Do you know were to get a cheap car?
No
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
formspring.me
Why are religious institutions against same-sex marriages? Are they afraid of loosing influence?
No, they are afraid of loosing power over people, as when people decide about their own lives religions are put back to were they belong: the gutter!
Were they came from, disobedience to the law, rioting against their rightful rulers, killing and murdering all who opposed their fantasy, and following a manmade book, simply idiots and morons.
formspring.me
Why is it that a lot of people are against homosexuality, and not against heterosexuality?
Indoctrination, brainlesness, stupidity, ignorance, idiocy, bigotry, bias, jealousy, hypocrisy, religious terrorism and assumed superiority, oppression, and envy.
formspring.me
Why is it that we humans kill others for pleasure and not like other mamals only for food?
Because humans are assumed to have intelligence, brains and common sense, all rubbish!
Animals are power-hungry and not food-hungry.
formspring.me
Was society always anti-homosexuality?
No, only after the religious terrorists started ruling. Before there was no name even for same-sex love, same-sex was considered normal and practiced and nobody had a problem with it.
formspring.me
Will there be ever peace in the MiddleEast?
Yes, the moment the world will stop feeling sorry for the past... when people will realize that they are bribed every day by the state of Israel about what happened in WW2, and when the world will acknowledge the atrocities done by the state of Israel!
Monday, January 25, 2010
formspring.me
Who or what made rules against homosexuality and homosexual people?
Religions did, and lawmakers followed, and follow religion(s)
formspring.me
Why is there no federal rule on gender-equality in the USA? As in the matter of race-equality?
There is gender-equality, women may not be discriminated against compared to men, in equal situations, as in race-equality. You mean probably sexual-equality... that's because some think they are better then others.... and that way feel superior to others...
formspring.me
Why is it that some people have a religion and others do not?
Free will and decision..... And those who have no religion have brains, and are able to stand up to the indoctrination of power-hungry religious terrorists.....
formspring.me
Is it true that royals may marry their cousins?
Yes, they can, due to the fact that the royals want their lineage "clean"
formspring.me
Can humans be living together without wars?
Yes, they can, when a. religions don't step in, b. politicians are not corrupt, c. when people in power start thinking about the people they rule over, and d. when people will stop being greedy!
Saturday, January 23, 2010
Some worthwhile comments on the Supreme Court's decision for corporate wealth and power
Some worthwhile comments on the Supreme Court's decision for corporate wealth and power
(1) Another Battle of the 2nd American Revolution has begun . . .
P R E A M B L E
"We the Corporations of a New Global Imperialism,
in Order to form a more perfect Profit,
establish Dominion over all lands of the Earth,
insure international Wealth superiority,
provide for our common defense, promote Corporate Welfare,
and secure the Blessings of Wealth to ourselves
and our limited Posterity, do ordain and establish this Plan
for subjugation of the citizens of the United States of America."
------ United States Supreme Court, 21 January 2010
===========================================
Corporations are legal fictions, not living breathing human beings.
.
Corporations have no life, no soul.
.
Corporations have no rights under the United States Constitution.
.
Corporations are ownable by international cartels.
.
Corporations are NOT citizens of any Nation.
.
Corporations cannot vote in any election in the United States.
.
Corporations cannot be elected to any Office anywhere in America.
.
Corporations have no right to influence any Election, anywhere, ever.
(2) Conservatives embrace judicial activism in campaign finance ruling
The Supreme Court's decision in favor of corporate spending in elections makes previous rhetoric laughable.
By Erwin Chemerinsky
The Los Angeles Times
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-chemerinsky22-2010jan22,0,5829403.story?coll=la-opinion-center
January 22, 2010
The Supreme Court's 5-4 decision holding that corporations and unions can spend unlimited amounts of money in election campaigns is a stunning example of judicial activism by its five most conservative justices. In striking down a federal statute and explicitly overturning prior decisions, the court has changed the nature of elections in the United States. At the same time, the conservative justices have demonstrated that decades of conservative criticism of judicial activism was nonsense. Conservative justices are happy to be activists when it serves their ideological agenda.
Since Richard Nixon ran for president in 1968, a central feature of Republican and conservative rhetoric has been to attack judicial activism. The phrase is never defined with any precision and has often been used to refer to decisions that conservatives simply don't like. But if judicial activism has any meaning, it surely refers to decisions that overturn laws and overrule precedents. In contrast, judicial restraint occurs when courts defer to the other branches of government and follow precedents.
By this definition, judicial activism can be good or bad. Brown vs. Board of Education was activist in that it declared unconstitutional laws in many states requiring the segregation of the races in education. To do so, the justices overruled a 58-year-old precedent upholding such laws. But virtually all agree today that Brown was one of the greatest moments in Supreme Court history.
To conservatives, though, the phrase "judicial activism" has come to mean any decision with a liberal outcome. President George W. Bush declared: "The judges ought not to take the place of the legislative branch of government. . . . I don't believe in liberal activist judges. I believe in strict constructionists." The 2008 Republican platform declared that "[j]udicial activism is a grave threat to the rule of law because unaccountable federal judges are usurping democracy, ignoring the Constitution and its separation of powers, and imposing their personal opinions upon the public."
The court's campaign finance decision makes this conservative rhetoric laughable. The ruling, which grew out of a conservative nonprofit corporation's attempt to air an anti-Hillary Rodham Clinton documentary during the 2008 primary, throws out a key component of the McCain-Feingold Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. Among other things, the law banned corporations from paying to broadcast "electioneering communications" for or against candidates in the final weeks of presidential primaries and general elections.
McCain-Feingold was a continuation of statutes that have existed since 1906 limiting corporate spending in federal election campaigns. The act was intended to prevent the enormous wealth of corporations from distorting elections and protect corporate shareholders from having their money used for purposes with which they disagree.
For years, conservatives have argued that judicial restraint requires deferring to the choices of the elected branches of government. No such deference was evident when the court's five most conservative justices struck down this provision of the McCain-Feingold law on Thursday.
Nor did the decision defer to judicial precedent. In 2003, in McConnell vs. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision upheld this same law. In fact, in an earlier case in 1990, the court said that legislatures may restrict corporate spending in election campaigns. The court's decision on Thursday expressly overruled these decisions.
What changed over the last eight years? In the 2003 decision, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor joined with John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer to make up the majority. O'Connor's replacement, Samuel A. Alito Jr. voted the other way and joined with conservatives John G. Roberts Jr., Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy and Clarence Thomas to declare the same law unconstitutional.
For decades, conservatives have argued that judicial restraint requires that courts protect rights only if they are stated in the text of the Constitution or were clearly intended by the document's framers. This, for example, is the core of the conservative attack on Roe vs. Wade. But there is not the slightest shred of evidence that the framers of the 1st Amendment meant to protect the rights of corporations to spend money in election campaigns. The conservatives were glad to abandon the "original meaning" when it served their purposes.
The conservative majority, which in recent years has dramatically limited free speech in other areas -- such as for government employees and for students -- was willing to expand the free speech of corporations. There is no way to see this other than as the conservative justices using judicial review to advance the traditional conservative ideological agenda.
Almost 10 years ago, in Bush vs. Gore, the five conservative justices for the first time decided a presidential election. One would have thought that decision would have laid to rest the notion that judicial activism is a tool of liberal judges and revealed that the real judicial activism today is from the right. Perhaps Thursday's decision will finally reveal the truth.
Erwin Chemerinsky is dean of the University of California-Irvine School of Law.
(3) The Supreme Court ruling on corporate political spending
23 January 2010
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/jan2010/pers-j23.shtml
The ruling issued Thursday by the United States Supreme Court lifting long-standing restrictions on corporate financing of elections represents a far-reaching attack on democratic rights. The 5-4 decision ensures that the American political system will be dominated even more directly and completely by the financial elite.
The ruling is a naked assertion of the interests of the American financial elite. It lays bare the reality of class rule beneath the threadbare trappings of democracy in America.
The decision in the case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which overturns more than 100 years of legal precedent, strengthens the grip of big business over the political process. It gives legal sanction to the buying of politicians and offices at every level of government to do the bidding of the rich.
The ruling cloaks this attack on democratic rights as a defense of freedom of speech. Its basic premise—that corporations are entitled to the same rights of speech and political advocacy as individuals—is patently absurd. It makes a mockery of the democratic and Enlightenment principles that animated the revolutionaries who led the American War for Independence and drafted the Constitution. Jefferson, for one, counted the influence of finance on politics as “more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.”
The ruling is the outcome of decades of political reaction, the ever-greater concentration of wealth in the hands of a narrow elite, and increasing attacks on the social conditions of the people.
It culminates years of anti-democratic decisions by the Supreme Court. For the past three decades, the high court has whittled away at civil liberties and the ability of citizens to seek redress in cases of corporate criminality. In recent years it has upheld and expanded the ability of the executive branch to wage war, invade citizens’ private lives, and arrest and incarcerate without trial those the president declares to be enemies. The Supreme Court has consistently ruled against the rights of third-parties, especially left-wing parties, to ballot access.
Barely ten years ago, the same institution, in another politically-driven 5-4 ruling, halted the counting of votes in Florida in order to sanction the theft of the 2000 presidential election and install in power the Republican candidate George W. Bush, who had lost the popular vote.
The Democratic Party is complicit in the attacks on democratic rights, from its abject acceptance of the Supreme Court’s installation of Bush, to its support for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, to its cowardly refusal to mount a filibuster to block the confirmation of Bush nominees Justice Samuel Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts.
It was Roberts who played the critical role in seizing on Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission—a narrow lawsuit challenging the applicability of the McCain-Feingold restrictions on campaign advertising to a particular anti-Hillary Clinton documentary—and using it to undo all restraints on the corporate financing of politics.
This in a country where corporate money already manipulates elections, bribes politicians and largely dictates government policy. As Justice John Paul Stevens noted in his dissent, “While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this Court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics.”
The Supreme Court’s decision reflects the drive of the American financial aristocracy to throw off any and all restraints on its political domination.
A major concern of those within the establishment who have attacked the ruling is that it will further undermine public confidence in the Supreme Court and all official institutions. The decision “will, I fear, do damage to this institution,” Stevens wrote.
In fact, the ruling shows that working people, the vast majority of the population, cannot defend their interests through the existing political system. The Supreme Court, the Congress, the presidency and both political parties are controlled by the financial elite.
Recognition of this basic fact is growing, especially after a year of broken promises and right-wing policies by the Obama administration, which was carried to office by cynically appealing to popular hatred of the Bush administration and its policies of war, repression and social reaction.
More fundamentally, the ruling demonstrates that the socio-economic structure of American capitalist society is incompatible with democracy. Democratic forms become mere covers for plutocratic rule and must ultimately give way in a society with such vast disparities of wealth as exist in the United States.
The answer to the Supreme Court’s ruling and all of the attacks on democratic rights is to establish the political independence of the working class and fight for a workers’ government. Democratic rights can be defended only through the struggle for socialism—the transformation of society on the basis of the democratic control of economic life by the working class to meet social needs, rather than the accumulation of corporate profit and personal wealth by the ruling elite.
Tom Eley
The author also recommends:
US Supreme Court abolishes restrictions on big business political spending
[22 January 2010]
(4) Supreme Court Sanctioned Murder Of Democracy
Important Keith Olbermann Segment on YouTube
Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMTJ--JWJqM
Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9ZeUjSpF5g
(5) The Supreme Court decision further weakens our democracy
By Ralph Nader (about the author)
Yesterday's 5-4 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission shreds the fabric of our already weakened democracy by allowing corporations to more completely dominate our corrupted electoral process. It is outrageous that corporations already attempt to influence or bribe our political candidates through their political action committees (PACs), which solicit employees and shareholders for donations.
With this decision, corporations can now directly pour vast amounts of corporate money, through independent expenditures, into the electoral swamp already flooded with corporate campaign PAC contribution dollars. Without approval from their shareholders, corporations can reward or intimidate people running for office at the local, state, and national levels.
Much of this 183 page opinion requires readers to enter into a fantasy world and accept the twisted logic of Justice Kennedy, who delivered the opinion of the Court, joined by Chief Justice Roberts, and Justices Scalia, Alito, and Thomas. Imagine the majority saying the "Government may not suppress political speech based on the speaker's corporate identity."
Perhaps Justice Kennedy didn't hear that the financial sector invested more than $5 billion in political influence purchasing in Washington over the past decade, with as many as 3,000 lobbyists winning deregulation and other policy decisions that led directly to the current financial collapse, according to a 231-page report titled: "Sold Out: How Wall Street and Washington Betrayed America" (See: WallStreetWatch.org).
The Center for Responsive Politics reported that last year the U.S. Chamber of Commerce spent $144 million to influence Congress and state legislatures.
The Center also reported big lobbying expenditures by the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) which spent $26 million in 2009. Drug companies like Pfizer, Amgen and Eli Lilly also poured tens of millions of dollars into federal lobbying in 2009. The health insurance industry trade group America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) also spent several million lobbying Congress. No wonder Single Payer Health insurance - supported by the majority of people, doctors, and nurses - isn't moving in Congress.
Energy companies like ExxonMobil and Chevron are also big spenders. No wonder we have a national energy policy that is pro-fossil fuel and that does little to advance renewable energy (See: OpenSecrets.Org).
No wonder we have the best Congress money can buy.
I suppose Justice Kennedy thinks corporations that overwhelm members of Congress with campaign contributions need to have still more influence in the electoral arena. Spending millions to lobby Congress and making substantial PAC contributions just isn't enough for a majority of the Supreme Court. The dictate by the five activist Justices was too much for even Republican Senator John McCain, who commented that he was troubled by their "extreme naivete."
There is a glimmer of hope and a touch of reality in yesterday's Supreme Court decision. Unfortunately it is the powerful 90 page dissent in this case by Justice Stevens joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor. Justice Stevens recognizes the power corporations wield in our political economy. Justice Stevens finds it "absurd to think that the First Amendment prohibits legislatures from taking into account the corporate identity of a sponsor of electoral advocacy." He flatly declares that, "The Court's ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the Nation."
He notes that the, Framers of our Constitution "had little trouble distinguishing corporations from human beings, and when they constitutionalized the right to free speech in the First Amendment, it was the free speech of individual Americans that they had in mind." Right he is, for the words "corporation" or "company" do not exist in our Constitution.
Justice Stevens concludes his dissent as follows:
"At bottom, the Court's opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self government since the founding, and who have fought against the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt. It is a strange time to repudiate that common sense. While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this Court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics."
Indeed, this corporatist, anti-voter majority decision is so extreme that it should galvanize a grassroots effort to enact a simple Constitutional amendment to once and for all end corporate personhood and curtail the corrosive impact of big money on politics. It is time to prevent corporate campaign contributions from commercializing our elections and drowning out the voices and values of citizens and voters. It is way overdue to overthrow "King Corporation" and restore the sovereignty of "We the People"! Remember that corporations, chartered by the state, are our servants, not our masters.
Legislation sponsored by Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL) and Representative John Larson (D-CT) would encourage unlimited small-dollar donations from individuals and provide candidates with public funding in exchange for refusing corporate contributions or private contributions of more than $100.
It is also time for shareholder resolutions, company by company, directing the corporate boards of directors to pledge not to use company money to directly favor or oppose candidates for public office.
If you want to join the efforts to rollback the corporate concessions the Supreme Court made yesterday, visit Citizen.Org and freespeechforpeople.org.
More: http://www.opednews.com/articles/2/The-Supreme-Court-decision-by-Ralph-Nader-100122-424.html
(6) Really Simple: We Need to Get Rid of the Perverse Notion of "Corporate Personhood"
Posted by Joshua Holland, AlterNet at 4:31 PM on January 21, 2010.
http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/www.alternet.org/145331/
Corporations are not people too.
With the unbelievable right-wing judicial activism of the Roberts court, we are now on the brink of losing our Republic and seeing our political system devolve into something like Mussolini's definition of Fascism (Mussolini said: "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power"). Don't think this is an exaggeration.
People for the American Way (do I need to disclose that PFAW gave me a very modest fellowship 5 year ago?), is mounting a campaign to preserve our nominal democracy by passing a Constitutional amendment giving Congress the power to regulate corporate campaign money. It'll be an uphill battle -- the last Amendment to the Constitution, the 27th, was enacted 18 years ago; it had originally been submitted in 1789.
I don't know the specifics of their preferred amendment. But I'm pleased to see a piece of the progressive establishment take on this issue. Sign their petition here.
Update: a friend sends a link to movetoamend.org. Another good one --check it out.
What follows is a piece I wrote in July, 2006, after another Supreme Court decision struck down a different campaign finance law. I deleted the first few graphs discussing that case, and I think it stands up pretty well today.
Corporations Aren't People
The [2006] decision reveals yet again how deeply entrenched the role of big money is in the American political system. Over the last 150 years, bizarre legal doctrines have developed that have effectively codified the power of special interests. In addition to the idea in [Buckley v Valeo] that "money equals speech," we've been saddled with the Orwellian concept of "corporate personhood."
"Corporate personhood" gives corporations -- entirely artificial entities created by the state -- the same individual rights that the framers fought and died to secure for flesh-and-blood citizens (or at least for white male property holders, but you get the idea). The doctrine started in England reasonably enough; it was only by considering corporations "persons" that they could be taken to court and sued. But during the 19th century, the Robber Barons and a few corrupt jurists deep in their pockets took the concept to a whole new level. After the Civil War, while many of those same interests were fighting to keep African-Americans from being enfranchised, the doctrine took on new weight -- the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment was extended to corporations, and Thomas Jefferson slowly rolled over in his grave. The trend of granting more and more rights to corporations continues today.
As long as these ideas are embedded in our legal system, talk of cleaning up government -- of campaign finance and lobby reform -- are just that: talk. On these fundamental issues of democratic participation, incremental reform is a road leading nowhere.
Which is why we need bold, populist ideas for real structural reform. I say let's rip a page from Karl Rove's Scorched-Earth Politics for Dummies and offer a progressive constitutional amendment that would end this madness once and for all.
That could be as simple as a one-line amendment that rolls back Buckley by explicitly stating that regulating the amount of money donated to campaigns or setting limits on what candidates spend on advertising isn't the same as putting limits on political speech.
But I think something even bolder is in order. I think it's time for a Defense of Human Citizenship Amendment -- language that would strip the "personhood" from corporations and give reformers a fighting chance to establish a true democracy in the United States.
It should be as brief and straightforward as the Republicans' gay marriage amendment:
SECTION 1. Citizenship in the United States shall be conferred only on human beings. Neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that citizenship or the legal incidents thereof be granted to corporations, partnerships, proprietorships or trusts.
This would be great policy if enacted, and great politics regardless of whether it were to become law. A failing campaign to restore human citizenship would bring what has long been a contentious debate in legal and public policy circles into the mainstream. It would be the left's turn to decry "judicial activism" of the most pernicious kind, and it would be a valuable opportunity for some real civic education for the broader electorate. We need that; polls show that a majority of voters feel that corporations have too much influence over the political realm, but most Americans don't understand the mechanisms with which they maintain and wield that power.
It's an approach that might take a while to gain traction. But think about what the right has been able to accomplish with the constitutional amendments they push to ban flag burning or gay marriage. They've taken a wonky narrative about "judicial tyranny" which, on its face, is a ludicrously bad political argument, and they've made it into a hot-button issue.
They did that with 25 years of Federalist Society conferences and Wall Street Journal op-eds, and the result is that a point of contention between legal scholars became a central campaign line for the reelection of George W. Bush.
The Bush team offered up his divisive-but-popular federal "marriage amendment" during the 2004 campaign, even though it had no chance of actually passing. But on the state level, similar measures passed 18 times, thanks always to a predictable spike in Republican turnout -- big turnouts that helped Bush win a second term.
Defending human citizenship is a chance to excite the progressive base in the same way that the right's wedge-issue amendments rally their fundamentalist ground troops time and time again.
There's nothing new about turning your opponents' best tactics against them. A demoralized right did it when they were trying to regroup after the pummeling Barry Goldwater, their Golden Boy, took in his landslide election loss in 1964. They looked to the then dominant Democratic coalition for a clue as to how to turn it around.
Paul Weyrich, founder of the Free Congress Foundation, reminisced about those heady days:
"… study and application of your opposition's best practices can spur greater innovation and success. … Back in the 1970s … we stressed the importance of grass-roots organizing. We took a page from organized labor's playbook, modified it to fit our constituency and purposes, and started winning primaries and elections."
Constitutional amendments that fire up the Republican base are among the Rovian right's "best practices," and there's no reason progressives can't emulate them.
We hear all the time that there's a dearth of big ideas on the left. Here's one that would have a profound impact on a broken political system. Some smaller groups have been lobbying for this kind of reform for years -- it's time for someone in the progressive establishment to pick it up and run with it.
(7) Supreme Court on Corporations
Supreme Court Rules Corporations Are Free to Dominate
Elections
Citizens' Movement Emerges to Overrule the Court
National coordinated campaigns unite to revoke
corporate personhood, corporate "free speech," and
secure citizens' rights
Reclaim Democracy - Restoring Citizen Authority Over
Corporations
http://reclaimdemocracy.org/
Jan 20, 2010 Breaking News, Jan 21: Rep. Donna Edwards
announces bill to amend the Constitution and overrule
the Court. Rep. Leonard Boswell also announces plan.
See our home page for Edwards' video announcement.
BOZEMAN, MT - The Supreme Court dropped the pretense of
impartially interpreting the Constitution today in
favor of unabashed activism on behalf of corporate
power, overruling century-old legislative precedent and
decades-old precedent of its own.
The Court enshrined corporations -- an entity
unmentioned in the U.S. Constitution -- with the
political rights of human beings, overturning settled
law that distinguishes between corporate and individual
expenditures in elections.
In response, two citizen coalitions have emerged with
the explicit mission of overruling the Supreme Court
via amending the Constitution. ReclaimDemocracy.org is
among more than one dozen citizen groups that have
joined forces to advance Move to Amend, a call to amend
the Constitution to revoke the Court's illegitimate
creation of "corporate personhood," as well as
establishing a constitutional Right to Vote and
safeguarding local democracy.
A more narrowly-focused coalition has emerged
specifically to overrule the Court's invention of
corporate "political free speech." The groups, Voter
Action, Public Citizen, the Center for Corporate
Policy, and the American Independent Business Alliance,
also unveiled a new website to launch their campaign:
FreeSpeechForPeople.org.
Their goal is to amend the Constitution to make clear
that corporations are not people entitled to free
speech rights under the First Amendment. A bill may be
introduced in Congress as early as today.
Please take immediate action
Use the tools provided on the websites above to spread
word in every manner possible. Ask your elected
officials to get on board at every level of government.
We've provided primers to help you write effective
letters to the editor and to spread word via talk
radio. And don't forget social media! A few suggested
talking points:
** The Supreme Court's attribution of constitutional
rights to corporations is unsupported by the U.S.
Constitution or the writing of the Constitution's
authors. The invention of corporate personhood was an
act of raw judicial activism that undermines our
Constitution's promise of a republican form of
government.
** While our Constitution's authors were alive,
corporations were completely subordinate to democracy.
They could not own stock, engage in activities other
than those essential to their business, nor could they
make any political or charitable contributions.
Corporate lobbying also was prohibited. Maybe they were
onto something?
** No human being's First Amendment rights will be
infringed by preventing corporations from engaging in
electoral advocacy. Though we dissent from the Supreme
Court's view that spending money to influence election
outcomes is equivalent to speech, every corporate
executive remains free to spend unlimited amounts of
his/her own money to advocate for or against a
political candidate or party (only direct investments
to a candidate's campaign fund are limited by law).
** Corporations are artificial creations of governments
(in the U.S., through the Secretary of State's office
in a particular state). No group can decide to give
themselves limited liability, immunity from prosecution
for corporate crimes, or other privileges. Only
governments bestow such privilege. As government
creations, corporations should be subject to democratic
control, not enabled to control democracy.
** The many special powers and privileges the government
grants corporations (e.g. limited liability, perpetual
lifespan, etc.), make limiting their political power
essential.
**Corporate personhood allows giant corporations to
undermine free enterprise by extracting political
favors that distort market competition. This harms the
vast majority of businesses seeking to prosper by
providing needed goods and services, rather than
through legal bribery. Two of the three broad-based
national business organizations filing briefs in the
Citizens United case argued against expanding corporate
"political speech."
** (from the Citizens United dissent of Justices Stevens
(joined by Justices Sotomayor, Ginsburg, ". . . .
corporations have no consciences, no beliefs, no
feelings, no thoughts, no desires. Corporations help
structure and facilitate the activities of human
beings, to be sure, and their "personhood" often serves
as a useful legal fiction. But they are not themselves
members of "We the People" by whom and for whom our
Constitution was established."
An additional suggestion: go to news websites and make
comments to articles or commentaries with links to
MovetoAmend.org or here, drawing people to the broader
issues and the amendment campaign. It needs to be among
the first 10 or so comments, as most readers will never
go beyond that. You can easily visit the latest
articles on the case via Google News.
We are ready to help you with editing (send drafts
here). Please point people to ReclaimDemocracy.org's
online resources for educational material or to support
the effort financially. It's time to fund the Democracy
Movement at the level of national political campaigns
and launch a major media presence!
Please help make the Supreme Court's overreach the dawn
of a movement for real change to Reclaim Democracy!
Your efforts can help turn this attack on democracy
into a pivotal moment in American History. To read the
Court's opinions and a see a roundup of some of the
best reporting and analysis of the ruling, click here
More of our pre-decision reporting is here. Read more
on the underlying issue of Corporate Personhood
ReclaimDemocracy.org send us your comments or questions
(c) 2009 ReclaimDemocracy.org 222 South Black Ave.*
Bozeman * MT * 59715 * 406-582-1224
(8) Teddy Roosevelt Was Right: Ban ALL Corporate
Contributions
posted by JOHN NICHOLS
on 01/21/2010 @ 5:01pm
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat/519819/teddy_roosevelt_was_right_ban_all_corporate_contributions
What to do about the decision by U.S. Supreme Court to
-- in the words of Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold --
"(ignore) important principles of judicial restraint
and respect for precedent" in order to make
corporations the dominant players in American politics?
Of course, there will be legislative scrambling at the
local, state and federal levels. The decision by Chief
Justice John Roberts and four other justices to reject
history and precedent in order to put a radical pro-
corporate spin on the First Amendment throws into
question rules designed to regulate even the worst
campaign abuses by business interests.
Feingold, the Wisconsin Democrat who leant his name to
the McCain-Feingold Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform
Act of 2002, will be working overtime to defend not
just the progress he has made as a reformer but a
century of clean-government legislation.
"It is important to note that the decision does not
affect McCain-Feingold's soft money ban, which will
continue to prevent corporate contributions to the
political parties from corrupting the political
process. But this decision was a terrible mistake,"
says the Wisconsin senator. "Presented with a
relatively narrow legal issue, the Supreme Court chose
to roll back laws that have limited the role of
corporate money in federal elections since Teddy
Roosevelt was president. Ignoring important principles
of judicial restraint and respect for precedent, the
Court has given corporate money a breathtaking new role
in federal campaigns. Just six years ago, the Court
said that the prohibition on corporations and unions
dipping into their treasuries to influence campaigns
was `firmly embedded in our law.' Yet this Court has
just upended that prohibition, and a century's worth of
campaign finance law designed to stem corruption in
government. The American people will pay dearly for
this decision when, more than ever, their voices are
drowned out by corporate spending in our federal
elections. In the coming weeks, I will work with my
colleagues to pass legislation restoring as many of the
critical restraints on corporate control of our
elections as possible."
When all is said and done, however, that may not be
enough.
It may be that the United States Constitution will need
to be amended in order to restore to the Teddy
Roosevelt principle:
"All contributions by corporations to any political
committee or for any political purpose should be
forbidden by law," said Roosevelt in the first years of
the 20th century, when he was also proposing public
financing of federal election.
The court's ruling in the case of Citizens United v.
FEC is a game-changer that, in the words of Feingold
says corporations "can just open their treasuries (and)
completely buy up all the television time, and drown
out everyone else's voices."
There's a small measure of nuance in the ruling.
In their 5-4 decision, the majority maintained
restrictions on direct donations by corporations to
candidates and political parties.
But corporations - with their immense resources and
their immense desire to influence the political and
governing processes - will be able to spend as freely
as their like (on television commercials and other
forms of communication) to secure the election results
they seek.
It's a recipe for democratic disaster, as wealth and
power will define the debate that sets the parameters
of our politics.
Says Senator Charles Schumer, D-New York: "The Supreme
Court just predetermined the winners of next November's
elections. It won't be Republicans. It won't be
Democrats. It will be corporate America."
To paraphrase a particular television network, there
will be no fairness and no balance.
That threat demands a response sufficient to the
challenge it poses to electoral democracy. As Lisa
Graves, the executive director of the Center for Media
and Democracy, says: "We cannot just wring our hands,
in my view, and let this stand. There is a great deal
of work to be done."
Graves, a lawyer with long experience in both the
executive and legislative branches of the federal
government, offers a savvy analysis of the motivations
behind the court's ruling.
"When I worked for the Senate Judiciary Committee
reviewing President George W. Bush's judicial nominees
and their agendas, I feared this day would come. That's
why I tried to help keep John Roberts off the appellate
court, and then was so saddened the day he was
appointed and when I saw President Bush promote him to
become Chief Justice after I had left the government,"
she says. "In reading the biographies, writings, and
speeches of right-wing nominees, it became clear to me
that a revolution in the law was being fomented to
undermine the power of ordinary people to regulate
corporations in their communities. Today's decision is
a huge gift to corporations from a Supreme Court that
has been radicalized by right-wing ideology, whose
political agenda was made obvious in the Bush v. Gore
case and whose very political decision today only makes
things worse. I think we have to rebuke the Court's
arrogant decision and make sure the law puts Americans
before corporations."
There will be talk of legislative interventions, the
best of which is almost certainly rapid passage of the
Fair Elections Now Act, which would set up a system of
public financing of elections.
"This would establish citizen-funded elections," says
Harvard Law School professor Larry Lessig.
But there are a number of reformers who fear that any
legislative initiative will be made difficult by the
high court's misinterpretation of the first amendment
to read: whoever has the most money gets the most free
speech.
That stranglehold on real democracy may, in the view of
these activists, only be broken by a constitutional
amendment, and democracy and clean government
campaigners are proposing just that - with some
suggesting the traditional route of having Congress
propose an amendment, while others imagine asking
legislatures across the country to call a
constitutional convention to develop an amendment.
Graves and others are backing a Move to Amend campaign,
which debuted a website for activists moments after the
court ruling came down.
The Move to Amend coalition declares:
On January 21, 2010, with its ruling in Citizens United
v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court ruled
that corporations are persons, entitled by the U.S.
Constitution to buy elections and run our government.
Human beings are people; corporations are legal
fictions. The Supreme Court is misguided in principle,
and wrong on the law. In a democracy, the people rule.
We Move to Amend.
We, the People of the United States of America, reject
the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United, and
move to amend our Constitution to:
1. Firmly establish that money is not speech, and that
human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to
constitutional rights.
2. Guarantee the right to vote and to participate, and
to have our votes and participation count.
3. Protect local communities, their economies, and
democracies against illegitimate "preemption" actions
by global, national, and state governments.
Within hours of the decision, more than 3,500 Americans
had signed on as backers of this particular initiative.
Whatever the specific route, and whatever the specific
language (Graves suggests: "No corporation shall be
considered to be a person who is permitted to raise or
spend money on federal, state, or local elections of
any kind"), the goal of any amendment strategy should
be to enshrine in the Constitution of this land the
fundamental democratic principle proposed more than a
century ago by a Republican president, Teddy Roosevelt:
"All contributions by corporations to any political
committee or for any political purpose should be
forbidden by law."
_____________________________________________
(9) A Supreme Victory for Special Interests
Posted on Jan 21, 2010
By John Dean
The conservative majority of the U.S. Supreme Court has given a monumental victory to special interests—i.e., the big money corporations, the folks who already dominate Washington politics—with its ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Chief Justice John Roberts, along with Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Anthony Kennedy (who wrote the court’s opinion), have gone out of their way to further obliterate serious efforts to reform out-of-control campaign spending—spending that conspicuously distorts democracy in favor of those who can buy political influence. This ruling is of the same judical activism ilk that produced Bush v. Gore, not to mention the ensuing eight years of a disastrous Bush/Cheney presidency from which the nation has yet to recover. Understandably, President Obama is flummoxed.
This decision is long, at 183 pages. It includes a powerful dissent by the four centrist justices (there are no liberals on this court). And the ruling is chock full of nuanced information that spells out what Congress can and cannot do to reform our dysfunctional and money-hungry election system. This is not a ruling that lends itself to instant analysis. Those who follow this subject far closer than I do will be figuring it out for days, if not months. However, I would recommend the following sites for a quick take on the ruling: Slate (good overview), SCOTUSBLOG (which has followed the case closely), and, in particular, The Brennan Center (which filed an amicus brief in the case and will be leading the way in sorting out the full meaning). To understand what the court majority did, scroll down to about Page 88 of your .pdf reader and read the dissent written by Justice John Paul Stevens, and joined by Justices Ruth Ginsburg, Steven Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor. It is an eye-opener.
Aside from the fact that the majority ruling reeks of conservative politics, what I find most striking about conservative judicial activism typified by this ruling is the fact that the justices involved are totally out of touch with reality. None of the men involved in this historic decision have been elected to anything, ever. They have no idea how difficult it is for elected officials to deal in the contemporary money-flooded milieu of Washington. The work experience of those who have further opened the floodgates for money in politics is restricted to the executive branch, high-priced law firms, or the chambers of the lower federal appellate courts. Not since the late Justice Hugo Black, a former U.S. senator who retired in 1971, has the court had a member of Congress on its bench, someone who can explain the real world to the other justices. These conservative justices live in a bubble, and they have little true understanding of what they have done, other than, of course, to know that they have taken care of conservatives, the so-called Citizens United who filed this lawsuit. (Yes, David N. Bossie, the president of Citizens United, is the same fellow who worked overtime to impeach President Bill Clinton.)
After I fully digest this decision and speak with friends in Washington who have long been concerned that the Bush/Cheney legacy that now controls the high court might do as they have in fact done, I will share further thoughts about the damage this ruling will bring, and what can and will be done. For this ruling has the potential of being even more pernicious than Bush v. Gore, since it reaches not merely the presidency but every elective office in the United States. Conservatives may not know how to govern when they are in power, but they sure know how to make certain that centrists, progressives and liberals are not given a sustained opportunity to work their will.
John Dean served as Richard M. Nixon’s White House lawyer for 1,000 days and is the author of several books, including “Worse Than Watergate: The Secret Presidency of George W. Bush” and ” Conservatives Without Conscience.”
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/a_supreme_victory_for_special_interests_20100121/
__._,_.___
(1) Another Battle of the 2nd American Revolution has begun . . .
P R E A M B L E
"We the Corporations of a New Global Imperialism,
in Order to form a more perfect Profit,
establish Dominion over all lands of the Earth,
insure international Wealth superiority,
provide for our common defense, promote Corporate Welfare,
and secure the Blessings of Wealth to ourselves
and our limited Posterity, do ordain and establish this Plan
for subjugation of the citizens of the United States of America."
------ United States Supreme Court, 21 January 2010
===========================================
Corporations are legal fictions, not living breathing human beings.
.
Corporations have no life, no soul.
.
Corporations have no rights under the United States Constitution.
.
Corporations are ownable by international cartels.
.
Corporations are NOT citizens of any Nation.
.
Corporations cannot vote in any election in the United States.
.
Corporations cannot be elected to any Office anywhere in America.
.
Corporations have no right to influence any Election, anywhere, ever.
(2) Conservatives embrace judicial activism in campaign finance ruling
The Supreme Court's decision in favor of corporate spending in elections makes previous rhetoric laughable.
By Erwin Chemerinsky
The Los Angeles Times
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-chemerinsky22-2010jan22,0,5829403.story?coll=la-opinion-center
January 22, 2010
The Supreme Court's 5-4 decision holding that corporations and unions can spend unlimited amounts of money in election campaigns is a stunning example of judicial activism by its five most conservative justices. In striking down a federal statute and explicitly overturning prior decisions, the court has changed the nature of elections in the United States. At the same time, the conservative justices have demonstrated that decades of conservative criticism of judicial activism was nonsense. Conservative justices are happy to be activists when it serves their ideological agenda.
Since Richard Nixon ran for president in 1968, a central feature of Republican and conservative rhetoric has been to attack judicial activism. The phrase is never defined with any precision and has often been used to refer to decisions that conservatives simply don't like. But if judicial activism has any meaning, it surely refers to decisions that overturn laws and overrule precedents. In contrast, judicial restraint occurs when courts defer to the other branches of government and follow precedents.
By this definition, judicial activism can be good or bad. Brown vs. Board of Education was activist in that it declared unconstitutional laws in many states requiring the segregation of the races in education. To do so, the justices overruled a 58-year-old precedent upholding such laws. But virtually all agree today that Brown was one of the greatest moments in Supreme Court history.
To conservatives, though, the phrase "judicial activism" has come to mean any decision with a liberal outcome. President George W. Bush declared: "The judges ought not to take the place of the legislative branch of government. . . . I don't believe in liberal activist judges. I believe in strict constructionists." The 2008 Republican platform declared that "[j]udicial activism is a grave threat to the rule of law because unaccountable federal judges are usurping democracy, ignoring the Constitution and its separation of powers, and imposing their personal opinions upon the public."
The court's campaign finance decision makes this conservative rhetoric laughable. The ruling, which grew out of a conservative nonprofit corporation's attempt to air an anti-Hillary Rodham Clinton documentary during the 2008 primary, throws out a key component of the McCain-Feingold Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. Among other things, the law banned corporations from paying to broadcast "electioneering communications" for or against candidates in the final weeks of presidential primaries and general elections.
McCain-Feingold was a continuation of statutes that have existed since 1906 limiting corporate spending in federal election campaigns. The act was intended to prevent the enormous wealth of corporations from distorting elections and protect corporate shareholders from having their money used for purposes with which they disagree.
For years, conservatives have argued that judicial restraint requires deferring to the choices of the elected branches of government. No such deference was evident when the court's five most conservative justices struck down this provision of the McCain-Feingold law on Thursday.
Nor did the decision defer to judicial precedent. In 2003, in McConnell vs. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision upheld this same law. In fact, in an earlier case in 1990, the court said that legislatures may restrict corporate spending in election campaigns. The court's decision on Thursday expressly overruled these decisions.
What changed over the last eight years? In the 2003 decision, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor joined with John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer to make up the majority. O'Connor's replacement, Samuel A. Alito Jr. voted the other way and joined with conservatives John G. Roberts Jr., Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy and Clarence Thomas to declare the same law unconstitutional.
For decades, conservatives have argued that judicial restraint requires that courts protect rights only if they are stated in the text of the Constitution or were clearly intended by the document's framers. This, for example, is the core of the conservative attack on Roe vs. Wade. But there is not the slightest shred of evidence that the framers of the 1st Amendment meant to protect the rights of corporations to spend money in election campaigns. The conservatives were glad to abandon the "original meaning" when it served their purposes.
The conservative majority, which in recent years has dramatically limited free speech in other areas -- such as for government employees and for students -- was willing to expand the free speech of corporations. There is no way to see this other than as the conservative justices using judicial review to advance the traditional conservative ideological agenda.
Almost 10 years ago, in Bush vs. Gore, the five conservative justices for the first time decided a presidential election. One would have thought that decision would have laid to rest the notion that judicial activism is a tool of liberal judges and revealed that the real judicial activism today is from the right. Perhaps Thursday's decision will finally reveal the truth.
Erwin Chemerinsky is dean of the University of California-Irvine School of Law.
(3) The Supreme Court ruling on corporate political spending
23 January 2010
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/jan2010/pers-j23.shtml
The ruling issued Thursday by the United States Supreme Court lifting long-standing restrictions on corporate financing of elections represents a far-reaching attack on democratic rights. The 5-4 decision ensures that the American political system will be dominated even more directly and completely by the financial elite.
The ruling is a naked assertion of the interests of the American financial elite. It lays bare the reality of class rule beneath the threadbare trappings of democracy in America.
The decision in the case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which overturns more than 100 years of legal precedent, strengthens the grip of big business over the political process. It gives legal sanction to the buying of politicians and offices at every level of government to do the bidding of the rich.
The ruling cloaks this attack on democratic rights as a defense of freedom of speech. Its basic premise—that corporations are entitled to the same rights of speech and political advocacy as individuals—is patently absurd. It makes a mockery of the democratic and Enlightenment principles that animated the revolutionaries who led the American War for Independence and drafted the Constitution. Jefferson, for one, counted the influence of finance on politics as “more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.”
The ruling is the outcome of decades of political reaction, the ever-greater concentration of wealth in the hands of a narrow elite, and increasing attacks on the social conditions of the people.
It culminates years of anti-democratic decisions by the Supreme Court. For the past three decades, the high court has whittled away at civil liberties and the ability of citizens to seek redress in cases of corporate criminality. In recent years it has upheld and expanded the ability of the executive branch to wage war, invade citizens’ private lives, and arrest and incarcerate without trial those the president declares to be enemies. The Supreme Court has consistently ruled against the rights of third-parties, especially left-wing parties, to ballot access.
Barely ten years ago, the same institution, in another politically-driven 5-4 ruling, halted the counting of votes in Florida in order to sanction the theft of the 2000 presidential election and install in power the Republican candidate George W. Bush, who had lost the popular vote.
The Democratic Party is complicit in the attacks on democratic rights, from its abject acceptance of the Supreme Court’s installation of Bush, to its support for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, to its cowardly refusal to mount a filibuster to block the confirmation of Bush nominees Justice Samuel Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts.
It was Roberts who played the critical role in seizing on Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission—a narrow lawsuit challenging the applicability of the McCain-Feingold restrictions on campaign advertising to a particular anti-Hillary Clinton documentary—and using it to undo all restraints on the corporate financing of politics.
This in a country where corporate money already manipulates elections, bribes politicians and largely dictates government policy. As Justice John Paul Stevens noted in his dissent, “While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this Court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics.”
The Supreme Court’s decision reflects the drive of the American financial aristocracy to throw off any and all restraints on its political domination.
A major concern of those within the establishment who have attacked the ruling is that it will further undermine public confidence in the Supreme Court and all official institutions. The decision “will, I fear, do damage to this institution,” Stevens wrote.
In fact, the ruling shows that working people, the vast majority of the population, cannot defend their interests through the existing political system. The Supreme Court, the Congress, the presidency and both political parties are controlled by the financial elite.
Recognition of this basic fact is growing, especially after a year of broken promises and right-wing policies by the Obama administration, which was carried to office by cynically appealing to popular hatred of the Bush administration and its policies of war, repression and social reaction.
More fundamentally, the ruling demonstrates that the socio-economic structure of American capitalist society is incompatible with democracy. Democratic forms become mere covers for plutocratic rule and must ultimately give way in a society with such vast disparities of wealth as exist in the United States.
The answer to the Supreme Court’s ruling and all of the attacks on democratic rights is to establish the political independence of the working class and fight for a workers’ government. Democratic rights can be defended only through the struggle for socialism—the transformation of society on the basis of the democratic control of economic life by the working class to meet social needs, rather than the accumulation of corporate profit and personal wealth by the ruling elite.
Tom Eley
The author also recommends:
US Supreme Court abolishes restrictions on big business political spending
[22 January 2010]
(4) Supreme Court Sanctioned Murder Of Democracy
Important Keith Olbermann Segment on YouTube
Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMTJ--JWJqM
Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9ZeUjSpF5g
(5) The Supreme Court decision further weakens our democracy
By Ralph Nader (about the author)
Yesterday's 5-4 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission shreds the fabric of our already weakened democracy by allowing corporations to more completely dominate our corrupted electoral process. It is outrageous that corporations already attempt to influence or bribe our political candidates through their political action committees (PACs), which solicit employees and shareholders for donations.
With this decision, corporations can now directly pour vast amounts of corporate money, through independent expenditures, into the electoral swamp already flooded with corporate campaign PAC contribution dollars. Without approval from their shareholders, corporations can reward or intimidate people running for office at the local, state, and national levels.
Much of this 183 page opinion requires readers to enter into a fantasy world and accept the twisted logic of Justice Kennedy, who delivered the opinion of the Court, joined by Chief Justice Roberts, and Justices Scalia, Alito, and Thomas. Imagine the majority saying the "Government may not suppress political speech based on the speaker's corporate identity."
Perhaps Justice Kennedy didn't hear that the financial sector invested more than $5 billion in political influence purchasing in Washington over the past decade, with as many as 3,000 lobbyists winning deregulation and other policy decisions that led directly to the current financial collapse, according to a 231-page report titled: "Sold Out: How Wall Street and Washington Betrayed America" (See: WallStreetWatch.org).
The Center for Responsive Politics reported that last year the U.S. Chamber of Commerce spent $144 million to influence Congress and state legislatures.
The Center also reported big lobbying expenditures by the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) which spent $26 million in 2009. Drug companies like Pfizer, Amgen and Eli Lilly also poured tens of millions of dollars into federal lobbying in 2009. The health insurance industry trade group America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) also spent several million lobbying Congress. No wonder Single Payer Health insurance - supported by the majority of people, doctors, and nurses - isn't moving in Congress.
Energy companies like ExxonMobil and Chevron are also big spenders. No wonder we have a national energy policy that is pro-fossil fuel and that does little to advance renewable energy (See: OpenSecrets.Org).
No wonder we have the best Congress money can buy.
I suppose Justice Kennedy thinks corporations that overwhelm members of Congress with campaign contributions need to have still more influence in the electoral arena. Spending millions to lobby Congress and making substantial PAC contributions just isn't enough for a majority of the Supreme Court. The dictate by the five activist Justices was too much for even Republican Senator John McCain, who commented that he was troubled by their "extreme naivete."
There is a glimmer of hope and a touch of reality in yesterday's Supreme Court decision. Unfortunately it is the powerful 90 page dissent in this case by Justice Stevens joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor. Justice Stevens recognizes the power corporations wield in our political economy. Justice Stevens finds it "absurd to think that the First Amendment prohibits legislatures from taking into account the corporate identity of a sponsor of electoral advocacy." He flatly declares that, "The Court's ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the Nation."
He notes that the, Framers of our Constitution "had little trouble distinguishing corporations from human beings, and when they constitutionalized the right to free speech in the First Amendment, it was the free speech of individual Americans that they had in mind." Right he is, for the words "corporation" or "company" do not exist in our Constitution.
Justice Stevens concludes his dissent as follows:
"At bottom, the Court's opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self government since the founding, and who have fought against the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt. It is a strange time to repudiate that common sense. While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this Court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics."
Indeed, this corporatist, anti-voter majority decision is so extreme that it should galvanize a grassroots effort to enact a simple Constitutional amendment to once and for all end corporate personhood and curtail the corrosive impact of big money on politics. It is time to prevent corporate campaign contributions from commercializing our elections and drowning out the voices and values of citizens and voters. It is way overdue to overthrow "King Corporation" and restore the sovereignty of "We the People"! Remember that corporations, chartered by the state, are our servants, not our masters.
Legislation sponsored by Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL) and Representative John Larson (D-CT) would encourage unlimited small-dollar donations from individuals and provide candidates with public funding in exchange for refusing corporate contributions or private contributions of more than $100.
It is also time for shareholder resolutions, company by company, directing the corporate boards of directors to pledge not to use company money to directly favor or oppose candidates for public office.
If you want to join the efforts to rollback the corporate concessions the Supreme Court made yesterday, visit Citizen.Org and freespeechforpeople.org.
More: http://www.opednews.com/articles/2/The-Supreme-Court-decision-by-Ralph-Nader-100122-424.html
(6) Really Simple: We Need to Get Rid of the Perverse Notion of "Corporate Personhood"
Posted by Joshua Holland, AlterNet at 4:31 PM on January 21, 2010.
http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/www.alternet.org/145331/
Corporations are not people too.
With the unbelievable right-wing judicial activism of the Roberts court, we are now on the brink of losing our Republic and seeing our political system devolve into something like Mussolini's definition of Fascism (Mussolini said: "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power"). Don't think this is an exaggeration.
People for the American Way (do I need to disclose that PFAW gave me a very modest fellowship 5 year ago?), is mounting a campaign to preserve our nominal democracy by passing a Constitutional amendment giving Congress the power to regulate corporate campaign money. It'll be an uphill battle -- the last Amendment to the Constitution, the 27th, was enacted 18 years ago; it had originally been submitted in 1789.
I don't know the specifics of their preferred amendment. But I'm pleased to see a piece of the progressive establishment take on this issue. Sign their petition here.
Update: a friend sends a link to movetoamend.org. Another good one --check it out.
What follows is a piece I wrote in July, 2006, after another Supreme Court decision struck down a different campaign finance law. I deleted the first few graphs discussing that case, and I think it stands up pretty well today.
Corporations Aren't People
The [2006] decision reveals yet again how deeply entrenched the role of big money is in the American political system. Over the last 150 years, bizarre legal doctrines have developed that have effectively codified the power of special interests. In addition to the idea in [Buckley v Valeo] that "money equals speech," we've been saddled with the Orwellian concept of "corporate personhood."
"Corporate personhood" gives corporations -- entirely artificial entities created by the state -- the same individual rights that the framers fought and died to secure for flesh-and-blood citizens (or at least for white male property holders, but you get the idea). The doctrine started in England reasonably enough; it was only by considering corporations "persons" that they could be taken to court and sued. But during the 19th century, the Robber Barons and a few corrupt jurists deep in their pockets took the concept to a whole new level. After the Civil War, while many of those same interests were fighting to keep African-Americans from being enfranchised, the doctrine took on new weight -- the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment was extended to corporations, and Thomas Jefferson slowly rolled over in his grave. The trend of granting more and more rights to corporations continues today.
As long as these ideas are embedded in our legal system, talk of cleaning up government -- of campaign finance and lobby reform -- are just that: talk. On these fundamental issues of democratic participation, incremental reform is a road leading nowhere.
Which is why we need bold, populist ideas for real structural reform. I say let's rip a page from Karl Rove's Scorched-Earth Politics for Dummies and offer a progressive constitutional amendment that would end this madness once and for all.
That could be as simple as a one-line amendment that rolls back Buckley by explicitly stating that regulating the amount of money donated to campaigns or setting limits on what candidates spend on advertising isn't the same as putting limits on political speech.
But I think something even bolder is in order. I think it's time for a Defense of Human Citizenship Amendment -- language that would strip the "personhood" from corporations and give reformers a fighting chance to establish a true democracy in the United States.
It should be as brief and straightforward as the Republicans' gay marriage amendment:
SECTION 1. Citizenship in the United States shall be conferred only on human beings. Neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that citizenship or the legal incidents thereof be granted to corporations, partnerships, proprietorships or trusts.
This would be great policy if enacted, and great politics regardless of whether it were to become law. A failing campaign to restore human citizenship would bring what has long been a contentious debate in legal and public policy circles into the mainstream. It would be the left's turn to decry "judicial activism" of the most pernicious kind, and it would be a valuable opportunity for some real civic education for the broader electorate. We need that; polls show that a majority of voters feel that corporations have too much influence over the political realm, but most Americans don't understand the mechanisms with which they maintain and wield that power.
It's an approach that might take a while to gain traction. But think about what the right has been able to accomplish with the constitutional amendments they push to ban flag burning or gay marriage. They've taken a wonky narrative about "judicial tyranny" which, on its face, is a ludicrously bad political argument, and they've made it into a hot-button issue.
They did that with 25 years of Federalist Society conferences and Wall Street Journal op-eds, and the result is that a point of contention between legal scholars became a central campaign line for the reelection of George W. Bush.
The Bush team offered up his divisive-but-popular federal "marriage amendment" during the 2004 campaign, even though it had no chance of actually passing. But on the state level, similar measures passed 18 times, thanks always to a predictable spike in Republican turnout -- big turnouts that helped Bush win a second term.
Defending human citizenship is a chance to excite the progressive base in the same way that the right's wedge-issue amendments rally their fundamentalist ground troops time and time again.
There's nothing new about turning your opponents' best tactics against them. A demoralized right did it when they were trying to regroup after the pummeling Barry Goldwater, their Golden Boy, took in his landslide election loss in 1964. They looked to the then dominant Democratic coalition for a clue as to how to turn it around.
Paul Weyrich, founder of the Free Congress Foundation, reminisced about those heady days:
"… study and application of your opposition's best practices can spur greater innovation and success. … Back in the 1970s … we stressed the importance of grass-roots organizing. We took a page from organized labor's playbook, modified it to fit our constituency and purposes, and started winning primaries and elections."
Constitutional amendments that fire up the Republican base are among the Rovian right's "best practices," and there's no reason progressives can't emulate them.
We hear all the time that there's a dearth of big ideas on the left. Here's one that would have a profound impact on a broken political system. Some smaller groups have been lobbying for this kind of reform for years -- it's time for someone in the progressive establishment to pick it up and run with it.
(7) Supreme Court on Corporations
Supreme Court Rules Corporations Are Free to Dominate
Elections
Citizens' Movement Emerges to Overrule the Court
National coordinated campaigns unite to revoke
corporate personhood, corporate "free speech," and
secure citizens' rights
Reclaim Democracy - Restoring Citizen Authority Over
Corporations
http://reclaimdemocracy.org/
Jan 20, 2010 Breaking News, Jan 21: Rep. Donna Edwards
announces bill to amend the Constitution and overrule
the Court. Rep. Leonard Boswell also announces plan.
See our home page for Edwards' video announcement.
BOZEMAN, MT - The Supreme Court dropped the pretense of
impartially interpreting the Constitution today in
favor of unabashed activism on behalf of corporate
power, overruling century-old legislative precedent and
decades-old precedent of its own.
The Court enshrined corporations -- an entity
unmentioned in the U.S. Constitution -- with the
political rights of human beings, overturning settled
law that distinguishes between corporate and individual
expenditures in elections.
In response, two citizen coalitions have emerged with
the explicit mission of overruling the Supreme Court
via amending the Constitution. ReclaimDemocracy.org is
among more than one dozen citizen groups that have
joined forces to advance Move to Amend, a call to amend
the Constitution to revoke the Court's illegitimate
creation of "corporate personhood," as well as
establishing a constitutional Right to Vote and
safeguarding local democracy.
A more narrowly-focused coalition has emerged
specifically to overrule the Court's invention of
corporate "political free speech." The groups, Voter
Action, Public Citizen, the Center for Corporate
Policy, and the American Independent Business Alliance,
also unveiled a new website to launch their campaign:
FreeSpeechForPeople.org.
Their goal is to amend the Constitution to make clear
that corporations are not people entitled to free
speech rights under the First Amendment. A bill may be
introduced in Congress as early as today.
Please take immediate action
Use the tools provided on the websites above to spread
word in every manner possible. Ask your elected
officials to get on board at every level of government.
We've provided primers to help you write effective
letters to the editor and to spread word via talk
radio. And don't forget social media! A few suggested
talking points:
** The Supreme Court's attribution of constitutional
rights to corporations is unsupported by the U.S.
Constitution or the writing of the Constitution's
authors. The invention of corporate personhood was an
act of raw judicial activism that undermines our
Constitution's promise of a republican form of
government.
** While our Constitution's authors were alive,
corporations were completely subordinate to democracy.
They could not own stock, engage in activities other
than those essential to their business, nor could they
make any political or charitable contributions.
Corporate lobbying also was prohibited. Maybe they were
onto something?
** No human being's First Amendment rights will be
infringed by preventing corporations from engaging in
electoral advocacy. Though we dissent from the Supreme
Court's view that spending money to influence election
outcomes is equivalent to speech, every corporate
executive remains free to spend unlimited amounts of
his/her own money to advocate for or against a
political candidate or party (only direct investments
to a candidate's campaign fund are limited by law).
** Corporations are artificial creations of governments
(in the U.S., through the Secretary of State's office
in a particular state). No group can decide to give
themselves limited liability, immunity from prosecution
for corporate crimes, or other privileges. Only
governments bestow such privilege. As government
creations, corporations should be subject to democratic
control, not enabled to control democracy.
** The many special powers and privileges the government
grants corporations (e.g. limited liability, perpetual
lifespan, etc.), make limiting their political power
essential.
**Corporate personhood allows giant corporations to
undermine free enterprise by extracting political
favors that distort market competition. This harms the
vast majority of businesses seeking to prosper by
providing needed goods and services, rather than
through legal bribery. Two of the three broad-based
national business organizations filing briefs in the
Citizens United case argued against expanding corporate
"political speech."
** (from the Citizens United dissent of Justices Stevens
(joined by Justices Sotomayor, Ginsburg, ". . . .
corporations have no consciences, no beliefs, no
feelings, no thoughts, no desires. Corporations help
structure and facilitate the activities of human
beings, to be sure, and their "personhood" often serves
as a useful legal fiction. But they are not themselves
members of "We the People" by whom and for whom our
Constitution was established."
An additional suggestion: go to news websites and make
comments to articles or commentaries with links to
MovetoAmend.org or here, drawing people to the broader
issues and the amendment campaign. It needs to be among
the first 10 or so comments, as most readers will never
go beyond that. You can easily visit the latest
articles on the case via Google News.
We are ready to help you with editing (send drafts
here). Please point people to ReclaimDemocracy.org's
online resources for educational material or to support
the effort financially. It's time to fund the Democracy
Movement at the level of national political campaigns
and launch a major media presence!
Please help make the Supreme Court's overreach the dawn
of a movement for real change to Reclaim Democracy!
Your efforts can help turn this attack on democracy
into a pivotal moment in American History. To read the
Court's opinions and a see a roundup of some of the
best reporting and analysis of the ruling, click here
More of our pre-decision reporting is here. Read more
on the underlying issue of Corporate Personhood
ReclaimDemocracy.org send us your comments or questions
(c) 2009 ReclaimDemocracy.org 222 South Black Ave.*
Bozeman * MT * 59715 * 406-582-1224
(8) Teddy Roosevelt Was Right: Ban ALL Corporate
Contributions
posted by JOHN NICHOLS
on 01/21/2010 @ 5:01pm
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat/519819/teddy_roosevelt_was_right_ban_all_corporate_contributions
What to do about the decision by U.S. Supreme Court to
-- in the words of Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold --
"(ignore) important principles of judicial restraint
and respect for precedent" in order to make
corporations the dominant players in American politics?
Of course, there will be legislative scrambling at the
local, state and federal levels. The decision by Chief
Justice John Roberts and four other justices to reject
history and precedent in order to put a radical pro-
corporate spin on the First Amendment throws into
question rules designed to regulate even the worst
campaign abuses by business interests.
Feingold, the Wisconsin Democrat who leant his name to
the McCain-Feingold Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform
Act of 2002, will be working overtime to defend not
just the progress he has made as a reformer but a
century of clean-government legislation.
"It is important to note that the decision does not
affect McCain-Feingold's soft money ban, which will
continue to prevent corporate contributions to the
political parties from corrupting the political
process. But this decision was a terrible mistake,"
says the Wisconsin senator. "Presented with a
relatively narrow legal issue, the Supreme Court chose
to roll back laws that have limited the role of
corporate money in federal elections since Teddy
Roosevelt was president. Ignoring important principles
of judicial restraint and respect for precedent, the
Court has given corporate money a breathtaking new role
in federal campaigns. Just six years ago, the Court
said that the prohibition on corporations and unions
dipping into their treasuries to influence campaigns
was `firmly embedded in our law.' Yet this Court has
just upended that prohibition, and a century's worth of
campaign finance law designed to stem corruption in
government. The American people will pay dearly for
this decision when, more than ever, their voices are
drowned out by corporate spending in our federal
elections. In the coming weeks, I will work with my
colleagues to pass legislation restoring as many of the
critical restraints on corporate control of our
elections as possible."
When all is said and done, however, that may not be
enough.
It may be that the United States Constitution will need
to be amended in order to restore to the Teddy
Roosevelt principle:
"All contributions by corporations to any political
committee or for any political purpose should be
forbidden by law," said Roosevelt in the first years of
the 20th century, when he was also proposing public
financing of federal election.
The court's ruling in the case of Citizens United v.
FEC is a game-changer that, in the words of Feingold
says corporations "can just open their treasuries (and)
completely buy up all the television time, and drown
out everyone else's voices."
There's a small measure of nuance in the ruling.
In their 5-4 decision, the majority maintained
restrictions on direct donations by corporations to
candidates and political parties.
But corporations - with their immense resources and
their immense desire to influence the political and
governing processes - will be able to spend as freely
as their like (on television commercials and other
forms of communication) to secure the election results
they seek.
It's a recipe for democratic disaster, as wealth and
power will define the debate that sets the parameters
of our politics.
Says Senator Charles Schumer, D-New York: "The Supreme
Court just predetermined the winners of next November's
elections. It won't be Republicans. It won't be
Democrats. It will be corporate America."
To paraphrase a particular television network, there
will be no fairness and no balance.
That threat demands a response sufficient to the
challenge it poses to electoral democracy. As Lisa
Graves, the executive director of the Center for Media
and Democracy, says: "We cannot just wring our hands,
in my view, and let this stand. There is a great deal
of work to be done."
Graves, a lawyer with long experience in both the
executive and legislative branches of the federal
government, offers a savvy analysis of the motivations
behind the court's ruling.
"When I worked for the Senate Judiciary Committee
reviewing President George W. Bush's judicial nominees
and their agendas, I feared this day would come. That's
why I tried to help keep John Roberts off the appellate
court, and then was so saddened the day he was
appointed and when I saw President Bush promote him to
become Chief Justice after I had left the government,"
she says. "In reading the biographies, writings, and
speeches of right-wing nominees, it became clear to me
that a revolution in the law was being fomented to
undermine the power of ordinary people to regulate
corporations in their communities. Today's decision is
a huge gift to corporations from a Supreme Court that
has been radicalized by right-wing ideology, whose
political agenda was made obvious in the Bush v. Gore
case and whose very political decision today only makes
things worse. I think we have to rebuke the Court's
arrogant decision and make sure the law puts Americans
before corporations."
There will be talk of legislative interventions, the
best of which is almost certainly rapid passage of the
Fair Elections Now Act, which would set up a system of
public financing of elections.
"This would establish citizen-funded elections," says
Harvard Law School professor Larry Lessig.
But there are a number of reformers who fear that any
legislative initiative will be made difficult by the
high court's misinterpretation of the first amendment
to read: whoever has the most money gets the most free
speech.
That stranglehold on real democracy may, in the view of
these activists, only be broken by a constitutional
amendment, and democracy and clean government
campaigners are proposing just that - with some
suggesting the traditional route of having Congress
propose an amendment, while others imagine asking
legislatures across the country to call a
constitutional convention to develop an amendment.
Graves and others are backing a Move to Amend campaign,
which debuted a website for activists moments after the
court ruling came down.
The Move to Amend coalition declares:
On January 21, 2010, with its ruling in Citizens United
v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court ruled
that corporations are persons, entitled by the U.S.
Constitution to buy elections and run our government.
Human beings are people; corporations are legal
fictions. The Supreme Court is misguided in principle,
and wrong on the law. In a democracy, the people rule.
We Move to Amend.
We, the People of the United States of America, reject
the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United, and
move to amend our Constitution to:
1. Firmly establish that money is not speech, and that
human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to
constitutional rights.
2. Guarantee the right to vote and to participate, and
to have our votes and participation count.
3. Protect local communities, their economies, and
democracies against illegitimate "preemption" actions
by global, national, and state governments.
Within hours of the decision, more than 3,500 Americans
had signed on as backers of this particular initiative.
Whatever the specific route, and whatever the specific
language (Graves suggests: "No corporation shall be
considered to be a person who is permitted to raise or
spend money on federal, state, or local elections of
any kind"), the goal of any amendment strategy should
be to enshrine in the Constitution of this land the
fundamental democratic principle proposed more than a
century ago by a Republican president, Teddy Roosevelt:
"All contributions by corporations to any political
committee or for any political purpose should be
forbidden by law."
_____________________________________________
(9) A Supreme Victory for Special Interests
Posted on Jan 21, 2010
By John Dean
The conservative majority of the U.S. Supreme Court has given a monumental victory to special interests—i.e., the big money corporations, the folks who already dominate Washington politics—with its ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Chief Justice John Roberts, along with Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Anthony Kennedy (who wrote the court’s opinion), have gone out of their way to further obliterate serious efforts to reform out-of-control campaign spending—spending that conspicuously distorts democracy in favor of those who can buy political influence. This ruling is of the same judical activism ilk that produced Bush v. Gore, not to mention the ensuing eight years of a disastrous Bush/Cheney presidency from which the nation has yet to recover. Understandably, President Obama is flummoxed.
This decision is long, at 183 pages. It includes a powerful dissent by the four centrist justices (there are no liberals on this court). And the ruling is chock full of nuanced information that spells out what Congress can and cannot do to reform our dysfunctional and money-hungry election system. This is not a ruling that lends itself to instant analysis. Those who follow this subject far closer than I do will be figuring it out for days, if not months. However, I would recommend the following sites for a quick take on the ruling: Slate (good overview), SCOTUSBLOG (which has followed the case closely), and, in particular, The Brennan Center (which filed an amicus brief in the case and will be leading the way in sorting out the full meaning). To understand what the court majority did, scroll down to about Page 88 of your .pdf reader and read the dissent written by Justice John Paul Stevens, and joined by Justices Ruth Ginsburg, Steven Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor. It is an eye-opener.
Aside from the fact that the majority ruling reeks of conservative politics, what I find most striking about conservative judicial activism typified by this ruling is the fact that the justices involved are totally out of touch with reality. None of the men involved in this historic decision have been elected to anything, ever. They have no idea how difficult it is for elected officials to deal in the contemporary money-flooded milieu of Washington. The work experience of those who have further opened the floodgates for money in politics is restricted to the executive branch, high-priced law firms, or the chambers of the lower federal appellate courts. Not since the late Justice Hugo Black, a former U.S. senator who retired in 1971, has the court had a member of Congress on its bench, someone who can explain the real world to the other justices. These conservative justices live in a bubble, and they have little true understanding of what they have done, other than, of course, to know that they have taken care of conservatives, the so-called Citizens United who filed this lawsuit. (Yes, David N. Bossie, the president of Citizens United, is the same fellow who worked overtime to impeach President Bill Clinton.)
After I fully digest this decision and speak with friends in Washington who have long been concerned that the Bush/Cheney legacy that now controls the high court might do as they have in fact done, I will share further thoughts about the damage this ruling will bring, and what can and will be done. For this ruling has the potential of being even more pernicious than Bush v. Gore, since it reaches not merely the presidency but every elective office in the United States. Conservatives may not know how to govern when they are in power, but they sure know how to make certain that centrists, progressives and liberals are not given a sustained opportunity to work their will.
John Dean served as Richard M. Nixon’s White House lawyer for 1,000 days and is the author of several books, including “Worse Than Watergate: The Secret Presidency of George W. Bush” and ” Conservatives Without Conscience.”
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/a_supreme_victory_for_special_interests_20100121/
__._,_.___
formspring.me
Should Obama pull the DADT (DontAskDontTell) policy or should he wait for Congress to deal with it?
The PUSA should make a decree that pulls DADT, and he should pay up for his promises made!
formspring.me
Were should the money for Haiti go?
NOT to the goverment of Haiti (it's corrupt to the core) but to organizations that supply aid and that help the people of Haiti!
formspring.me
What is VOIP?
VOIP = Voice Over InternetProvider, meaning that no telephoneline is used (no landline or ccellphone), that you connect to other people through the internet and your computer, an example is SKYPE (www.skype.com).
It is cheaper then any other way of communication, and when the other party is also using skype, the call is free!
BREAKING: Hawaii Senate Approves Civil Unions For All Couples
BREAKING: Hawaii Senate Approves Civil Unions For All Couples
In an 18-7 vote, Hawaii’s Senate approved civil unions for same-sex and opposite-sex couples. The House last year approved a same-sex civil union bill. The governor, a Republican born in Missouri, has not taken a position other than to suggest there are other issues facing the state, such as the budget, that she feels should take priority.
In an 18-7 vote, Hawaii’s Senate approved civil unions for same-sex and opposite-sex couples. The House last year approved a same-sex civil union bill. The governor, a Republican born in Missouri, has not taken a position other than to suggest there are other issues facing the state, such as the budget, that she feels should take priority.
Friday, January 22, 2010
formspring.me
Why is it that internet-providers are so arrogant to give the information about the content of your activities to the goverment without your consent?
Because they have access to it, and are not concerned about your privacy, they feel like gods who can decide over and about you!
formspring.me
Are people like Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh and McCain terrorists?
Yes, as these people are spreading hate and set up for the destruction of groups of people!
They claim to be better then other people, simply because they claim to have the word of the lord, and want poor people to remain poor, and the rich to become richer! No exception as poor people can be pushed further down, and the power remains with the rich........
formspring.me
How sick is the economy?
The economy is so sick that no one can find ways to repair it, due to the greed and egoistic attitude of a few! Many suffer were a few profit form that suffering! Look at the financial mogols.... Bonuses are as huge as they were before the crisis, were the people who trust their savings to the banks are loosing out on their savings, pensions are dropped due to the huge wages of the directors of the pension funds, shareholders get huge dividends..
Greed is the rule of now a days economics!
formspring.me
Can a man love a man?
Yes, as good as a man can love a woman!
The thought that same-sex people can not love eachother is based upon the assumption that god would disagree with it, a thought that is only and solely coming from people who can only hate, and who feel they are entitled to tell others how to live!
Disregard and ignore these people, and be happy loving your man, or men!
Thursday, January 21, 2010
formspring.me
Whats wrong with the world?
A lot, from efficiency to humanity, from socially to economically, from morally to mentally.... Best is to go hiking....
formspring.me
Better than form-spring http://tr.im/L49S
Well, the return-message says "server is sick", there go's "better"
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Bahati Rejected From Prayer Breakfast
Bahati Rejected From Prayer Breakfast
David Bahati, the Ugandan politician who introduced the so-called kill the gays bill, has been disinvited to the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington, D.C.
By Advocate.com Editors
DAVID BAHATI THUMB
The Ugandan politician who introduced the so-called kill the gays bill, has been disinvited to the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington, D.C. David Bahati was invited in October, before the bill was introduced, according to the Box Turtle Bulletin, which has been closely following the situation.
Ambassador Richard Swett, a spokesman for the breakfast, confirmed that Bahati was no longer allowed to come to the event, scheduled for February 4.
He added, "The National Prayer Breakfast is an organization that builds bridges of understanding between all peoples, religions and beliefs and has never advocated the sentiments expressed in Mr. Bahati’s legislation.”
Early reports from the Monitor newspaper in Uganda said that Bahati had planned to go to the even, and make a speech.
The organization that puts on the National Prayer Breakfast is the Fellowship Foundation, also known as the Family, an evangelical Christian group linked to the development of the "kill the gays" bill.
David Bahati, the Ugandan politician who introduced the so-called kill the gays bill, has been disinvited to the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington, D.C.
By Advocate.com Editors
DAVID BAHATI THUMB
The Ugandan politician who introduced the so-called kill the gays bill, has been disinvited to the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington, D.C. David Bahati was invited in October, before the bill was introduced, according to the Box Turtle Bulletin, which has been closely following the situation.
Ambassador Richard Swett, a spokesman for the breakfast, confirmed that Bahati was no longer allowed to come to the event, scheduled for February 4.
He added, "The National Prayer Breakfast is an organization that builds bridges of understanding between all peoples, religions and beliefs and has never advocated the sentiments expressed in Mr. Bahati’s legislation.”
Early reports from the Monitor newspaper in Uganda said that Bahati had planned to go to the even, and make a speech.
The organization that puts on the National Prayer Breakfast is the Fellowship Foundation, also known as the Family, an evangelical Christian group linked to the development of the "kill the gays" bill.
LGBT politicians back Lib Dem Leader on getting tough on homophobic bullying
LGBT politicians back Lib Dem Leader on getting tough on homophobic bullying.
19 Jan 2010
And we take a look at the anti-homophobic bullying project that's already working with faith schools.
alt
By Joanne Dunning
Last week, Liberal Democrat Leader Nick Clegg proposed that all schools should teach that homosexuality is “normal and harmless”, he also said that schools should be legally obliged to implement anti-homophobic bullying policies and that gay civil partnerships should be replaced by marriage.
Clegg highlighted that faith schools, aswell as non-denominational ones should be legally obliged to have anti-homophobic bullying policies in force, at the moment faith schools are only required to talk about LGBT issues in line with their religious beliefs.
LGBT figures from across the North West’s political parties, like Clegg, have highlighted that more needs to be done to challenge homophobia in schools.
Matthew Sephton, Conservative Candidate for Salford and Eccles , said: "I believe it is absolutely vital that issues of bullying are tackled in all schools, whether they be faith schools or state schools. I personally would support any initiative that helps tackle bullying in schools, whether the motivation is race, religion, sexuality (or perceived sexuality) or indeed any other form of bullying."
"As long as bullying is not tackled in schools, the message we send out is that it is ok for some children and young people (and therefore adults) to single out other groups or individuals and treat them as being of less worth and therefore an acceptable target, which is totally unacceptable in this day and age."
"With regard to LGBT issues, I believe they should be discussed as part of a broader social curriculum and in sex education. This is necessary to help dispel myths and to enable young people who are considering their sexuality to do so in a safe and secure educational environment. Young people need to know they are not on their own and there is help and non-judgemental support for them every step of the way."
Anthony McCaul, Labour's Candidate for Manchester’s City Centre Ward added: “The legacy of Section 28 means that some teachers are still concerned about challenging the homophobic bullying agenda. It’s vital that schools challenge and tackle homophobic bullying and Labour is taking action to embed this within schools – through guidance for schools on prioritising and tackling this issue and through support for the work going on by beacon authorities like Manchester City Council. Manchester’s programme to tackle homophobic bullying in schools is leading the way and is something we should be proud of.
It’s shocking that any sort of preferential treatment should be given to any schools receiving state funding - faith school or not – it’s simply not on.”
Bev Craig, from LGBT Labour's National Committee echoed McCaul's views: "All schools should bear the responsibility of tackling homophobia, faith school or otherwise and LGBT Labour are currently working with Peers to table an amendment to the Equality Bill to ensure a current loophole which could potentially allow faith schools to discriminate, is closed. Freedom of belief should not mean freedom to discriminate.
"We need to work together to ensure that young people do not grow up with prejudices handed down from previous generations and schools are the key to addressing this. Training for teachers, classroom resources and subjects such as citizenship should be used to tackle homophobic prejudice at it's root. Local councils also need to pledge a commitment to funding work in their locality, and the work of Exceeding Expectations is to be commended."
Some faith schools are already taking it upon themselves to tackle the issue of homophobic bullying, and are proactively supporting their LGBT students.
The programme that McCaul and Craig highlight - Exceeding Expectations - has been working in Manchester schools for the last three year’s challenging the issue of homophobic bullying.
The project has worked hard to get its message into faith schools, and has received support from the Bishop of Mancheste r .
Charlotte Leather is an Anti-Bullying advisor for Manchester Healthy Schools , who along with Manchester City Council, The Lesbian & Gay Foundation, Hope Theatre Company and Manchester Community Health, are one of the partners who work on Exceeding Expectations, she says: ”We have been working hard to build a good working relationship with faith schools across Manchester and during anti-bullying week (Nov 2009), for the first time, performances were welcomed and received extremely well by the pupils of a faith school in the heart of the city.
"The initiative, which focuses on tolerance, respect and anti-discrimination , enables schools to challenge homophobia through theatre, education and policy development. With direct links to the government’s anti-bullying agenda and new DCSF guidelines, the performances are both relevant and necessary for promoting positive, anti-discriminatory attitudes across all schools, faiths and cultures. The school was very pleased with the results and has invited the initiative to return later in the year.”
To find out more about Exceeding Expectations, click here .
More useful links:
Liberal Democrats for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender action (DELGA) .
19 Jan 2010
And we take a look at the anti-homophobic bullying project that's already working with faith schools.
alt
By Joanne Dunning
Last week, Liberal Democrat Leader Nick Clegg proposed that all schools should teach that homosexuality is “normal and harmless”, he also said that schools should be legally obliged to implement anti-homophobic bullying policies and that gay civil partnerships should be replaced by marriage.
Clegg highlighted that faith schools, aswell as non-denominational ones should be legally obliged to have anti-homophobic bullying policies in force, at the moment faith schools are only required to talk about LGBT issues in line with their religious beliefs.
LGBT figures from across the North West’s political parties, like Clegg, have highlighted that more needs to be done to challenge homophobia in schools.
Matthew Sephton, Conservative Candidate for Salford and Eccles , said: "I believe it is absolutely vital that issues of bullying are tackled in all schools, whether they be faith schools or state schools. I personally would support any initiative that helps tackle bullying in schools, whether the motivation is race, religion, sexuality (or perceived sexuality) or indeed any other form of bullying."
"As long as bullying is not tackled in schools, the message we send out is that it is ok for some children and young people (and therefore adults) to single out other groups or individuals and treat them as being of less worth and therefore an acceptable target, which is totally unacceptable in this day and age."
"With regard to LGBT issues, I believe they should be discussed as part of a broader social curriculum and in sex education. This is necessary to help dispel myths and to enable young people who are considering their sexuality to do so in a safe and secure educational environment. Young people need to know they are not on their own and there is help and non-judgemental support for them every step of the way."
Anthony McCaul, Labour's Candidate for Manchester’s City Centre Ward added: “The legacy of Section 28 means that some teachers are still concerned about challenging the homophobic bullying agenda. It’s vital that schools challenge and tackle homophobic bullying and Labour is taking action to embed this within schools – through guidance for schools on prioritising and tackling this issue and through support for the work going on by beacon authorities like Manchester City Council. Manchester’s programme to tackle homophobic bullying in schools is leading the way and is something we should be proud of.
It’s shocking that any sort of preferential treatment should be given to any schools receiving state funding - faith school or not – it’s simply not on.”
Bev Craig, from LGBT Labour's National Committee echoed McCaul's views: "All schools should bear the responsibility of tackling homophobia, faith school or otherwise and LGBT Labour are currently working with Peers to table an amendment to the Equality Bill to ensure a current loophole which could potentially allow faith schools to discriminate, is closed. Freedom of belief should not mean freedom to discriminate.
"We need to work together to ensure that young people do not grow up with prejudices handed down from previous generations and schools are the key to addressing this. Training for teachers, classroom resources and subjects such as citizenship should be used to tackle homophobic prejudice at it's root. Local councils also need to pledge a commitment to funding work in their locality, and the work of Exceeding Expectations is to be commended."
Some faith schools are already taking it upon themselves to tackle the issue of homophobic bullying, and are proactively supporting their LGBT students.
The programme that McCaul and Craig highlight - Exceeding Expectations - has been working in Manchester schools for the last three year’s challenging the issue of homophobic bullying.
The project has worked hard to get its message into faith schools, and has received support from the Bishop of Mancheste r .
Charlotte Leather is an Anti-Bullying advisor for Manchester Healthy Schools , who along with Manchester City Council, The Lesbian & Gay Foundation, Hope Theatre Company and Manchester Community Health, are one of the partners who work on Exceeding Expectations, she says: ”We have been working hard to build a good working relationship with faith schools across Manchester and during anti-bullying week (Nov 2009), for the first time, performances were welcomed and received extremely well by the pupils of a faith school in the heart of the city.
"The initiative, which focuses on tolerance, respect and anti-discrimination , enables schools to challenge homophobia through theatre, education and policy development. With direct links to the government’s anti-bullying agenda and new DCSF guidelines, the performances are both relevant and necessary for promoting positive, anti-discriminatory attitudes across all schools, faiths and cultures. The school was very pleased with the results and has invited the initiative to return later in the year.”
To find out more about Exceeding Expectations, click here .
More useful links:
Liberal Democrats for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender action (DELGA) .
For Killing His German Lover, This 21-Year-Old Chinese Man Will Be Put to Death
For Killing His German Lover, This 21-Year-Old Chinese Man Will Be Put to Death
Sometimes, the "gay panic" defense doesn't work. Like in the case of an unnamed 21-year-old Chinese man who was just sentenced to death by officials there, after a conviction in the murder of his 68-year-old German partner: "The Chinese man, a native from the southwestern Sichuan Province and a staff of a Zhongshan hotel, had gay sex with the German man in the latter's rented apartment in the city since January last year. Both men's names were not revealed. The Chinese man later broke up with his German partner, alleging he was not fond of gay sex, the court heard. He returned to live in the rented apartment on July 11 last year after his partner promised not to harass him sexually. But he was nevertheless harassed by the German man the next day despite repeated warnings. The young man then hit the German man in the left temple with a hammer and killed him, the court heard. He dismembered the body three days later and scattered the body parts different places of the city. He was detained by police in his company dormitory on July 23 last year. It was not clear whether the Chinese man would lodge an appeal." [China Daily]
Sometimes, the "gay panic" defense doesn't work. Like in the case of an unnamed 21-year-old Chinese man who was just sentenced to death by officials there, after a conviction in the murder of his 68-year-old German partner: "The Chinese man, a native from the southwestern Sichuan Province and a staff of a Zhongshan hotel, had gay sex with the German man in the latter's rented apartment in the city since January last year. Both men's names were not revealed. The Chinese man later broke up with his German partner, alleging he was not fond of gay sex, the court heard. He returned to live in the rented apartment on July 11 last year after his partner promised not to harass him sexually. But he was nevertheless harassed by the German man the next day despite repeated warnings. The young man then hit the German man in the left temple with a hammer and killed him, the court heard. He dismembered the body three days later and scattered the body parts different places of the city. He was detained by police in his company dormitory on July 23 last year. It was not clear whether the Chinese man would lodge an appeal." [China Daily]
Parliament to debate recognition of religious same-sex partnerships
Parliament to debate recognition of religious same-sex partnerships
By staff writers
19 Jan 2010
The House of Lords is preparing to debate a proposal to allow the use of religious language and religious premises in civil partnerships between same-sex couples.
No religious element has been allowed in civil partnerships since they were introduced in 2005, meaning that same-sex commitment ceremonies carried out in churches have no legal status.
The proposal takes the form of an amendment to the current Equality Bill. It will be debated either this evening (Tuesday 19 January) or, if there is not enough time, on Monday 25 January.
“It must be a matter for churches and religious organisations to decide for themselves but, having decided, the law should not stand in their way” said Waheed Alli, a gay Muslim member of the House of Lords, who is proposing the amendment.
If the proposal becomes law, it would allow same-sex couples to gain legal recognition for commitment ceremonies based on their own faith, a possibility currently denied to them.
While some religious groups are opposed to same-sex partnerships, others have welcomed the proposal and said that they would carry out civil partnerships in their own premises if allowed. They include the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers), Liberal Judaism and the General Assembly of Unitarian and Free Christian Churches.
The Society of Friends said that the legislation would be a “timely and significant step” and cited their commitment to integrity and equality as reasons for their support.
Rabbi Danny Rich, of Liberal Judaism, said that the group wanted same-sex couples to have “means of affirming their long-term love”, adding that “the proposed amendment to the bill would correct the one remaining anomaly in this area of legislation”.
A number of those who are supporting the proposal hope that the law will eventually go further, and allow the use of the word 'marriage' for the partnerships of same-sex, as well as mixed-sex, couples.
The amendment has attracted cross-party support in the Lords. In addition to Labour’s Waheed Alli, it has been tabled by Tory Sheila Noakes, cross-bencher Jane Campbell and Rabbi Julia Neuberger, a Liberal Democrat.
By staff writers
19 Jan 2010
The House of Lords is preparing to debate a proposal to allow the use of religious language and religious premises in civil partnerships between same-sex couples.
No religious element has been allowed in civil partnerships since they were introduced in 2005, meaning that same-sex commitment ceremonies carried out in churches have no legal status.
The proposal takes the form of an amendment to the current Equality Bill. It will be debated either this evening (Tuesday 19 January) or, if there is not enough time, on Monday 25 January.
“It must be a matter for churches and religious organisations to decide for themselves but, having decided, the law should not stand in their way” said Waheed Alli, a gay Muslim member of the House of Lords, who is proposing the amendment.
If the proposal becomes law, it would allow same-sex couples to gain legal recognition for commitment ceremonies based on their own faith, a possibility currently denied to them.
While some religious groups are opposed to same-sex partnerships, others have welcomed the proposal and said that they would carry out civil partnerships in their own premises if allowed. They include the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers), Liberal Judaism and the General Assembly of Unitarian and Free Christian Churches.
The Society of Friends said that the legislation would be a “timely and significant step” and cited their commitment to integrity and equality as reasons for their support.
Rabbi Danny Rich, of Liberal Judaism, said that the group wanted same-sex couples to have “means of affirming their long-term love”, adding that “the proposed amendment to the bill would correct the one remaining anomaly in this area of legislation”.
A number of those who are supporting the proposal hope that the law will eventually go further, and allow the use of the word 'marriage' for the partnerships of same-sex, as well as mixed-sex, couples.
The amendment has attracted cross-party support in the Lords. In addition to Labour’s Waheed Alli, it has been tabled by Tory Sheila Noakes, cross-bencher Jane Campbell and Rabbi Julia Neuberger, a Liberal Democrat.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Meghan McCain, Pro Gay-Marriage GOP Star, Stirs Up College Controversy
Meghan McCain, Pro Gay-Marriage GOP Star, Stirs Up College Controversy
Megan McCain has emerged from the shadow of her father, the 2008 GOP presidential candidate, as a forceful voice for a fundamental change in the party, especially concerning gay rights.
A columnist for the Daily Beast, McCain, 25, describes herself as a "a woman who despises labels and boxes and stereotypes." Of all issues, she has made gay rights, in her words, "one of the ones closest to my heart."
As such, she has become the darling of the Log Cabin crowd and the bête noire of the party’s right wing. She has often come into conflict with religious conservatives and the Tea Party movement.
Now, McCain finds herself squarely in the middle of a new controversy. George Washington University’s Allied in Pride student group invited McCain to be the keynote speaker in its "Marriage Equality Week" program. But McCain was also booked to speak at the Washington, D.C., university’s event "Redefining Republican: No Labels, No Boxes, No Stereotypes" on Feb. 9.
"She a different type of Republican," Michael Komo, the president of Allied in Pride, told The Hatchet, the student newspaper. "We thought her input would be helpful on the subject of marriage and the future of the GOP."
But George Washington’s College Republicans weren’t so enthusiastic. "Our executive board was told that Meghan McCain’s primary focus would be her opinion on what it means to be a Republican," a spokesperson for the club told the Hatchet. "We later discovered through her Twitter and subsequent conversations with the SA and [the Graduate School of Political Management] that she would be giving the keynote address for Marriage Equality Week."
The GOP club claims it was not told McCain would be at the school as part of a marriage equality event. McCain’s booking agency is reportedly receiving $7,500 as a speaking fee via Greater Talent Network in New York.
Comments at the ultra-right blog site Free Republic were predictably dismissive.
"A Republican who celebrates perverts and freaks. She’s no conservative," wrote one. "She is even more obnoxious than that nutjob who sired her," said another, referring to father, much hated as a "RINO" (Republican in name only) by the ultra-right.
Megan McCain has emerged from the shadow of her father, the 2008 GOP presidential candidate, as a forceful voice for a fundamental change in the party, especially concerning gay rights.
A columnist for the Daily Beast, McCain, 25, describes herself as a "a woman who despises labels and boxes and stereotypes." Of all issues, she has made gay rights, in her words, "one of the ones closest to my heart."
As such, she has become the darling of the Log Cabin crowd and the bête noire of the party’s right wing. She has often come into conflict with religious conservatives and the Tea Party movement.
Now, McCain finds herself squarely in the middle of a new controversy. George Washington University’s Allied in Pride student group invited McCain to be the keynote speaker in its "Marriage Equality Week" program. But McCain was also booked to speak at the Washington, D.C., university’s event "Redefining Republican: No Labels, No Boxes, No Stereotypes" on Feb. 9.
"She a different type of Republican," Michael Komo, the president of Allied in Pride, told The Hatchet, the student newspaper. "We thought her input would be helpful on the subject of marriage and the future of the GOP."
But George Washington’s College Republicans weren’t so enthusiastic. "Our executive board was told that Meghan McCain’s primary focus would be her opinion on what it means to be a Republican," a spokesperson for the club told the Hatchet. "We later discovered through her Twitter and subsequent conversations with the SA and [the Graduate School of Political Management] that she would be giving the keynote address for Marriage Equality Week."
The GOP club claims it was not told McCain would be at the school as part of a marriage equality event. McCain’s booking agency is reportedly receiving $7,500 as a speaking fee via Greater Talent Network in New York.
Comments at the ultra-right blog site Free Republic were predictably dismissive.
"A Republican who celebrates perverts and freaks. She’s no conservative," wrote one. "She is even more obnoxious than that nutjob who sired her," said another, referring to father, much hated as a "RINO" (Republican in name only) by the ultra-right.
Civil unions may get quick vote at Hawaii Capitol
Civil unions may get quick vote at Hawaii Capitol
HONOLULU - When Hawaii legislators reconvene on Wednesday, all eyes will be focused not on teacher furloughs that resulted in the nation’s shortest school year or the state’s $1 billion budget deficit, but legislation that would allow same-sex couples to form civil unions.
The measure would grant gay couples the rights and benefits the state provides to married couples and is among a handful of similar proposals that could pop up in several other states. At the same time, a federal judge in San Francisco is considering the constitutionality of California’s same-sex marriage ban.
"This bill has already been voted on, so there isn’t as much convincing to do anymore," said Alan Spector of Equality Hawaii, a leading supporter of the bill. "I think (legislators) get the substance of the bill and the need for the bill."
Last year, the proposal easily won preliminary passage in the Legislature, but stalled in May after opponents lobbied and held a state Capitol rally attended by several thousand protesters.
Opponents, noting that this is an election year, cast doubt on claims that passage is at hand. Critics, including the Catholic Diocese of Honolulu and scores of evangelical Protestant churches, hope another rally, this one planned for Sunday, will be large enough to convince wavering lawmakers to kill the measure.
"It’s up to the people who oppose civil unions to remind the legislators that they work for the people," said Garret Hashimoto, chairman of the Hawaii Christian Coalition. "There’s no ifs, ands or buts that the majority of the people in Hawaii oppose civil unions and gay marriage."
No independent polls or surveys have been conducted on the issue, so it’s difficult to measure public sentiment. The last time voters directly weighed in on a related issue was in 1998 when 70 percent approved a constitutional amendment allowing the Legislature to reserve marriage for opposite sex couples.
Elsewhere, at least one other state, New Mexico, appears poised to seriously consider a civil union measure. Bills in Illinois and Minnesota also may surface. Colorado, Wisconsin, Maryland and Maine have limited laws allowing same-gender civil unions. Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts and Connecticut permit same-sex marriage.
In Hawaii, the measure would expand the state’s existing reciprocal beneficiaries law by granting to unmarried same- and opposite-gender couples all of the rights and benefits the state provides to married couples. It is similar to broad civil union or domestic partnership laws in California, the District of Columbia, Nevada, Oregon, Washington and New Jersey.
The Hawaii legislation would have no impact on federal tax and other benefits that only apply to married opposite-sex couples. According to 2000 census records, more than 1,200 male couples, 1,100 female couples and 21,100 mixed couples lived together in Hawaii.
Supporters voice guarded confidence that the bill, pending in the Senate since May, still enjoys majority support in both chambers.
But House Speaker Calvin Say, a Democrat, suggested the bill could stall in the House if the Senate vote turns out to be slim. "If the bill limps over," he said, "you know we don’t have the two-thirds, so why go through the exercise if the governor is going to veto?"
Foes say the House, whose members face re-election every two years, will be a prime focus of their lobbying.
The number of no votes among House members has "changed tremendously, in our favor," said former state Rep. Dennis Arakaki, head of the Hawaii Family Forum and Hawaii Catholic Conference. "They are especially sensitive because they’re all up for election."
Honolulu Catholic Bishop Larry Silva in a letter last week urged some 220,000 parishioners to lobby lawmakers. He called civil unions "simply a euphemism" for gay marriage and claimed it is justifiable to discriminate against gay couples who want to marry.
Spector contended Silva was "trying to impose his Catholic faith ... upon all of Hawaii’s residents."
Republican Gov. Linda Lingle has refused to say what she would do if the measure lands on her desk, though she recently urged lawmakers to shelve it, in favor of economic and budget matters.
HONOLULU - When Hawaii legislators reconvene on Wednesday, all eyes will be focused not on teacher furloughs that resulted in the nation’s shortest school year or the state’s $1 billion budget deficit, but legislation that would allow same-sex couples to form civil unions.
The measure would grant gay couples the rights and benefits the state provides to married couples and is among a handful of similar proposals that could pop up in several other states. At the same time, a federal judge in San Francisco is considering the constitutionality of California’s same-sex marriage ban.
"This bill has already been voted on, so there isn’t as much convincing to do anymore," said Alan Spector of Equality Hawaii, a leading supporter of the bill. "I think (legislators) get the substance of the bill and the need for the bill."
Last year, the proposal easily won preliminary passage in the Legislature, but stalled in May after opponents lobbied and held a state Capitol rally attended by several thousand protesters.
Opponents, noting that this is an election year, cast doubt on claims that passage is at hand. Critics, including the Catholic Diocese of Honolulu and scores of evangelical Protestant churches, hope another rally, this one planned for Sunday, will be large enough to convince wavering lawmakers to kill the measure.
"It’s up to the people who oppose civil unions to remind the legislators that they work for the people," said Garret Hashimoto, chairman of the Hawaii Christian Coalition. "There’s no ifs, ands or buts that the majority of the people in Hawaii oppose civil unions and gay marriage."
No independent polls or surveys have been conducted on the issue, so it’s difficult to measure public sentiment. The last time voters directly weighed in on a related issue was in 1998 when 70 percent approved a constitutional amendment allowing the Legislature to reserve marriage for opposite sex couples.
Elsewhere, at least one other state, New Mexico, appears poised to seriously consider a civil union measure. Bills in Illinois and Minnesota also may surface. Colorado, Wisconsin, Maryland and Maine have limited laws allowing same-gender civil unions. Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts and Connecticut permit same-sex marriage.
In Hawaii, the measure would expand the state’s existing reciprocal beneficiaries law by granting to unmarried same- and opposite-gender couples all of the rights and benefits the state provides to married couples. It is similar to broad civil union or domestic partnership laws in California, the District of Columbia, Nevada, Oregon, Washington and New Jersey.
The Hawaii legislation would have no impact on federal tax and other benefits that only apply to married opposite-sex couples. According to 2000 census records, more than 1,200 male couples, 1,100 female couples and 21,100 mixed couples lived together in Hawaii.
Supporters voice guarded confidence that the bill, pending in the Senate since May, still enjoys majority support in both chambers.
But House Speaker Calvin Say, a Democrat, suggested the bill could stall in the House if the Senate vote turns out to be slim. "If the bill limps over," he said, "you know we don’t have the two-thirds, so why go through the exercise if the governor is going to veto?"
Foes say the House, whose members face re-election every two years, will be a prime focus of their lobbying.
The number of no votes among House members has "changed tremendously, in our favor," said former state Rep. Dennis Arakaki, head of the Hawaii Family Forum and Hawaii Catholic Conference. "They are especially sensitive because they’re all up for election."
Honolulu Catholic Bishop Larry Silva in a letter last week urged some 220,000 parishioners to lobby lawmakers. He called civil unions "simply a euphemism" for gay marriage and claimed it is justifiable to discriminate against gay couples who want to marry.
Spector contended Silva was "trying to impose his Catholic faith ... upon all of Hawaii’s residents."
Republican Gov. Linda Lingle has refused to say what she would do if the measure lands on her desk, though she recently urged lawmakers to shelve it, in favor of economic and budget matters.
Does The U.S. Constitution Already Make Gay Marriage Legal?
Does The U.S. Constitution Already Make Gay Marriage Legal?
Happy Birthday, 14th
Amendment!
Recent advances in gay marriage have created an interesting – and I use that term generously – cornucopia of marriage situations. In California, gay marriage was “illegal,” until May, when the California Supreme Court deemed any ban against same-sex marriage unconstitutional. That allowed 18,000 couples to wed – until Prop 8 was passed, overruling the Supreme Court and making same-sex marriage, essentially, illegal once again. But there are still 18,000 same-sex couples in California who are married – their marriages remain “legal.”
Iowa, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine have all moved to support marriage equality. So, what happens if one of those 18,000 couples moves to, say, Massachusetts? Well, aside from having better access to lobster, nothing. What happens if a promotion takes them to, say, New York? Again, nothing, because New York, while not enabled to perform same-sex marriages, still recognizes them from other jurisdictions. But, if that couple moves to New Jersey, voila! They are not married; they do not receive legal recognition of their marriage by the state. Crazy, huh?
In June 0f 1958, Mildred Jeter and Richard Loving were married in Washington, D.C. and went home to Virgina, where they were subsequently arrested one night, in their bed, having sex, which was illegal. Why? The Lovings were an interracial couple, and in 1958 Virgina, it was illegal for them to be married, and it was illegal for them to have sex. Crazy, huh?
Right now, that very same fictional California couple I mentioned is facing a similar fate. While they aren’t subject to arrest for being married or for having sex (thank God!) they are still not legally married in New Jersey or in any one of forty-two other states. And in the eyes of the federal government, they are not married in any state. Crazy, huh?
The Fourteenth Amendment, which is 141 years old today, was used in the landmark case of Loving v. Virginia to repeal anti-miscegenation laws, making interracial marriage legal. It should protect same-sex couples as well. Via Wikipedia:
“The U.S. Supreme Court overturned the convictions in a unanimous decision, dismissing the Commonwealth of Virginia’s argument that a law forbidding both white and black persons from marrying persons of another race, and providing identical penalties to white and black violators, could not be construed as racially discriminatory. The court ruled that Virginia’s anti-miscegenation statute violated both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In its decision, the court wrote:
“Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival…. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.”
The Supreme Court concluded that anti-miscegenation laws were racist and had been enacted to perpetuate white supremacy:
“There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy.”
And there you have it. The Supreme Court of The United States, in 1959 made it clear:
“Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival….”
The obvious question becomes, can race be viewed in the same manner as sexual orientation or identification?
The State of Massachussetts is taking this one step further. It is suing the federal government, saying the Defense of Marriage Act violates the Constitution and forces the states to discriminate against same-sex couples.
The Attorney General for Massachussetts, in the complaint filed in U.S. District Court, said,
“Congress overstepped its authority, undermined states’ efforts to recognize marriages between same-sex couples, and codified an animus towards gay and lesbian people.”
In, “New DOMA Lawsuit is the Most Exciting Yet,” Emma Ruby-Sachs writes,
“The genius of this complaint is that it takes a conservative argument — that liberal states should not be permitted to impose their tolerance and acceptance of homosexuality on the rest of the country — and turns it around to benefit a state that really pioneered gay rights in the U.S.
“Even a conservative justice would support the notion that federal encroachment over those few areas where states have sovereign jurisdiction is unconstitutional. In this case, that principle supports, at the very least, limiting the application of DOMA when it affects state programs with federal funding.
“If a conservative justice chooses to oppose the argument put forward by Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley, then their logic could be used in the future to justify federal enforcement of equal rights on those states that oppose same-sex marriage. If state’s no longer have absolute jurisdiction over marriage, a liberal government can interfere with a conservative state’s policies.”
So, the Constitution, as we would hope, may already have embedded in its wisdom, equal rights for all people, including gay people who want to get married:
“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
I Do Not Deserve Your Tolerance
I Do Not Deserve Your Tolerance
I am an American citizen. I pay taxes. I vote. I have a passport. I volunteer my time and voice and donate money to charities or causes I believe in. I have a college degree from a pretty good school. For most of the time since I was fifteen I have worked, often 60 – 80 hours a week. I am in a committed relationship. I try to call my mother a few times a week. I hold the door open for anyone in front of or behind me. I’m generally the last one out of the elevator. I’ve contacted my local government when I believed something needed improvement. I have good, long-term friendships. I’ve given money to friends who needed help. I’ve lent countless items to friends, assuming they will not be returned. I’ve worked to help people I know who were in crisis get through the next day. I’ve sat on the phone for hours with people who were depressed. I have a dog, the second one I’ve rescued from a shelter. I feed and walk him, a lot. I pick up after him, every time. I am called upon to help or give an opinion several times a week. I’ve done jury duty. I have never been arrested. I am financially self-sufficient. I have a few credit cards. I have an apartment. I have homeowners’ insurance. When I needed a car for work I got one, kept it in good shape, kept it insured. I have a home air purifier. I take vitamins. I try to eat well and take care of myself physically and mentally. I have a primary care physician. I always bring a gift to a host or hostess when I am invited into their home. I say “please,” “thank you,” and, too often I’m told, “I’m sorry.” I sometimes send out Christmas cards. I call friends to say “Happy Thanksgiving.” I, not infrequently, get calls from people who used to work for me asking if I would given them a reference. I rarely say “no.” I rarely say “no” when asked to do anything for someone. No one knows this, but I am the only person in my building of over 300 apartments who calls the laundry company when the machines break. I sometimes go into the recycling bins and re-sort them when my neighbors mix paper and plastic. I always leave a good tip, usually more than 20%. I don’t yell at waiters or waitresses, though I have yelled at drivers who run red lights. I keep my TV and music at a reasonable level, especially late at night so I don’t disturb my neighbors. I’ve installed dimmers in my home to conserve electricity. I have a checking and a savings account. I almost always pay my bills on time. I have an excellent credit rating. I tip all the doormen and maintenance people in my building at Christmas. I’ve lived in the same apartment for nine years. I backup my computer. I buy extended warranties on expensive electronics. I try to share information as often as I can. I generally pay more than my share when going out to dinner with friends. I generally return calls within twenty-four hours. I keep my home reasonably clean. I subscribe to a daily newspaper, and try to read it almost every day. I keep abreast of current events. I receive my news from a wide variety of sources. When disagreeing with someone, I try to remain civil and respectful. I take my dog to the dog park several times a week. I know he would like to go more often. I compliment strangers sometimes. I call restaurants to cancel if I can’t keep my reservation. I try to validate my friend’s feelings and listen to their thoughts openly. I rarely boast or brag. I try to patronize local businesses. Although it’s hard for me to say this, I’m pretty certain I will have left somewhat of a positive impact on the world by the time I’m gone. I scattered my father’s ashes where he wanted me to. I flew with my family to attend my grandmother’s funeral. I was captain of the safety patrol in sixth grade. I was president of the theatre society in high school. I wrote to my congressmen to help save the dolphins from tuna fishermen when I was a boy. I want to get married. I can’t, because I’m gay.
I grew up feeling sad and different and sometimes ashamed.
I no longer am sad, I’m glad I’m different, and I’ll be damned if I’ll ever be ashamed of who I am or what I believe. Because what I believe is that we are all the same. We are all equal. We all deserve to love and have our love recognized.
I think I’m a pretty good person. I know I’m as good as anyone else. I have done little enough wrong to deserve your forgiveness. I’ve done nothing that deserves your pity. And I know that I am good enough to not deserve your tolerance.
Tolerance is for someone who doesn’t know better, like my dog who likes to jump on people. Tolerance is for someone whose views negatively impact your life, like people who want to stop me from loving the man I love, with all my heart. I do not want your tolerance. I do not deserve your tolerance. I will not accept your tolerance, any longer. What I will do is my best to ensure that we are all given equality and the legal right to love and marry the person who loves us back. From now on I will tolerate nothing less.
I am an American citizen. I pay taxes. I vote. I have a passport. I volunteer my time and voice and donate money to charities or causes I believe in. I have a college degree from a pretty good school. For most of the time since I was fifteen I have worked, often 60 – 80 hours a week. I am in a committed relationship. I try to call my mother a few times a week. I hold the door open for anyone in front of or behind me. I’m generally the last one out of the elevator. I’ve contacted my local government when I believed something needed improvement. I have good, long-term friendships. I’ve given money to friends who needed help. I’ve lent countless items to friends, assuming they will not be returned. I’ve worked to help people I know who were in crisis get through the next day. I’ve sat on the phone for hours with people who were depressed. I have a dog, the second one I’ve rescued from a shelter. I feed and walk him, a lot. I pick up after him, every time. I am called upon to help or give an opinion several times a week. I’ve done jury duty. I have never been arrested. I am financially self-sufficient. I have a few credit cards. I have an apartment. I have homeowners’ insurance. When I needed a car for work I got one, kept it in good shape, kept it insured. I have a home air purifier. I take vitamins. I try to eat well and take care of myself physically and mentally. I have a primary care physician. I always bring a gift to a host or hostess when I am invited into their home. I say “please,” “thank you,” and, too often I’m told, “I’m sorry.” I sometimes send out Christmas cards. I call friends to say “Happy Thanksgiving.” I, not infrequently, get calls from people who used to work for me asking if I would given them a reference. I rarely say “no.” I rarely say “no” when asked to do anything for someone. No one knows this, but I am the only person in my building of over 300 apartments who calls the laundry company when the machines break. I sometimes go into the recycling bins and re-sort them when my neighbors mix paper and plastic. I always leave a good tip, usually more than 20%. I don’t yell at waiters or waitresses, though I have yelled at drivers who run red lights. I keep my TV and music at a reasonable level, especially late at night so I don’t disturb my neighbors. I’ve installed dimmers in my home to conserve electricity. I have a checking and a savings account. I almost always pay my bills on time. I have an excellent credit rating. I tip all the doormen and maintenance people in my building at Christmas. I’ve lived in the same apartment for nine years. I backup my computer. I buy extended warranties on expensive electronics. I try to share information as often as I can. I generally pay more than my share when going out to dinner with friends. I generally return calls within twenty-four hours. I keep my home reasonably clean. I subscribe to a daily newspaper, and try to read it almost every day. I keep abreast of current events. I receive my news from a wide variety of sources. When disagreeing with someone, I try to remain civil and respectful. I take my dog to the dog park several times a week. I know he would like to go more often. I compliment strangers sometimes. I call restaurants to cancel if I can’t keep my reservation. I try to validate my friend’s feelings and listen to their thoughts openly. I rarely boast or brag. I try to patronize local businesses. Although it’s hard for me to say this, I’m pretty certain I will have left somewhat of a positive impact on the world by the time I’m gone. I scattered my father’s ashes where he wanted me to. I flew with my family to attend my grandmother’s funeral. I was captain of the safety patrol in sixth grade. I was president of the theatre society in high school. I wrote to my congressmen to help save the dolphins from tuna fishermen when I was a boy. I want to get married. I can’t, because I’m gay.
I grew up feeling sad and different and sometimes ashamed.
I no longer am sad, I’m glad I’m different, and I’ll be damned if I’ll ever be ashamed of who I am or what I believe. Because what I believe is that we are all the same. We are all equal. We all deserve to love and have our love recognized.
I think I’m a pretty good person. I know I’m as good as anyone else. I have done little enough wrong to deserve your forgiveness. I’ve done nothing that deserves your pity. And I know that I am good enough to not deserve your tolerance.
Tolerance is for someone who doesn’t know better, like my dog who likes to jump on people. Tolerance is for someone whose views negatively impact your life, like people who want to stop me from loving the man I love, with all my heart. I do not want your tolerance. I do not deserve your tolerance. I will not accept your tolerance, any longer. What I will do is my best to ensure that we are all given equality and the legal right to love and marry the person who loves us back. From now on I will tolerate nothing less.
NOM Admits Giving $50,000 Toward Republican Senate Candidate Scott Brown
NOM Admits Giving $50,000 Toward Republican Senate Candidate Scott Brown
That’s right. In their never-ending battle against same-sex marriage, the National Organization for Marriage has spent towards the campaign of Massachusetts Republican Scott Brown – the man who posed nude for Cosmo, and voted in favor of the Marriage Amendment in Massachusetts’ legislature – $50,000. Specifically, according to a NOM email sent today,
“That’s why NOM has endorsed Scott Brown for U.S. Senate and why we invested $50,000 in independent expenditures in this race over the past several days.”
A vote for Republican Scott Brown is a vote against marriage equality, against all LGBTQ rights, against healthcare reform, and against the memory of the Lion of the Senate, Ted Kennedy.
NOM calls Democrat Martha Coakley a “radical same-sex marriage activist.” because to take a stand for equality in the America of the National Organization for (Straights Only) Marriage, is to be a radical.
Since when was standing for equality in the United States of America radical?
Sadly, NOM has tons of cash on hand, the result of every gay marriage vote taken in any state that holds one, not to mention the rumors of their ties to the Mormon Church. (Because, really, do you think Myopic Maggie Gallagher can afford to spend $1.5 million on one TV ad without some help from a “higher power?”)
Please, defeat NOM. Defeat Scott Brown.
Support equality.
Make sure you – or your friends and family in Massachusetts vote tomorrow – for Martha Coakley. You’ll be protecting marriage equality and healthcare reform – two of the most important issues in America today.
That’s right. In their never-ending battle against same-sex marriage, the National Organization for Marriage has spent towards the campaign of Massachusetts Republican Scott Brown – the man who posed nude for Cosmo, and voted in favor of the Marriage Amendment in Massachusetts’ legislature – $50,000. Specifically, according to a NOM email sent today,
“That’s why NOM has endorsed Scott Brown for U.S. Senate and why we invested $50,000 in independent expenditures in this race over the past several days.”
A vote for Republican Scott Brown is a vote against marriage equality, against all LGBTQ rights, against healthcare reform, and against the memory of the Lion of the Senate, Ted Kennedy.
NOM calls Democrat Martha Coakley a “radical same-sex marriage activist.” because to take a stand for equality in the America of the National Organization for (Straights Only) Marriage, is to be a radical.
Since when was standing for equality in the United States of America radical?
Sadly, NOM has tons of cash on hand, the result of every gay marriage vote taken in any state that holds one, not to mention the rumors of their ties to the Mormon Church. (Because, really, do you think Myopic Maggie Gallagher can afford to spend $1.5 million on one TV ad without some help from a “higher power?”)
Please, defeat NOM. Defeat Scott Brown.
Support equality.
Make sure you – or your friends and family in Massachusetts vote tomorrow – for Martha Coakley. You’ll be protecting marriage equality and healthcare reform – two of the most important issues in America today.
Malawi government defends gay couple's prosecution
January 18, 2010
Malawi government defends gay couple's prosecution
By RAPHAEL TENTHANI
Associated Press Writer
Malawi's government said Monday that it is unmoved by international criticism of the trial of a gay couple charged with unnatural acts and gross indecency, felonies for which they could be imprisoned for up to 14 years.
In a statement Monday, Malawi's Information Minister Leckford Mwanza Thoto made no apology for the laws that criminalize homosexual acts. He said Steven Monjeza and Tiwonge Chimbalanga were "clearly breaking the laws of Malawi."
"As government we cannot interfere in the court process," Thoto said. "We depend on our Western friends, yes, but we are a sovereign country."
Forty percent of Malawi's budget is funded by international donors.
Monjeza, 26, and Chimbalanga, 20, have been jailed since their arrest Dec. 27, the day they celebrated their engagement with a party that drew crowds of curious onlookers in this conservative southern African country. Hearings in the trial also have attracted crowds.
A verdict is expected next month.
Amnesty International has called for the couple's immediate release. More than 20 members of the Scottish parliament have condemned the arrest, calling on their government to review its development aid package for Malawi. OutRage! — a gay rights group — has called on Britain to intercede on behalf of the gay couple.
Mauya Msuku, the couple's lawyer, said the laws under which Monjeza and Chimbalanga were charged were archaic and unconstitutional.
"The penal code criminalizes homosexuality or same-sex marriages but under the Bill of Rights in the new Constitution it is clearly stated that no one should be discriminated against on the basis of — among other things — sexual orientation, " he said.
Msuku has asked Chief Justice Lovemore Munlo for a constitutional review. Munlo has yet to set the date for a Constitutional Court hearing.
Recently, a group of Malawi human rights activists formed the Center for the Development of People to fight for the rights of homosexuals and other minorities.
In Africa, only South Africa has legalized same-sex marriage, and in South Africa the gap between the liberal constitution and societal attitudes can be wide. Uganda will soon debate a proposed law that would impose the death penalty on some gays, though Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni has told colleagues he believes the bill is too harsh and a Cabinet minister has called — so far unsuccessfully — for the bill to be scrapped.
Malawi government defends gay couple's prosecution
By RAPHAEL TENTHANI
Associated Press Writer
Malawi's government said Monday that it is unmoved by international criticism of the trial of a gay couple charged with unnatural acts and gross indecency, felonies for which they could be imprisoned for up to 14 years.
In a statement Monday, Malawi's Information Minister Leckford Mwanza Thoto made no apology for the laws that criminalize homosexual acts. He said Steven Monjeza and Tiwonge Chimbalanga were "clearly breaking the laws of Malawi."
"As government we cannot interfere in the court process," Thoto said. "We depend on our Western friends, yes, but we are a sovereign country."
Forty percent of Malawi's budget is funded by international donors.
Monjeza, 26, and Chimbalanga, 20, have been jailed since their arrest Dec. 27, the day they celebrated their engagement with a party that drew crowds of curious onlookers in this conservative southern African country. Hearings in the trial also have attracted crowds.
A verdict is expected next month.
Amnesty International has called for the couple's immediate release. More than 20 members of the Scottish parliament have condemned the arrest, calling on their government to review its development aid package for Malawi. OutRage! — a gay rights group — has called on Britain to intercede on behalf of the gay couple.
Mauya Msuku, the couple's lawyer, said the laws under which Monjeza and Chimbalanga were charged were archaic and unconstitutional.
"The penal code criminalizes homosexuality or same-sex marriages but under the Bill of Rights in the new Constitution it is clearly stated that no one should be discriminated against on the basis of — among other things — sexual orientation, " he said.
Msuku has asked Chief Justice Lovemore Munlo for a constitutional review. Munlo has yet to set the date for a Constitutional Court hearing.
Recently, a group of Malawi human rights activists formed the Center for the Development of People to fight for the rights of homosexuals and other minorities.
In Africa, only South Africa has legalized same-sex marriage, and in South Africa the gap between the liberal constitution and societal attitudes can be wide. Uganda will soon debate a proposed law that would impose the death penalty on some gays, though Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni has told colleagues he believes the bill is too harsh and a Cabinet minister has called — so far unsuccessfully — for the bill to be scrapped.
Nepal charter to grant gay rights
Nepal charter to grant gay rights
Utpal Parashar , Hindustan Times
Kathmandu, January 19, 2010
Like most people in love Tripti Shah and Darshana Thapa (names changed) want to get married and start a family. But unlike most they will have to wait some more time to get legal recognition for their union.
In less than five months Nepal will have a new constitution that will be the first in Asia to guarantee equal rights to sexual minorities. And once that happens, Tripti and Darshana, a lesbian couple, can formally wed.
The couple in their 20s was thrown out of Nepal Army nearly three years ago due to their sexual orientation—albeit ‘disciplinary ground’ was cited as the reason for their removal.
It is such kind of discrimination against lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transgendered and inter-sexed (LGBTI) that the Himalayan nation’s new constitution seeks to prevent.
“Rights for LGBTIs have been well drafted in the new constitution. They will ensure non-discrimination and separate citizenship IDs for third-gendered people,” says Sunil Babu Pant, Nepal’s first openly gay lawmaker.
Utpal Parashar , Hindustan Times
Kathmandu, January 19, 2010
Like most people in love Tripti Shah and Darshana Thapa (names changed) want to get married and start a family. But unlike most they will have to wait some more time to get legal recognition for their union.
In less than five months Nepal will have a new constitution that will be the first in Asia to guarantee equal rights to sexual minorities. And once that happens, Tripti and Darshana, a lesbian couple, can formally wed.
The couple in their 20s was thrown out of Nepal Army nearly three years ago due to their sexual orientation—albeit ‘disciplinary ground’ was cited as the reason for their removal.
It is such kind of discrimination against lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transgendered and inter-sexed (LGBTI) that the Himalayan nation’s new constitution seeks to prevent.
“Rights for LGBTIs have been well drafted in the new constitution. They will ensure non-discrimination and separate citizenship IDs for third-gendered people,” says Sunil Babu Pant, Nepal’s first openly gay lawmaker.
Monday, January 18, 2010
UAE e-magazine ordered shut
UAE e-magazine ordered shut.
Posted By Victor Ngeny On January 18, 2010 @ 2:50 pm In United Arab Emirates
Hetta [1], United Arab Emirates online magazine has been ordered shut after they lost an appeal case launched against it by the Abu Dhabi Media Company. The e-magazine which was the first of its kind when it was launched in 1996 also had its chief editor, Ahmad Mohammed Bin Gharib fined 5500 USD
According to the Arabian Human Rights Initiative [2] website, this case emanated from a case filed against the magazine by the Abu Dhabi Media Company over user comments about an article published on the site,
The case is based on an article published by the magazine in its issue No. 55 on May 4, 2009, under the title “Abu Dhabi TV: Emirate TV only in name”; http://www.hetta.com/new/news.php?do=view_subject&id=&ids=78 [3] by the writer Enas Borini. The article criticized the way the Emirate TV channels are being administrated. The article did not exceed the permitted criticism, but the chairman of Abu Dhabi Media considered comments on the article “defaming him” and filed a complaint to the General Prosecution, which in turn decided to refer the case under number 8585 for the year 2009 to the Court on June 14, 2009.
Gulf News [4] also reports that comments on online articles are now considered defamatory,
The comments were considered by the complainant and the Public Prosecution as slander and defamation.
The chief editor has said that they will be appealing the decision, we'll update you as the situation unfolds.
Article printed from Global Voices Advocacy: http://advocacy.globalvoicesonline.org
URL to article: http://advocacy.globalvoicesonline.org/2010/01/18/uae-e-magazine-ordered-shut/
URLs in this post:
[1] Hetta: http://hetta.com
[2] Arabian Human Rights Initiative: http://www.anhri.net/en/reports/2009/pr1010.shtml
[3] http://www.hetta.com/new/news.php?do=view_subject&id=&ids=78: http://www.hetta.com/new/news.php?do=view_subject&id=&ids=78
[4] Gulf News: http://gulfnews.com/news/gulf/uae/media/online-magazine-ordered-shut-down-for-defamation-1.568654
Posted By Victor Ngeny On January 18, 2010 @ 2:50 pm In United Arab Emirates
Hetta [1], United Arab Emirates online magazine has been ordered shut after they lost an appeal case launched against it by the Abu Dhabi Media Company. The e-magazine which was the first of its kind when it was launched in 1996 also had its chief editor, Ahmad Mohammed Bin Gharib fined 5500 USD
According to the Arabian Human Rights Initiative [2] website, this case emanated from a case filed against the magazine by the Abu Dhabi Media Company over user comments about an article published on the site,
The case is based on an article published by the magazine in its issue No. 55 on May 4, 2009, under the title “Abu Dhabi TV: Emirate TV only in name”; http://www.hetta.com/new/news.php?do=view_subject&id=&ids=78 [3] by the writer Enas Borini. The article criticized the way the Emirate TV channels are being administrated. The article did not exceed the permitted criticism, but the chairman of Abu Dhabi Media considered comments on the article “defaming him” and filed a complaint to the General Prosecution, which in turn decided to refer the case under number 8585 for the year 2009 to the Court on June 14, 2009.
Gulf News [4] also reports that comments on online articles are now considered defamatory,
The comments were considered by the complainant and the Public Prosecution as slander and defamation.
The chief editor has said that they will be appealing the decision, we'll update you as the situation unfolds.
Article printed from Global Voices Advocacy: http://advocacy.globalvoicesonline.org
URL to article: http://advocacy.globalvoicesonline.org/2010/01/18/uae-e-magazine-ordered-shut/
URLs in this post:
[1] Hetta: http://hetta.com
[2] Arabian Human Rights Initiative: http://www.anhri.net/en/reports/2009/pr1010.shtml
[3] http://www.hetta.com/new/news.php?do=view_subject&id=&ids=78: http://www.hetta.com/new/news.php?do=view_subject&id=&ids=78
[4] Gulf News: http://gulfnews.com/news/gulf/uae/media/online-magazine-ordered-shut-down-for-defamation-1.568654
Russia MPs support rights reform
Russia MPs support rights reform
Russia's lower house of parliament has backed a long-delayed reform to the European Court of Human Rights.
Before Friday's vote Russia was the only one of the Council of Europe's 47 member states that had not ratified Protocol 14.
The court based in Strasbourg, eastern France, has a huge backlog of cases.
Protocol 14 is part of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights. It was ratified by 392 Duma deputies, with 56 against.
Ratification in the upper house, the Federation Council, is expected to be a formality.
Russia faces the largest number of cases pending before the court - 28% of the total.
The Duma had refused to ratify Protocol 14 in 2006, with deputies alleging that it was incompatible with Russian law.
This prompted officials in Strasbourg to warn that the court was on the verge of collapse.
But after a Council of Europe meeting on 14 December, Duma Speaker Boris Gryzlov said the Council had agreed that a Russian judge would participate in any decisions concerning Russia.
Friday's vote is a major change in policy and appears to be the result of a call from President Dmitry Medvedev, the BBC's Richard Galpin in Moscow says.
Streamlining court's work
Protocol 14 would cut down the number of judges on panels charged with deciding issues such as the admissibility of cases.
It also paves the way for new rules to ensure that states implement fundamental changes to national laws or practices, as ordered by the court, European affairs analyst William Horsley says.
Experts say the changes would speed up the handling of cases by up to 25%.
The European Court of Human Rights currently has more than 100,000 cases on its books.
Russia's reluctance to sign up to the reform until now is because more than a quarter of all the complaints sent to the court concern alleged violations of human rights by the Russian state, particularly in the predominantly Muslim region of the North Caucasus, our correspondent says.
He says that in the past the court has upheld many complaints against Moscow ordering that compensation be paid to families whose loved ones were either killed or abducted by the security forces in areas such as Chechnya.
The families often see the court in Strasbourg as the only place where they can seek justice, he adds.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/europe/8460934.stm
Published: 2010/01/15 15:43:41 GMT
Russia's lower house of parliament has backed a long-delayed reform to the European Court of Human Rights.
Before Friday's vote Russia was the only one of the Council of Europe's 47 member states that had not ratified Protocol 14.
The court based in Strasbourg, eastern France, has a huge backlog of cases.
Protocol 14 is part of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights. It was ratified by 392 Duma deputies, with 56 against.
Ratification in the upper house, the Federation Council, is expected to be a formality.
Russia faces the largest number of cases pending before the court - 28% of the total.
The Duma had refused to ratify Protocol 14 in 2006, with deputies alleging that it was incompatible with Russian law.
This prompted officials in Strasbourg to warn that the court was on the verge of collapse.
But after a Council of Europe meeting on 14 December, Duma Speaker Boris Gryzlov said the Council had agreed that a Russian judge would participate in any decisions concerning Russia.
Friday's vote is a major change in policy and appears to be the result of a call from President Dmitry Medvedev, the BBC's Richard Galpin in Moscow says.
Streamlining court's work
Protocol 14 would cut down the number of judges on panels charged with deciding issues such as the admissibility of cases.
It also paves the way for new rules to ensure that states implement fundamental changes to national laws or practices, as ordered by the court, European affairs analyst William Horsley says.
Experts say the changes would speed up the handling of cases by up to 25%.
The European Court of Human Rights currently has more than 100,000 cases on its books.
Russia's reluctance to sign up to the reform until now is because more than a quarter of all the complaints sent to the court concern alleged violations of human rights by the Russian state, particularly in the predominantly Muslim region of the North Caucasus, our correspondent says.
He says that in the past the court has upheld many complaints against Moscow ordering that compensation be paid to families whose loved ones were either killed or abducted by the security forces in areas such as Chechnya.
The families often see the court in Strasbourg as the only place where they can seek justice, he adds.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/europe/8460934.stm
Published: 2010/01/15 15:43:41 GMT
West turns Africa into gay battlefield
West turns Africa into gay battlefield
Western evangelists and gay rights groups are stoking Africa’s bitter rows over homosexuality, writes RW Johnson in Cape Town
The trial of a young male couple charged with unnatural practices and gross indecency after announcing their engagement in Malawi was adjourned last week when one of the accused collapsed in court while enduring jeers from the public gallery.
Tiwonge Chimbalanga, 20, was made to return with a mop to clean up his own vomit, even though he has malaria.
He and his boyfriend, Steven Monjeza, 26, have been held in Chichiri prison, Blantyre, for more than a week — in order, the judge says, to protect them from mob violence.
Chichiri has a reputation for overcrowding, disease and homosexual rape. The couple say they have been badly beaten and Peter Tatchell, the British gay activist, describes their conditions as appalling.
Such scenes will only increase the pressure from western human rights activists and donor countries on Malawi’s government to moderate its draconian anti-gay laws, for which the couple have provided a test case. They face up to 14 years in jail.
Following similar donor pressure, President Yoweri Museveni of Uganda distanced himself from an anti-homosexuality bill before parliament in Kampala last week. Museveni appealed to MPs to “go slow” on the private member’s bill, which stipulates the death penalty for “aggravated homosexuality”, including homosexual acts by HIV-positive men.
Museveni said he had come under pressure from Gordon Brown, Stephen Harper, the prime minister of Canada, and the US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, in a 45-minute phone call. He was also struck by the fact that a US protest rally had drawn 300,000 people, saying he would have great difficulty attracting such a crowd.
The two cases illustrate the way Africa is becoming a battleground over differing attitudes to homosexuality in the West.
Both sides accuse the other of being driven by external influences: gay rights campaigners say conservative American evangelists are encouraging homophobia, while the anti-gay side insists that homosexuality is only surfacing openly in Africa because of western encouragement.
Some argue that the African rows over homosexuality are really a proxy skirmish in an American cultural dispute, with both evangelicals and gay rights groups in the US pouring in money and support.
In Uganda, attention has focused on a visit by three US evangelicals, Scott Lively, Caleb Lee Brundidge and Don Schmierer, just before the anti-homosexuality bill was introduced. They held seminars for MPs and officials where homosexuality was described as a disease that could be healed, although they have subsequently disclaimed any responsibility for the bill.
Lively, the president of Defend the Family International, told Ugandans that legalising homosexuality would mean legalising “the molestation of children and having sex with animals”.
Schmierer works with “homosexual recovery groups”, while Brundidge, who claims once to have been gay himself, works with the International Healing Foundation as a “sexual reorientation coach”. He also leads Christian groups to mortuaries where they attempt to raise the dead.
Gay activists have placed on the web a video of Lively telling a Ugandan audience that he “knows more than almost anyone else in the world” about homosexuality. He says that the genocide in Rwanda was carried out by gays, that Aids is a just punishment for homosexuality and that foreigners are trying to promote homosexuality in Uganda.
Museveni has warned Ugandan youth that homosexuality is against God’s will and that “European homosexuals are recruiting in Africa”.
His minister for ethics, Nsaba Buturo, says homosexuality is a “moral perversion that must not be allowed to spread”.
Ugandas churches are themselves strongly homophobic — Archbishop Henry Orombi and Pastor Martin Sempe have been leading a campaign in support of the bill.
The Church of Uganda is vehemently against gay clergymen and when retired bishop Christopher Senyonjo preached tolerance towards homosexuals in 2005, Orombi stripped him of his pension.
A similar pattern is found in Malawi. George Thindwa, director of the Association of Secular Humanism, who is attempting to help the arrested gay couple, said “the churches are definitely spearheading the anti-gay campaign here”. He said Malawi was often visited by foreign evangelists, though he thought the local clergy needed little encouragement in their homophobia.
Pastor Mario Manyozo, of Malawi’s Word of Life Tabernacle Church, says “homosexuality is against God’s creation and is an evil act since gays are possessed with demons”. Similar sentiments are echoed by many churchmen, based on the biblical story of Sodom and Gomorrah.
Pastor Joseph Mbeme, of Malawi’s Ambassadors for Christ Church, says the church must pray for homosexuality to be stamped out.
Thindwa points out that 83% of Malawians are Christians and another 13% are Muslims — and that Islamic law is even more hostile to gays. In Muslim northern Nigeria the penalty for homosexuality is stoning to death.
The claim that western influence is encouraging homosexuality is common. Some wealthy westerners are accused of sex tourism and paedophilia.
Peter Atekyereza, a sociology professor at Makerere University in Uganda, said “external influence is definitely behind the spread of homosexuality”. He said international organisations had been giving “scholarships and hand-outs in an attempt to recruit young people to homosexuality”.
Many Africans echo President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe, who calls gays “sexual perverts — lower than dogs or pigs”, and who claims that homosexuality is “unAfrican” — “leave whites to do that,” he has said. There have even been assertions that homosexuality did not exist in Africa until the white man imported it.
Last year nine Senegalese gay activists were jailed for eight years after coming out. This followed an international Aids conference attended by 50 foreign activists who stressed the need for gays to be dealt with openly.
Uganda expelled the local director of UNAIDS, the United Nations programme on HIV and Aids, for organising a meeting with Ugandan gay activists. The US and Sweden, both big donors, have threatened to cut off aid if the anti-homosexuality bill is not moderated.
An anguished editorial in The Uganda Record accused the West of trying to bully Africans into homosexuality. “To Africans this is an almost existential matter. Their very future as societies is at stake.”
Additional reporting: Rosie Kinchen
source;
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/africa/article6991023.ece
Western evangelists and gay rights groups are stoking Africa’s bitter rows over homosexuality, writes RW Johnson in Cape Town
The trial of a young male couple charged with unnatural practices and gross indecency after announcing their engagement in Malawi was adjourned last week when one of the accused collapsed in court while enduring jeers from the public gallery.
Tiwonge Chimbalanga, 20, was made to return with a mop to clean up his own vomit, even though he has malaria.
He and his boyfriend, Steven Monjeza, 26, have been held in Chichiri prison, Blantyre, for more than a week — in order, the judge says, to protect them from mob violence.
Chichiri has a reputation for overcrowding, disease and homosexual rape. The couple say they have been badly beaten and Peter Tatchell, the British gay activist, describes their conditions as appalling.
Such scenes will only increase the pressure from western human rights activists and donor countries on Malawi’s government to moderate its draconian anti-gay laws, for which the couple have provided a test case. They face up to 14 years in jail.
Following similar donor pressure, President Yoweri Museveni of Uganda distanced himself from an anti-homosexuality bill before parliament in Kampala last week. Museveni appealed to MPs to “go slow” on the private member’s bill, which stipulates the death penalty for “aggravated homosexuality”, including homosexual acts by HIV-positive men.
Museveni said he had come under pressure from Gordon Brown, Stephen Harper, the prime minister of Canada, and the US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, in a 45-minute phone call. He was also struck by the fact that a US protest rally had drawn 300,000 people, saying he would have great difficulty attracting such a crowd.
The two cases illustrate the way Africa is becoming a battleground over differing attitudes to homosexuality in the West.
Both sides accuse the other of being driven by external influences: gay rights campaigners say conservative American evangelists are encouraging homophobia, while the anti-gay side insists that homosexuality is only surfacing openly in Africa because of western encouragement.
Some argue that the African rows over homosexuality are really a proxy skirmish in an American cultural dispute, with both evangelicals and gay rights groups in the US pouring in money and support.
In Uganda, attention has focused on a visit by three US evangelicals, Scott Lively, Caleb Lee Brundidge and Don Schmierer, just before the anti-homosexuality bill was introduced. They held seminars for MPs and officials where homosexuality was described as a disease that could be healed, although they have subsequently disclaimed any responsibility for the bill.
Lively, the president of Defend the Family International, told Ugandans that legalising homosexuality would mean legalising “the molestation of children and having sex with animals”.
Schmierer works with “homosexual recovery groups”, while Brundidge, who claims once to have been gay himself, works with the International Healing Foundation as a “sexual reorientation coach”. He also leads Christian groups to mortuaries where they attempt to raise the dead.
Gay activists have placed on the web a video of Lively telling a Ugandan audience that he “knows more than almost anyone else in the world” about homosexuality. He says that the genocide in Rwanda was carried out by gays, that Aids is a just punishment for homosexuality and that foreigners are trying to promote homosexuality in Uganda.
Museveni has warned Ugandan youth that homosexuality is against God’s will and that “European homosexuals are recruiting in Africa”.
His minister for ethics, Nsaba Buturo, says homosexuality is a “moral perversion that must not be allowed to spread”.
Ugandas churches are themselves strongly homophobic — Archbishop Henry Orombi and Pastor Martin Sempe have been leading a campaign in support of the bill.
The Church of Uganda is vehemently against gay clergymen and when retired bishop Christopher Senyonjo preached tolerance towards homosexuals in 2005, Orombi stripped him of his pension.
A similar pattern is found in Malawi. George Thindwa, director of the Association of Secular Humanism, who is attempting to help the arrested gay couple, said “the churches are definitely spearheading the anti-gay campaign here”. He said Malawi was often visited by foreign evangelists, though he thought the local clergy needed little encouragement in their homophobia.
Pastor Mario Manyozo, of Malawi’s Word of Life Tabernacle Church, says “homosexuality is against God’s creation and is an evil act since gays are possessed with demons”. Similar sentiments are echoed by many churchmen, based on the biblical story of Sodom and Gomorrah.
Pastor Joseph Mbeme, of Malawi’s Ambassadors for Christ Church, says the church must pray for homosexuality to be stamped out.
Thindwa points out that 83% of Malawians are Christians and another 13% are Muslims — and that Islamic law is even more hostile to gays. In Muslim northern Nigeria the penalty for homosexuality is stoning to death.
The claim that western influence is encouraging homosexuality is common. Some wealthy westerners are accused of sex tourism and paedophilia.
Peter Atekyereza, a sociology professor at Makerere University in Uganda, said “external influence is definitely behind the spread of homosexuality”. He said international organisations had been giving “scholarships and hand-outs in an attempt to recruit young people to homosexuality”.
Many Africans echo President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe, who calls gays “sexual perverts — lower than dogs or pigs”, and who claims that homosexuality is “unAfrican” — “leave whites to do that,” he has said. There have even been assertions that homosexuality did not exist in Africa until the white man imported it.
Last year nine Senegalese gay activists were jailed for eight years after coming out. This followed an international Aids conference attended by 50 foreign activists who stressed the need for gays to be dealt with openly.
Uganda expelled the local director of UNAIDS, the United Nations programme on HIV and Aids, for organising a meeting with Ugandan gay activists. The US and Sweden, both big donors, have threatened to cut off aid if the anti-homosexuality bill is not moderated.
An anguished editorial in The Uganda Record accused the West of trying to bully Africans into homosexuality. “To Africans this is an almost existential matter. Their very future as societies is at stake.”
Additional reporting: Rosie Kinchen
source;
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/africa/article6991023.ece
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
