarriage of whites and blacks," one of the prosecutors later said.
Johnson's real crime, in the eyes of many, was committed three years earlier, when he successfully defended his boxing title against Jim Jeffries, a white boxer who came to be called the "Great White Hope" because many white fans saw him as the best chance to wrest back a boxing title from the African-American champ.
Jeffries, a former heavyweight champion, had come out of retirement intending to reclaim a title that many Americans believed Johnson had no right to in the first place.
Johnson beat Jeffries on July 4, 1910, before a stunned, almost entirely white crowd in Reno, Nevada.
Race riots followed.
More than 20 people were killed and hundreds were injured. Most victims were black.
So when they "couldn't beat him in the ring, the white power establishment decided to beat him in the courts," Burns said in his documentary.
Johnson fled to Europe in 1913 while free on appeal. But after years of fights overseas -- including the eventual loss of his title in Havana, Cuba, in 1915 -- Johnson came home. He turned himself over to U.S. authorities at the Mexican border in 1920 and served ten months in prison.
He died in a car wreck in 1946.
"Back then, if you were black and you were told that you did something wrong, you really had no recourse," said Haywood.
"You just accepted what was done because black people were basically powerless and voiceless. Jack may have been a rich boxer, but he couldn't fight the system."
Today, in a very different America, Haywood's family is seeking justice.
They've teamed up with Burns, McCain and Rep. Peter King, a New York Republican, to urge the nation's first African-American president to grant Johnson a rare posthumous pardon.
McCain and King introduced resolutions calling for a presidential pardon in 2005 and last year. The House passed it, but the Senate did not.
The White House declined to comment when asked Obama's views on a possible pardon for Johnson.
McCain, who says he made a mistake by once voting against a federal holiday for the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., sees the pardon as a way to right an old wrong.
"The Jack Johnson case is an ignominious stain on our nation's history," he said on the Senate floor this month, while introducing a new version of the resolution.
"Rectifying this injustice is long overdue. [The resolution recognizes] the unjustness of what transpired, and sheds light on the achievements of an athlete who was forced into the shadows of bigotry and prejudice. Johnson ... deserved much better than a racially motivated conviction."
King, himself a former boxer, said in a written statement that Johnson was a trailblazer who became "a victim of the times."
For Haywood, the proposed pardon is also personal. It's about wiping the slate clean for future generations of her family.
"My mother used to say Jack was defiant," she remembered. "No disrespect, momma, but he was being his own man. And I'm so proud of him. To think -- of all the families in the world, God gave him to us."
Haywood has made sure her four children know the story of the country's first black heavyweight champion.
"They love him," she said. "Especially my oldest son. He was a bit of a pugilist in high school. He got into his fair share of scraps. I think we know where he got that trait."
Haywood says she'll go to Washington if Obama issues a pardon. With a bit of laughter, she promises to give a gracious, eloquent speech thanking him.
With or without a pardon, she emphasizes, the stigma and the shame are gone.
Saturday, April 4
Well, 3 down, 40-something to go!!!
Three states so far have done the right thing, have insured that all their
citizens are equal in the eyes of the law when it comes to the right to marry. Let's hope it's like dominoes, once they start falling, they speed up and continue to fall until they've all been knocked over...
Gay marriages expected to begin in Iowa April 24
DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — Gay marriage, seemingly the province of the nation's two coasts, is just weeks away from becoming a reality in the heartland and apparently it will be years before social conservatives have a chance to stop it.
The Iowa Supreme Court on Friday unanimously upheld a lower-court ruling that rejected a state law restricting marriage to a union between a man and woman. Now gays and lesbians may exchange vows as soon as April 24 following the landmark decision.
The county attorney who defended the law said he would not seek a rehearing. The only recourse for opponents appeared to be a constitutional amendment, which couldn't get on the ballot until 2012 at the earliest.
"I would say the mood is one of mourning right now in a lot of ways," said a dejected Bryan English, spokesman for the Iowa Family Policy Center, a conservative group that opposes same-sex marriage.
In the meantime, same-sex marriage opponents may try to enact residency requirements for marriage so that gays and lesbians from across the country could not travel to Iowa to wed.
U.S. Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, urged the Legislature to do so, saying he feared without residency requirements Iowa would "become the gay marriage mecca."
Only Massachusetts and Connecticut currently permit same-sex marriage. For six months last year, California's high court allowed gay marriage before voters banned it in November.
For gays and lesbians, meanwhile, the day was one of jubilation. The Vermont House of Representatives also passed a measure Friday that would allow same-sex couples to wed, on a 94-52 roll call vote, just short of the two-thirds majority needed to override a promised veto by Gov. Jim Douglas.
Gay marriage supporters hoped to convince a few Vermont legislators to switch when it comes to the override vote, which could be taken as soon as Tuesday.
In Iowa, hundreds cheered, waved rainbow flags and shed tears of joy at rallies in seven cities Friday evening. "Corn-fed and Ready to Wed!" read one man's sign at a gathering at the University of Northern Iowa in Cedar Falls.
In downtown Des Moines, about 300 people gathered beneath rainbow flags to celebrate including Des Moines Mayor Frank Cownie.
"We finally have equality in Iowa," said Harold Delaria, of Des Moines, who attended the rally and has two gay children. "It's kind of the last wall of legalized discrimination and it's coming tumbling down."
The Rev. Diane McLanahan of Trinity United Methodist Church in Des Moines acknowledged that many people of faith won't agree with the ruling. With that in mind, she said the court has reached a decision that "pretty much insists that this will not be a debate about religious rights but a matter of equality and fairness."
In its ruling, the Supreme Court upheld an August 2007 decision by a judge who found that a state law limiting marriage to a man and a woman violates the constitutional rights of equal protection.
Iowa lawmakers have "excluded a historically disfavored class of persons from a supremely important civil institution without a constitutionally sufficient justification," the justices wrote.
To issue any other decision, the seven justices said, "would be an abdication of our constitutional duty."
At a news conference announcing the decision, plaintiff Kate Varnum, 34, introduced her partner, Trish Varnum, as "my fiance."
"I never thought I'd be able to say that," she said, fighting back tears.
Jason Morgan, 38, said he and his partner, Chuck Swaggerty, adopted two sons, confronted the death of Swaggerty's mother and endured a four-year legal battle as plaintiffs.
"If being together though all of that isn't love and commitment or isn't family or marriage, then I don't know what is," Morgan said. "We are very happy with the decision today and very proud to live in Iowa."
Iowa has a history of being in the forefront on social issues. It was among the first states to legalize interracial marriage and to allow married women to own property. It was also the first state to admit a woman to the bar to practice law and was a leader in school desegregation.
Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal, a Democrat, said state lawmakers were unlikely to consider gay marriage legislation in this legislative session, which is expected to end within weeks.
Gronstal also said he's "not inclined" to propose a constitutional amendment during next year's session. Without a vote by the Legislature this year or next, the soonest gay marriage could be repealed would be 2014.
Amendments to Iowa's constitution must be passed by the House and Senate in two consecutive general assemblies, which each last two years, and then approved by a simple majority of voters during a general election.
Iowa's Democratic governor, Chet Culver, said he would review the decision before announcing his views.
___
Associated Press writers Nigel Duara in Urbandale and Marco Santana, Melanie S. Welte, Michael Crumb and Mike Glover in Des Moines contributed to this report.
___
Copyright 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
citizens are equal in the eyes of the law when it comes to the right to marry. Let's hope it's like dominoes, once they start falling, they speed up and continue to fall until they've all been knocked over...
Gay marriages expected to begin in Iowa April 24
DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — Gay marriage, seemingly the province of the nation's two coasts, is just weeks away from becoming a reality in the heartland and apparently it will be years before social conservatives have a chance to stop it.
The Iowa Supreme Court on Friday unanimously upheld a lower-court ruling that rejected a state law restricting marriage to a union between a man and woman. Now gays and lesbians may exchange vows as soon as April 24 following the landmark decision.
The county attorney who defended the law said he would not seek a rehearing. The only recourse for opponents appeared to be a constitutional amendment, which couldn't get on the ballot until 2012 at the earliest.
"I would say the mood is one of mourning right now in a lot of ways," said a dejected Bryan English, spokesman for the Iowa Family Policy Center, a conservative group that opposes same-sex marriage.
In the meantime, same-sex marriage opponents may try to enact residency requirements for marriage so that gays and lesbians from across the country could not travel to Iowa to wed.
U.S. Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, urged the Legislature to do so, saying he feared without residency requirements Iowa would "become the gay marriage mecca."
Only Massachusetts and Connecticut currently permit same-sex marriage. For six months last year, California's high court allowed gay marriage before voters banned it in November.
For gays and lesbians, meanwhile, the day was one of jubilation. The Vermont House of Representatives also passed a measure Friday that would allow same-sex couples to wed, on a 94-52 roll call vote, just short of the two-thirds majority needed to override a promised veto by Gov. Jim Douglas.
Gay marriage supporters hoped to convince a few Vermont legislators to switch when it comes to the override vote, which could be taken as soon as Tuesday.
In Iowa, hundreds cheered, waved rainbow flags and shed tears of joy at rallies in seven cities Friday evening. "Corn-fed and Ready to Wed!" read one man's sign at a gathering at the University of Northern Iowa in Cedar Falls.
In downtown Des Moines, about 300 people gathered beneath rainbow flags to celebrate including Des Moines Mayor Frank Cownie.
"We finally have equality in Iowa," said Harold Delaria, of Des Moines, who attended the rally and has two gay children. "It's kind of the last wall of legalized discrimination and it's coming tumbling down."
The Rev. Diane McLanahan of Trinity United Methodist Church in Des Moines acknowledged that many people of faith won't agree with the ruling. With that in mind, she said the court has reached a decision that "pretty much insists that this will not be a debate about religious rights but a matter of equality and fairness."
In its ruling, the Supreme Court upheld an August 2007 decision by a judge who found that a state law limiting marriage to a man and a woman violates the constitutional rights of equal protection.
Iowa lawmakers have "excluded a historically disfavored class of persons from a supremely important civil institution without a constitutionally sufficient justification," the justices wrote.
To issue any other decision, the seven justices said, "would be an abdication of our constitutional duty."
At a news conference announcing the decision, plaintiff Kate Varnum, 34, introduced her partner, Trish Varnum, as "my fiance."
"I never thought I'd be able to say that," she said, fighting back tears.
Jason Morgan, 38, said he and his partner, Chuck Swaggerty, adopted two sons, confronted the death of Swaggerty's mother and endured a four-year legal battle as plaintiffs.
"If being together though all of that isn't love and commitment or isn't family or marriage, then I don't know what is," Morgan said. "We are very happy with the decision today and very proud to live in Iowa."
Iowa has a history of being in the forefront on social issues. It was among the first states to legalize interracial marriage and to allow married women to own property. It was also the first state to admit a woman to the bar to practice law and was a leader in school desegregation.
Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal, a Democrat, said state lawmakers were unlikely to consider gay marriage legislation in this legislative session, which is expected to end within weeks.
Gronstal also said he's "not inclined" to propose a constitutional amendment during next year's session. Without a vote by the Legislature this year or next, the soonest gay marriage could be repealed would be 2014.
Amendments to Iowa's constitution must be passed by the House and Senate in two consecutive general assemblies, which each last two years, and then approved by a simple majority of voters during a general election.
Iowa's Democratic governor, Chet Culver, said he would review the decision before announcing his views.
___
Associated Press writers Nigel Duara in Urbandale and Marco Santana, Melanie S. Welte, Michael Crumb and Mike Glover in Des Moines contributed to this report.
___
Copyright 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Saturday, March 14
Another twist for the unemployed: Debit card fees
I hate to see how big companies and even the government take advantage of the poor...
By Drew Griffin and David Fitzpatrick
CNN Special Investigations Unit
PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania (CNN) -- If you're out of work like Steve Lippe, who was laid off from his job as a salesman in January, you know you already have problems. But looking at the fine print that came with his new unemployment debit card, he became livid.
"A $1.50 [fee] here, a $1.50 there," he said. "Forty cents for a balance inquiry. Fifty cents to have your card denied. Thirty-five cents to have your account accessed by telephone."
He was quoting fees listed in a brochure that goes out to every unemployed person in Pennsylvania who chooses to receive benefits via debit card. He was given the option when he filed for jobless payments: Wait 10 days for a check or get the card immediately. Like most of the 925,000 state residents who received unemployment benefits in February in Pennsylvania, he chose the debit card and only then, he says, did he learn about the fees.
"I was outraged by it," he told CNN. "I was very noisy about it. I just couldn't believe it. An outrage is just too weak a word. It's obscene."
According to the U.S. Department of Labor, 30 states offer direct deposit cards to the unemployed. Many of the nation's biggest banks have contracts with the individual states. JP Morgan Chase, for instance, has contracts with seven states and has pending deals with two others, according to Chase spokesman John T. Murray. About 10 states, the Labor Department says, pay by check only.
The National Consumer Law Center says fees range from 40 cents to a high of $3 per transaction, if the debit card is used at an out-of-network ATM. Most banks give jobless debit card users one free withdrawal per deposit period, which averages every other week in most states. But consumer advocates, including the Law Center, say the unemployed "should be able to obtain cash and perform basic functions with no fees."
A key Democratic member of the House Financial Services Committee, which oversees bank regulation and theTroubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), told CNN she agrees wholeheartedly.
"Fees should not be attached to unemployment benefits that the taxpayers are paying to help Americans," Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-New York, told CNN. "Particularly, these fees should not be attached by banks that are getting TARP money and are being supported by taxpayer dollars."
CNN asked some of the major banks involved in the debit card program for a response. Spokesmen for JP Morgan Chase, Wachovia, Bank of America and Wells Fargo all directed us to the individual state governments for comment.
The acting secretary of labor and industry for Pennsylvania is Sandi Vito. Via e-mail, her staff invited CNN reporters to Allentown, Pennsylvania, where she was taking part at a public meeting at an elementary school. Afterward, she said, she would answer questions about the debit card fees.
But when the meeting ended, her staff said she was too busy to talk.
Her spokesman, Troy A. Thompson, spoke with CNN after Vito left.
"The distribution system for people getting their benefits has been improved by the use of debit cards, way above and beyond the distribution by check," he said.
The U.S. Department of Labor provided what it called "talking points" to CNN when asked for comment on the fee structure.
"States can do a better job negotiating fees with banks," the department said. "Many states have obtained terms far more favorable to claimants than those described in media reports."
In addition, according to the talking points, the Labor Department said it was aware states are offering unemployment debit cards for good reasons:
• It is less expensive for claimants without bank accounts because they don't need to pay check cashing fees.
• Claimants can use the card free at merchants and therefore don't need to carry excess cash.
• Generally, these cards are safer and more secure than checks.
"We will be working with states as they gain experience with debit cards to resolve these problems related to fees," the Labor Department said.
By Drew Griffin and David Fitzpatrick
CNN Special Investigations Unit
PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania (CNN) -- If you're out of work like Steve Lippe, who was laid off from his job as a salesman in January, you know you already have problems. But looking at the fine print that came with his new unemployment debit card, he became livid.
"A $1.50 [fee] here, a $1.50 there," he said. "Forty cents for a balance inquiry. Fifty cents to have your card denied. Thirty-five cents to have your account accessed by telephone."
He was quoting fees listed in a brochure that goes out to every unemployed person in Pennsylvania who chooses to receive benefits via debit card. He was given the option when he filed for jobless payments: Wait 10 days for a check or get the card immediately. Like most of the 925,000 state residents who received unemployment benefits in February in Pennsylvania, he chose the debit card and only then, he says, did he learn about the fees.
"I was outraged by it," he told CNN. "I was very noisy about it. I just couldn't believe it. An outrage is just too weak a word. It's obscene."
According to the U.S. Department of Labor, 30 states offer direct deposit cards to the unemployed. Many of the nation's biggest banks have contracts with the individual states. JP Morgan Chase, for instance, has contracts with seven states and has pending deals with two others, according to Chase spokesman John T. Murray. About 10 states, the Labor Department says, pay by check only.
The National Consumer Law Center says fees range from 40 cents to a high of $3 per transaction, if the debit card is used at an out-of-network ATM. Most banks give jobless debit card users one free withdrawal per deposit period, which averages every other week in most states. But consumer advocates, including the Law Center, say the unemployed "should be able to obtain cash and perform basic functions with no fees."
A key Democratic member of the House Financial Services Committee, which oversees bank regulation and theTroubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), told CNN she agrees wholeheartedly.
"Fees should not be attached to unemployment benefits that the taxpayers are paying to help Americans," Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-New York, told CNN. "Particularly, these fees should not be attached by banks that are getting TARP money and are being supported by taxpayer dollars."
CNN asked some of the major banks involved in the debit card program for a response. Spokesmen for JP Morgan Chase, Wachovia, Bank of America and Wells Fargo all directed us to the individual state governments for comment.
The acting secretary of labor and industry for Pennsylvania is Sandi Vito. Via e-mail, her staff invited CNN reporters to Allentown, Pennsylvania, where she was taking part at a public meeting at an elementary school. Afterward, she said, she would answer questions about the debit card fees.
But when the meeting ended, her staff said she was too busy to talk.
Her spokesman, Troy A. Thompson, spoke with CNN after Vito left.
"The distribution system for people getting their benefits has been improved by the use of debit cards, way above and beyond the distribution by check," he said.
The U.S. Department of Labor provided what it called "talking points" to CNN when asked for comment on the fee structure.
"States can do a better job negotiating fees with banks," the department said. "Many states have obtained terms far more favorable to claimants than those described in media reports."
In addition, according to the talking points, the Labor Department said it was aware states are offering unemployment debit cards for good reasons:
• It is less expensive for claimants without bank accounts because they don't need to pay check cashing fees.
• Claimants can use the card free at merchants and therefore don't need to carry excess cash.
• Generally, these cards are safer and more secure than checks.
"We will be working with states as they gain experience with debit cards to resolve these problems related to fees," the Labor Department said.
Friday, March 13
Time to Clean Up The Catholic House in Brazil
I read this on Topix today, and I'm still shaking my head at the stupidity of some factions of so-called "Christianity"...
Brazil is the world’s most populous Catholic country and The Roman Catholic Church welds a lot of power in here…
But in Brazil it is starting to look to many that the Roman Catholic Church in this country really needs to start getting the log out of it own eye before it gets the mote out of everyone else’s… And they need to do some cleaning of their house … before Brazilians come burn that house down for them…
This month the Archbishop of Recife, Jose Cardoso Sobrinho, excommunicated a mother who gave her permission to doctors to perform an abortion on her daughter after the nine-year-old girl got pregnant as the result of being raped by her stepfather.
Doctors believed that the nine-year-old was too small to have twins and that going ahead with the birth would have put her life in danger.
The local Catholic hierarchy tried to stop the procedure anyway (which is allowed in Brazil only in cases of rape or to save the life of the mother), but when it failed to do so, the local archbishop decided to excommunicate the girl’s mother and the doctors.
However, the archbishop didn’t excommunicate the stepfather who is in jail now.
Archbishop Sobrinho defended his action and when asked why he did not excommunicate the 23-year-old stepfather, Sobrinho said: “He committed an extremely serious crime. But that crime, according to canon law, is not punished with automatic excommunication.
And the Catholic Church tells me as a lesbian I am immoral?
Helloooo… did these palhaços miss the part that said a nine year old child was RAPED and would DIE?
Read full story from lezgetreal.com
For more on this story, read Abortion Saves Raped 9-Year-Old Girl's Life: Vatican Excommunicates, Furor Among Brazil's Catholics
Brazil is the world’s most populous Catholic country and The Roman Catholic Church welds a lot of power in here…
But in Brazil it is starting to look to many that the Roman Catholic Church in this country really needs to start getting the log out of it own eye before it gets the mote out of everyone else’s… And they need to do some cleaning of their house … before Brazilians come burn that house down for them…
This month the Archbishop of Recife, Jose Cardoso Sobrinho, excommunicated a mother who gave her permission to doctors to perform an abortion on her daughter after the nine-year-old girl got pregnant as the result of being raped by her stepfather.
Doctors believed that the nine-year-old was too small to have twins and that going ahead with the birth would have put her life in danger.
The local Catholic hierarchy tried to stop the procedure anyway (which is allowed in Brazil only in cases of rape or to save the life of the mother), but when it failed to do so, the local archbishop decided to excommunicate the girl’s mother and the doctors.
However, the archbishop didn’t excommunicate the stepfather who is in jail now.
Archbishop Sobrinho defended his action and when asked why he did not excommunicate the 23-year-old stepfather, Sobrinho said: “He committed an extremely serious crime. But that crime, according to canon law, is not punished with automatic excommunication.
And the Catholic Church tells me as a lesbian I am immoral?
Helloooo… did these palhaços miss the part that said a nine year old child was RAPED and would DIE?
Read full story from lezgetreal.com
For more on this story, read Abortion Saves Raped 9-Year-Old Girl's Life: Vatican Excommunicates, Furor Among Brazil's Catholics
Tuesday, March 10
Muslim Head Scarf Raises Concern at Bank Woman asked to bank in back room
I don't understand how a woman's head scarf would require the bank employees to have her go into a back room. It would be different if she were wearing a veil, but they don't ask women wearing a head scarf over their curlers to go into a back room!!!
Updated 8:15 AM EDT, Tue, Mar 10, 2009
A woman's muslim head scarf leads to problems at a Maryland credit union.
CALIFORNIA, Md. -- A Muslim woman said employees at a southern Maryland credit union asked to serve her in a back room because her head scarf violated the institution's "no hats, hoods or sunglasses" policy.
Kenza Shelley, of Lexington Park, said in the 10 years she has used the Navy Federal Credit Union in the California area of St. Mary's County no one complained about her scarf, which covers her hair, until February.
Shelley said she complied the first time, but on Saturday she demanded to be served like everyone else and left.
A Navy Federal security official defended the policy to the Washington Post, saying there was a significant increase in bank robberies last year and the policy was designed to prevent armed robbery and identity theft.
Tom Lyons, senior vice president for security at Navy Federal ... said it would not be unreasonable for bank employees to ask customers who refused to take off their hats to move to a separate room so they could be identified.
"We want to be able to clearly identify who you are and make sure the transaction is safe," Lyons said. "This is a policy that applies to everybody in the branch. She wasn't singled out. . . . We tried to accommodate her and help her with her transaction and move on."
The Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations disagreed.
"Navy Federal's policy on head coverings clearly forces bank employees to impose a 'separate but equal' status not only on Muslim women who wear hijab, but on all those who wear religious attire," said CAIR Communications Coordinator Amina Rubin.
"The banking industry needs to come up with a standard policy based not only on security needs, but also on the religious and civil rights of customers," Rubin said.
Copyright Associated Press / NBC Washington
Updated 8:15 AM EDT, Tue, Mar 10, 2009
A woman's muslim head scarf leads to problems at a Maryland credit union.
CALIFORNIA, Md. -- A Muslim woman said employees at a southern Maryland credit union asked to serve her in a back room because her head scarf violated the institution's "no hats, hoods or sunglasses" policy.
Kenza Shelley, of Lexington Park, said in the 10 years she has used the Navy Federal Credit Union in the California area of St. Mary's County no one complained about her scarf, which covers her hair, until February.
Shelley said she complied the first time, but on Saturday she demanded to be served like everyone else and left.
A Navy Federal security official defended the policy to the Washington Post, saying there was a significant increase in bank robberies last year and the policy was designed to prevent armed robbery and identity theft.
Tom Lyons, senior vice president for security at Navy Federal ... said it would not be unreasonable for bank employees to ask customers who refused to take off their hats to move to a separate room so they could be identified.
"We want to be able to clearly identify who you are and make sure the transaction is safe," Lyons said. "This is a policy that applies to everybody in the branch. She wasn't singled out. . . . We tried to accommodate her and help her with her transaction and move on."
The Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations disagreed.
"Navy Federal's policy on head coverings clearly forces bank employees to impose a 'separate but equal' status not only on Muslim women who wear hijab, but on all those who wear religious attire," said CAIR Communications Coordinator Amina Rubin.
"The banking industry needs to come up with a standard policy based not only on security needs, but also on the religious and civil rights of customers," Rubin said.
Copyright Associated Press / NBC Washington
Wednesday, March 4
Sudan soldier: 'They told me to kill, to rape children'
If we (USA) must be in a war in another country, fighting someone else's battles, why isn't it somewhere like this? Why aren't we stopping atrocities like this from happening?
A woman left homeless by conflict in Darfur walks along railway tracks.
By Nic Robertson
CNN Senior International Correspondent
(CNN) -- I wanted to believe the man in front of me wasn't a rapist. I knew he was a former Sudanese soldier, I knew he wanted to talk about rape in Darfur. A humanitarian group working on Darfur issues had introduced him to us. They told us his testimony was important to hear.
Last year in Darfur aid workers told me children as young as five were being raped in the huge displacement camps that are home to several million Darfuris. In some camps, they told me, rape had become so common that as many as 20 babies a month born from rape were being abandoned.
As I sat inches from Adam --not his real name -- I feared the revulsion I knew I would feel at my own questions as I asked about rape and his involvement. I have interviewed rape survivors in Darfur. I have two daughters. I am a human being with a conscience. It would be hard to listen to his replies.
He told me he was conscripted by force in to the Sudanese army in the summer of 2002. He thought he was being taken for six months' national service and then would be released.
The conversation was slow going at first. We were both holding off from delving into the sordid details he'd come to discuss. His answers were short, he told me he got no pay from the army, only food and drink.
He said he was rounded up in an army truck from a market in Darfur and trained to kill. He said he was armed with Kalashnikovs and told to "shoot targets." Video Watch ex-soldier describe brutal attacks on children to Nic Robertson »
Then, he says, his officers told him "we will be taken to a patrol and then soon after that we were asked to join other people to go and burn and kill people".
That's when he says he realized he wasn't getting national service training, that in fact, he was being forced into war against his will, with his own people. "They are black," he told me, noting the difference between the lighter skinned rulers of Sudan and the darker farmers of Darfur. "I am black," he said, "this shouldn't be happening."
But, he said, worse than being told to kill his own people, was that if he tried to resist, he himself would be killed. "The order is that the soldiers at the front, and there are some people who are watching you from behind, if you try to escape or do anything you will get shot. The order is that we go to the village, burn it and kill the people."
It felt as Adam was beginning to open up a little -- not easy, given the topic, and the lights and cameras all around us. He was beginning to talk a bit more, answer questions with more than one or two words. But it was following a pattern: I'd have to lead the way. We were both waiting for the inevitable. How he came to know of rape in Darfur.
And that's when he said it. Video Watch warrant being issued for president »
He brought up the rape by himself. He was talking through a translator but his voice was quiet. I thought I heard anger, heard him slow and his voice drop: "I had no choice," he said "but I will say that I didn't kill anybody but the raping of the small children, it was bad" I knew this was going to be difficult and now it had begun.
What happens with the children, I asked. "They cry out," he answered. "And what happens when they cry out?" "Two persons will capture her while she is crying and another raping her, then they leave her there," came his reply.
Silence. "What do I ask now?" I thought. Be forensic. Get the story. This is important testimony, I reminded myself.
And so we continued, Adam describing in detail how soldiers raped girls as young as 12. How officers ordered them to do this to make people flee their villages, run away and never come back. Through all of this, Adam didn't once mention whether he actually had been directly involved in the raping.
He said he tried to desert the army as soon as he could, but was caught and tortured. He showed me the scars where he said he was tied down beneath a tree and officers set fire to tires above him, dripping burning rubber on his body.
Eventually, he said, he did get away, went to his sisters, tried joining the rebels to fight the army. But even there, his troubles were far from over. Incredibly, he said, the rebels didn't trust him; he was kept at their camp and only escaped when it was bombed by the army.
The end of his story, but we weren't really done. One more question.
Had he been forced to rape children?
"Yes I did, they were government orders," came his reply.
How many? "Well it didn't feel like raping, I was feeling very bad but as I was ordered, I had to do something. What I did was take off my trousers and lay myself on top of the girl but I didn't feel like raping, so I lay there for about 15 minutes."
I want to be sure I understand him. "So you didn't actually penetrate the girls?" I ask. No, he says, "because I had no feeling for it, my penis didn't actually wake up, so there was no actual penetration," he replied.
There were other people in the room, the translator, a cameraman, our producer Jonathan Wald, but I had forgotten they were there. My thoughts were entirely locked on Adam.
What more could I ask? I was emotionally drained. There was no way of knowing whether he was telling me the truth. Only in the measure of his voice was there a clue.
Here, sitting on an office chair, thousands of miles away from Darfur, the memories come flooding back. The many, traumatized women and children we've interviewed, distraught families, unable to protect themselves. The pain we put them through, to recount, to relive, their nightmares.
Each time, I've asked myself can I justify the suffering these questions cause? Each time, I tell myself it is only their own accounts that can cast light on the darkened corner of humanity they inhabit. Only their own accounts that can help break their cycle of suffering.
Time and again, though, it seems telling the world their stories has little tangible impact on their reality of their lives. And now I'm face-to-face with a man who says he was part of the suffering, albeit by his own account not complicit and not guilty.
advertisement
I am left with the thought perhaps Adam's words carry even greater power. If his story is true -- and it mirrors other accounts emerging from Darfur -- then it implicates the government in these terrible crimes.
He says he has trouble sleeping at nights. I can understand why. He is not alone. Aid workers say millions of women in Darfur not only have trouble sleeping at nights, but live in fear of rape 24 hours a day.
A woman left homeless by conflict in Darfur walks along railway tracks.
By Nic Robertson
CNN Senior International Correspondent
(CNN) -- I wanted to believe the man in front of me wasn't a rapist. I knew he was a former Sudanese soldier, I knew he wanted to talk about rape in Darfur. A humanitarian group working on Darfur issues had introduced him to us. They told us his testimony was important to hear.
Last year in Darfur aid workers told me children as young as five were being raped in the huge displacement camps that are home to several million Darfuris. In some camps, they told me, rape had become so common that as many as 20 babies a month born from rape were being abandoned.
As I sat inches from Adam --not his real name -- I feared the revulsion I knew I would feel at my own questions as I asked about rape and his involvement. I have interviewed rape survivors in Darfur. I have two daughters. I am a human being with a conscience. It would be hard to listen to his replies.
He told me he was conscripted by force in to the Sudanese army in the summer of 2002. He thought he was being taken for six months' national service and then would be released.
The conversation was slow going at first. We were both holding off from delving into the sordid details he'd come to discuss. His answers were short, he told me he got no pay from the army, only food and drink.
He said he was rounded up in an army truck from a market in Darfur and trained to kill. He said he was armed with Kalashnikovs and told to "shoot targets." Video Watch ex-soldier describe brutal attacks on children to Nic Robertson »
Then, he says, his officers told him "we will be taken to a patrol and then soon after that we were asked to join other people to go and burn and kill people".
That's when he says he realized he wasn't getting national service training, that in fact, he was being forced into war against his will, with his own people. "They are black," he told me, noting the difference between the lighter skinned rulers of Sudan and the darker farmers of Darfur. "I am black," he said, "this shouldn't be happening."
But, he said, worse than being told to kill his own people, was that if he tried to resist, he himself would be killed. "The order is that the soldiers at the front, and there are some people who are watching you from behind, if you try to escape or do anything you will get shot. The order is that we go to the village, burn it and kill the people."
It felt as Adam was beginning to open up a little -- not easy, given the topic, and the lights and cameras all around us. He was beginning to talk a bit more, answer questions with more than one or two words. But it was following a pattern: I'd have to lead the way. We were both waiting for the inevitable. How he came to know of rape in Darfur.
And that's when he said it. Video Watch warrant being issued for president »
He brought up the rape by himself. He was talking through a translator but his voice was quiet. I thought I heard anger, heard him slow and his voice drop: "I had no choice," he said "but I will say that I didn't kill anybody but the raping of the small children, it was bad" I knew this was going to be difficult and now it had begun.
What happens with the children, I asked. "They cry out," he answered. "And what happens when they cry out?" "Two persons will capture her while she is crying and another raping her, then they leave her there," came his reply.
Silence. "What do I ask now?" I thought. Be forensic. Get the story. This is important testimony, I reminded myself.
And so we continued, Adam describing in detail how soldiers raped girls as young as 12. How officers ordered them to do this to make people flee their villages, run away and never come back. Through all of this, Adam didn't once mention whether he actually had been directly involved in the raping.
He said he tried to desert the army as soon as he could, but was caught and tortured. He showed me the scars where he said he was tied down beneath a tree and officers set fire to tires above him, dripping burning rubber on his body.
Eventually, he said, he did get away, went to his sisters, tried joining the rebels to fight the army. But even there, his troubles were far from over. Incredibly, he said, the rebels didn't trust him; he was kept at their camp and only escaped when it was bombed by the army.
The end of his story, but we weren't really done. One more question.
Had he been forced to rape children?
"Yes I did, they were government orders," came his reply.
How many? "Well it didn't feel like raping, I was feeling very bad but as I was ordered, I had to do something. What I did was take off my trousers and lay myself on top of the girl but I didn't feel like raping, so I lay there for about 15 minutes."
I want to be sure I understand him. "So you didn't actually penetrate the girls?" I ask. No, he says, "because I had no feeling for it, my penis didn't actually wake up, so there was no actual penetration," he replied.
There were other people in the room, the translator, a cameraman, our producer Jonathan Wald, but I had forgotten they were there. My thoughts were entirely locked on Adam.
What more could I ask? I was emotionally drained. There was no way of knowing whether he was telling me the truth. Only in the measure of his voice was there a clue.
Here, sitting on an office chair, thousands of miles away from Darfur, the memories come flooding back. The many, traumatized women and children we've interviewed, distraught families, unable to protect themselves. The pain we put them through, to recount, to relive, their nightmares.
Each time, I've asked myself can I justify the suffering these questions cause? Each time, I tell myself it is only their own accounts that can cast light on the darkened corner of humanity they inhabit. Only their own accounts that can help break their cycle of suffering.
Time and again, though, it seems telling the world their stories has little tangible impact on their reality of their lives. And now I'm face-to-face with a man who says he was part of the suffering, albeit by his own account not complicit and not guilty.
advertisement
I am left with the thought perhaps Adam's words carry even greater power. If his story is true -- and it mirrors other accounts emerging from Darfur -- then it implicates the government in these terrible crimes.
He says he has trouble sleeping at nights. I can understand why. He is not alone. Aid workers say millions of women in Darfur not only have trouble sleeping at nights, but live in fear of rape 24 hours a day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)