CeCe and several friends, all black, were walking to the grocery store on June 5th, 2011 when white adults standing in the patio area of a South Minneapolis bar started screaming racist and transphobic slurs at the youth. CeCe, who is only 23 years old, approached the group and replied that she and her friends would not tolerate hate speech. In response, one of the white women said “I’ll take you bitches on” and smashed her glass into CeCe’s face. The broken glass sliced all the way through CeCe’s cheek. A fight ensued between the adults and the young people after this initial attack and one of the attackers, Dean Schmitz, was fatally stabbed.

As if it were not sufficiently tragic that a group of young people were subjected to such severe violence and that Dean Schmitz lost his life, police arriving at the scene arrested CeCe, denied her adequate medical treatment, interrogated her for hours, and placed her in solitary confinement. In the aftermath of being attacked, she was not treated with care, but launched into another nightmare. The only person arrested that night, she has since been charged with two counts of 2nd degree murder. Hennepin County Attorney Michael Freeman has the power to drop these charges, a choice he made in multiple other clear instances of self-defense this year, but he has not yet done so.

CeCe’s story is a portrait of the United States Criminal Justice System. Her story is what is meant when we are told that transgender people, especially transgender women of color, experience disproportionate rates of police harassment, profiling, and abuse. She is living one of the stories rolled into statistics like: trans people are ten to fifteen times more likely to be incarcerated than cisgender (not transgender) people, or nearly half of African American transgender people have spent time in jail or prison.

These statistics are the result of the all of the ways that transgender people, especially transgender people of color, are denied access to the resources and opportunities that we need to live healthy lives free of violence, discrimination, and oppression. Transgender people consistently experience high levels of harassment in school, extreme levels of unemployment due to discrimination and lack of education, denial of competent medical care, inability to change identification documents, and disproportionate violence and harassment. Nevertheless, for generations transgender people, especially transgender women of color, have been at the forefront of movements against police brutality, white supremacy, economic injustice, and for queer liberation and gender self-determination.

CeCe is one of these leaders. She is the everyday hero that is the college student, working her way toward the career of her dreams. She is a femme icon, reminding her many friends and loving community that it’s never the wrong time to look fabulous, even as she is unjustly held in jail and awaiting trial for unwarranted charges. She is the center of a growing community of supporters in Minneapolis and nationally, inspiring action and solidarity in our joint struggles to (in her words) “be able to help and comfort someone who is unsure about his or her own sexual identity and preference…eliminate people’s fears of being victims of hate crimes and domestic violence…[and] help someone to accept and be comfortable as whomever they choose to be.”

Today, we are faced with the opportunity and the obligation to challenge racism and transphobia. Locally, we have and will continue to support CeCe every step of the way- from ensuring she has access to hormones in jail to packing the courtroom at every one of her hearings. Nationally, an increasing number of support groups and individuals are following CeCe’s case and demanding that Hennepin County Attorney Michael Freeman drop the charges against her. In Minneapolis and the rest of the country we aren’t only watching Freeman; we are standing up beside CeCe, a leader in our community, and waiting for him to do the same.

For more information and new developments: http://supportcece.wordpress.com
To tell Michael Freeman you support dropping the charges against CeCe
call: 612-348-5561
email: citizeninfo@co.hennepin.mn.us
fax: 612-348-2042

On Thursday, Racialicious joined the many websites around the world in shutting down for most of the day to protest the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), which threatens to undermine the same creative freedom it was allegedly designed to protect.

SOPA supporters say the bill, introduced in the House of Representatives in October 2011, would protect copyright holders against online piracy. SOPA’s counterpart in the Senate, the Protect IP Act (PIPA), is scheduled for a Jan. 24 vote.

The idea is, the two bills would give authorities more ways to starve  “rogue sites,” as Politico’s Mike Zapler and Kim Hart explain:

Here’s how it would work: If the Justice Department or a copyright holder believed a site was directing users to pirated content, they would go to court. Depending on who’s complaining, different remedies would come into play: In some instances a judge could order an Internet service provider like Verizon to cut off access to a site. In others, a search engine like Google could be directed to delete links to an infringing site. The idea is to starve the offending sites of the web traffic that keeps them in business.

Thanks to the Asian Pacific Americans for Progress (APAP) for the heads-up: you can now watch the seminal 2009 documentary Vincent Who? for free online at vincentwhomovie.com through the end of July.

The film will also be screened live on the following dates:

Friday, July 8, 8 p.m.: Renaissance Hollywood Hotel, Los Angeles, Calif. Salon 5/6. Free screening as part of the inaugural Japanese American Citizens League conference.
Wednesday, August 3: Queens College, Queens, NY. Details TBA.
Saturday, August 13, 10 a.m.: Detroit Chinese Community Center, Detroit, Mich.. Free screening as part of the Asian American Journalists Association national convention.

Of course, we also encourage you to buy the DVD. If you’re not familiar with the film or the story behind it, here’s the details:

VINCENT WHO? (2009, 40 min): In 1982, Vincent Chin was beaten to death in Detroit by two white autoworkers at the height of anti-Japanese sentiments. The culprits received a $3,000 fine and no jail time. Outraged by this injustice, Asian Americans around the country galvanized for the first time to form a pan-Asian identity and civil rights movement.

VINCENT WHO? explores this important legacy through interviews with the key players at the time as well as a new generation of activists impacted by Vincent Chin. It also looks at the case in relation to the larger narrative of Asian American history, in such events as Chinese Exclusion, Japanese Internment, the 1992 L.A. Riots, anti-Asian hate crimes, and post-9/11 racism. Ultimately, the film asks how far Asian Americans have come since the Chin case, and how far we have yet to go.

The FCC is scheduled to vote tomorrow on a huge merger between Comcast and NBC Universal, which would create a new media mega-corporation.  This has brought quite a bit of controversy over the future of the web, with many digital justice activists protesting the increase of corporate control over the web.

Angry Asian Man reports on an unexpected silver lining: the FCC has proposed that Comcast and NBC must improve diversity if they are going to complete the deal, to ensure minority broadcasters are not left out.  According to ABC News:

Public interest groups have urged the Obama administration to reject the deal. They fear Comcast might charge other cable distributors higher fees to transmit NBC Universal-owned content, leading to higher cable bills, fewer independent programing choices and less competition.

Comcast said in agreements filed with the FCC that it would add four new cable networks either owned or partly owned by African-Americans within eight years if the deal goes through.

It would also expand an existing channel carrying Asian-American programing to more markets, or create a new English-language channel that caters to Asian-American interests.

More diversity on major networks is definitely something to celebrate, but I’m not so sure this is the major step forward as some are quick to claim.

Most of what I’ve heard about the merger has been from the net neutrality aspect.  Back in August, Colorlines broke down why it was so important to keep an eye on Comcast:

The fight started because those scary scenarios about blocking and slowing traffic aren’t merely speculative. In 2005, Comcast blocked its users from sharing BitTorrents, which are popular ways to send and receive large files. The company claimed that it was preventing its users from committing copyright infringement, since the file-sharing platforms are often associated with quick and easy ways to get free music and movies.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) stepped in and ruled that no Internet service provider could block or interfere with user traffic—unless it was for “reasonable network management purposes.” Comcast challenged the ruling and this year a federal court overturned it, finding that the FCC didn’t have the authority to regulate broadband in the first place.

The court ruling has added yet another layer to the debate. The FCC is scrambling to regain its regulatory authority. That authority actually began eroding years ago, when a conservative majority of commissioners ruled that broadband be treated differently from landline phone and TV services, which are seen as essential to every household and therefore subject to federal oversight.

Meanwhile, service providers have argued vehemently against net neutrality regulations, saying that any formal rules would stifle competition and innovation—which would in turn keep prices up and limit broadband expansion into poor and rural communities.

So the issue on the table Tuesday is really a continuation of an earlier move – what right do large service providers have to restrict access for certain users?

The Comcast site even dips into the debate, explaining in a roundabout way that space online is limited, and most companies are making moves to ensure that there will be enough bandwidth for all our phones and devices.  However, they seek to control content providers, with far reaching impacts:

Level 3 Communications, a company that helps Netflix Inc stream videos online, has accused Comcast of charging it unfair fees to deliver content to Comcast subscribers.

(As a Comcast customer – they have a chokehold on my area – I find it interesting this is happening.  On Demand now promotes their movies by saying “Get it 28 days sooner than on Netflix!” so if I was Level 3/Netflix, I’d be pissed too.)

In addition to higher fees for certain types of content, there is the looming threat of “paid prioritization” – essentially the idea that certain content providers can pay more for more access and faster speed, which means smaller sites may be left to fight for the remaining scraps of slower, free bandwidth.

Senator Al Franken is not having it:

Just days before the FCC’s scheduled Tuesday morning vote on net neutrality, Franken blasted Genachowski for offering too many breaks to communications giants. “Let’s be clear. This is not real net neutrality,” the lawmaker said during the rare Saturday session. “This is the first time the FCC has allowed discrimination on the Internet,” he warned, referring to provisions that would let corporations pay for faster transmissions, creating Internet toll lanes.

The proposed rules, he further complained, would allow dominant wireless providers to block access to various applications, such as Google Maps. “I sincerely hope that the FCC will make significant improvements” before the Tuesday vote, he demanded.

While I am thrilled we will get some new programming out of the deal, I don’t feel like that’s a good trade or compromise.  Comcast-NBCU agreed to create the networks within four years.  They have yet to say what type of support the networks will be given, or if they feel any obligation to stick with these networks until they are financially viable.  They also agreed fairly quickly to creating more networks and the formation of “a diversity advisory board” – but the creation of these things has historically been a smokescreen for large corporations to hide behind, not avenues to lasting, institutional change.

The vote on Tuesday is impossible to call – there are too many factors in play.  However, this is one of those decisions that is ripe with unintended consequences, and we should all keep our eyes and ears open.

Ever since the “Can Social Media Help End Racism panel,” a lot of us who use technology in pursuit of social justice have tried to figure out a way to get more racial diversity into SXSW. (The organizers also have the same goal, and created different systems to try to encourage more diversity in panelists and presenters.)

This year’s South by Southwest panel selection closes tomorrow, July 9th. I know LATISM was planning a 100 panel push for Latinos who work in tech. However, I want to encourage everyone – folks working with social media, using social media to promote their projects (film folks, this means you!), moderating/facilitating online communities, people employed in technology, or even just enthusiasts to propose a panel. The panels then go to a vote, and the SXSW staff will also check out their favorites and make decisions on what will ultimately create a great mix of content. So please – if you have an idea (or even half of one), please go to the site and put in your pitch.

I’m actually cutting back on conferences next year with all the changes to Racialicious (and the fact that I’m just conferenced out) but I did come up with an idea yesterday that I want to pursue. Tentatively called “Tech Power to the People,” I think I’m going to ask some of my other PMC fellows to go in with me on a discussion of how tech can be leveraged to reach a variety of communities, how to get a sense of community needs, and how to empower communities to create their own stories. (We decided early in the program that if we don’t show people how to create this content, the project isn’t going to be sustainable.) By SXSW, my six month stint with the Corps will be over, and I should have some hard data for what worked and what didn’t work in the various areas of D.C. and the different populations. So, I think I’ll do that.

What are your ideas?

Just a quickie – if you have 5 minutes today, do three things.

1) Take action against the ridiculousness of racism against Native people and stereotype extremism that is the DUDESONS on MTV (the Cowboys and Findians episode was the topper of bigotry).  The American Indian Movement in Santa Barbara is organizing a day of action to shut down the show on June 6th.

2) Sign up to be a witness (it’s a virtual thing) to the federal government in Canada for under-funding child welfare services on reserves and the ongoing blatant human rights abuses in First Nations child welfare.

3) Watch this video spoof about the new immigration check point for “illegal” European immigrants on Indigenous land and post it far and wide:

Kiana Firouz is an LGBT activist and film director from Iran currently seeking asylum in the UK. In late 2009 the trailer for her film Cul de Sac created controversy. This is the NSFW trailer:

In a letter published on the blog LGBT Asylum News, Firouz writes:

I, Kiana Firouz, an Iranian Lesbian, born in 1983 in Tehran/Iran, have sought asylum in the U.K but my application was turned down by the Home Office, despite accepting the fact that I am a lesbian. I accordingly submitted my appeal which was dismissed incredibly by the adjudicator. According to my solicitor’s point of view there is a little chance to grant a permission to appeal against the adjudicator’s decision. It means that I will face with deportation soon.

Homosexuality in Iran is a sin and offence which is subject to harsh punishment. According to the Islamic law, repeatation of this offence will be punished by death. The punishment for lesbianism involving persons who are mature, of sound mind, and consenting, is 100 lashes. If the act is repeated three times and punishment is enforced each time, the death sentence will apply on the fourth occasion. (Articles 127, 129, 130 penal code) The ways of proving lesbianism in court are the same as for male homosexuality. (Article 128)

Jezebel writes:

Meredith Yayanos from Coilhouse says Firouz will “most likely be sentenced to torture and death after being found guilty of the ‘unspeakable sin of homosexuality.’” In Iran, the punishment for homosexuality consists of up to 100 lashes, which can be applied up to three times. After the fourth violation, a woman can be convicted of “unrepentant homosexuality” and executed by hanging.

Firouz filed for a court appeal after receiving the judge’s decision, but it was swiftly overruled. She can appeal the decision, but as of now, Firouz is facing deportation. The international human rights organization the EveryOne Group is asking concerned British citizens to send an email to the British Home Office asking them to reconsider Firouz’s case (public.enquiries@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk). There is also an online petition circulating, which could help save Firouz from corporal punishment in her home country.

The petition is here, and you can visit the Facebook page to save Firouz here.

Last week Jean Charest, premier of the province of Quebec in Canada, proposed legislation that would ban Muslim women from wearing the niqab/face-veil.

How does Quebec intend to ban the niqab? By refusing essential services to women wearing one. From the Toronto Star:

[Bill 94] effectively bars Muslim women from receiving or delivering public services while wearing a niqab.  According to the draft law, they would not be able to consult a doctor in a hospital, for example, or even attend classes in a university.  Two words: Uncovered face,” Charest told reporters during a press conference in Quebec City. ”The principle is clear.” However, Charest reaffirmed the right to wear other religious symbols, such as crosses, skullcaps or headscarves, which was met by some as evidence of hypocrisy and discrimination…

Charest explained that the legislation, Bill 94, demands a face in plain view, for reasons of identification, security and communication. He further clarified that even public-service employees who do not interact with the public – the majority of the provincial bureaucracy – would also not be permitted to wear the niqab…

The legislation doesn’t stop at driver’s licence or health card offices. It encompasses nearly every public and para-public institution as well, including universities, school boards, hospitals, community health and daycare centres.

There are many things about this bill that are horrendous.  For example, that whole universal healthcare thing – of which many Canadians are so proud – will become pretty UNuniversal; since if you’re wearing a niqab you can’t see a doctor.  Bill 94 returns us to suffragette era politics, where some women (i.e. white ones) got the vote while others didn’t; since if you’re wearing a niqab you can’t vote.

To me one of the most appalling things about Bill 94 is that it is actually being sold as a gender equity thing. More from the Star:

Critics of the niqab say they subjugate women and their right to equality. After a woman was removed this month from a French-language class for refusing to remove her niqab, Christine St-Pierre, Quebec’s minister responsible for the status of women, called niqabs “ambulatory prisons.” On Wednesday, St-Pierre said Quebec was a “world leader” when it comes to gender equality, and with Bill 94, “we prove it once again.”

How many times does it have to be said that gender equity is about giving women the right to make their own choices?  If a woman’s choice is to wear a niqab, BARRING her from wearing one by removing access to work, childcare, healthcare and education is the absolute opposite of gender equality.

I cannot say enough how disgusting and dishonest this is.  If this bill was motivated by a real concern for women made to wear the niqab against their will, wouldn’t it make more sense to partner with organisations for Muslim women and/or organisations for women fleeing abuse and violence?

Instead, this legislation is being championed primarily by white men and women who are not Muslim.

Since I am getting too apoplectic to be articulate, let’s see what other people are saying about Bill 94.

The Non/No to Bill 94 Coalition writes in their statement:

Bill 94, if approved, will perpetuate gender inequality by legislating control over women’s bodies and sanctioning discrimination against Muslim women who wear the niqab. Instead of singling out a minuscule percentage of the population, government resources would be better spent implementing poverty reduction and education programs to address real gender inequality in meaningful ways. Barring any woman from social services, employment, health, and education, as well as creating a climate of shame and fear around her is not an effective means to her empowerment….“Rescuing” women is paternalistic and insulting. Further marginalizing Muslim women who wear niqab and denying them access to social services, economic opportunities and civic participation is unacceptable.

Forcing a woman to reveal part of her body is no different from forcing her to be covered.

Jessica writing for Bitch points out the silliness of the whole “identity theft” defense, and also asks why there aren’t more feminists getting het up about this:

“Let’s be honest. The majority of identity theft is done by people WITHOUT head coverings. To date there hasn’t been any records of impersonation by someone wearing a niqab.”

Now the intersection – what are feminists saying about this issue?

To me this is an obvious feminist issue through and through, and it goes way beyond a human rights injustice. I’m checking myself as an ally to Muslim women, and supporting their right to bodily autonomy and self-determination.

However I’ll tell you this much – the amount of mainstream feminist response I’ve read regarding the lack of inclusion of contraception and abortion in maternal child health from Canada’s Conservative government in the G8 summit far exceeds the coverage I’ve seen regarding the niqab ban. In fact, I’ve barely seen any feminist press at all on the niqab ban. And I’m not surprised – reproductive rights gets lots of feminist attention, even if not mainstream media coverage. Intersecting race and culture? Not so much.

Krista at Muslimah Media Watch quotes a few statistics that brings to light the completely unncessary nature of Bill 94:

The only thing I want to do here is highlight part of this article, which puts into context just how overblown the whole issue is:

One Muslim group argued Wednesday that Quebec’s political oxygen was being unnecessarily sucked up by debate over a microscopic number of cases.

The Muslim Council of Montreal says there may be only around 25 Muslims in Quebec who actually wear face-coverings.

Of the more than 118,000 visitors to the health board’s Montreal office in 2008-09 only 10 people — or less than 0.00009 per cent of cases — involved niqab-wearers who asked for special dispensation. There were zero such cases among the 28,000 visitors to the Quebec City service centre over the same time period.

So, everyone who’s freaking out about how Quebecois culture as we know it is going to crumble if people are allowed to wear niqab can probably breathe easy.

Quebec is using precious voter time and money (and let me tell you, as a Canadian that money really is precious – Canada’s social resources are notoriously stretched) to cause a national (perhaps international) scandal over 25 women.

So again, let’s be honest.  This is not about the 25 women in Quebec who wear niqabs.  Like the minaret ban in Switzerland or the burqa ban in France, (and these legislations similarly kick up a huge amount of fuss over a tiny portion of the population), this is about Islamophobia, xenophobia and racism, of which Quebec (and Canada) has a rich and storied history.  This old Feministe article from 2007, written around the time that Quebec released an earlier set of legislation barring women wearing the niqab from election polls, does a pretty good job of recounting that history.  If anyone has more recent data please send it our way.

The worst part yet? Polls suggest a majority of Canadians support this bill.

Please visit, forward and join the Non/No Bill 94 Coalition.  Their website is here, and this is their full statement:

Quebec Premier Jean Charest has proposed legislation which, if approved by the National Assembly of Quebec, would deny essential government services, public employment, educational opportunities, and health care to people who wear facial coverings. Bill 94 specifically targets Muslim women who wear the niqab (face veil). The bill is an exaggerated response to a manufactured crisis that will allow the government to deny women services to which they are entitled. A truly democratic society is one in which all individuals have the freedom of religious expression and a right to access public services.

Although touted as a step toward gender equality, Bill 94, if approved, will perpetuate gender inequality by legislating control over women’s bodies and sanctioning discrimination against Muslim women who wear the niqab. Instead of singling out a minuscule percentage of the population, government resources would be better spent implementing poverty reduction and education programs to address real gender inequality in meaningful ways. Barring any woman from social services, employment, health, and education, as well as creating a climate of shame and fear around her is not an effective means to her empowerment. If Premier Charest’s government is truly committed to gender equality it should foster a safe and inclusive society which promotes and protects all women’s personal autonomy. Standing up for women’s rights is admirable. “Rescuing” women is paternalistic and insulting. Further marginalizing Muslim women who wear niqab and denying them access to social services, economic opportunities and civic participation is unacceptable.

Forcing a woman to reveal part of her body is no different from forcing her to be covered. Both the Conservative and Liberal parties have expressed support for Bill 94, which raises the very real possibility that similar legislation will be proposed across Canada. We demand that Bill 94 be withdrawn immediately, as it has no place in a democratic state that values autonomy, liberty and justice.

We invite all individuals and groups of conscience inside and outside of Quebec to publicly or privately endorse this statement by emailing their name(s), location (city, state/province, and country), and contact information to nonbill94 [at] gmail [dot] com

The Non/No Bill 94 Coalition is made up of concerned individuals, organizations and grassroots movements that are demanding that the proposed Quebec legislation, Bill 94, be withdrawn immediately.

–

Image from the Non/No Bill 94 Coalition

Last night, I filled out my Census form. Have you filled yours out yet? Here’s a fun PSA just launched by our friends at Arowana Films, who try to break it down in a way people can understand: it all comes down to $$$.

Asian Americans are one of the most likely groups to throw out their Census forms. This only hurts our own community in the long run. Less numbers, less money. Let’s get it right this decade and make sure we GET COUNTED!

The PSA features folks like Far East Movement, Wong Fu, Randall Park and more. With goofy voiceover work from Anson Ho. Watch it here. And spread the word! In 2010, make sure the Asian American community gets counted.

We are late on picking up the story of Nazia Quazi, a Canadian woman being held against her will in Saudi Arabia.

The Coast recently ran an interview with Quazi, explaining her situation:

A Canadian woman being held against her will in Saudi Arabia says the Canadian government is not taking her plight seriously.

Nazia Quazi was taken to Saudi Arabia by her father in November 2007. Because of that country’s archaic gender laws, women of any age are subject to male “guardianship.” In the 24-year-old Quazi’s case, her father has taken her passport, and refuses to sign an exit visa allowing her to leave the country…

Her family moved to Canada in 2001, although Quazi says her father has maintained a residence in Saudi Arabia, where he works for a bank, for 25 years. Quazi went to high school in Canada and became a citizen in 2005.

In 2007 she traveled on holiday to Dubai to visit her boyfriend. But when her parents learned of the trip, they flew to Dubai to intervene. Her father took her to India, and then to Saudi Arabia on a three-month visa. But, without her knowledge or consent, Quazi’s father changed the visa to a permanent visa.

Ever since, she says, she has been pleading with the Canadian embassy to intervene, but has gotten next to no response.

“When I try to contact them, I don’t get a positive response of any kind. They always say, ‘we’re still trying, we haven’t heard anything yet, but when we do we will let you know.’ There’s never a real straight-up answer to me, to my face. I’m just waiting for them to do something, waiting for something to happen.

…Citing privacy law, a spokesperson with the ministry of foreign affairs declined to comment specifically on Quazi’s case, but said the Canadian consulate in Saudi Arabia is aware of a Canadian citizen’s request for help and is “taking steps” to provide that help.

But a two-year-plus wait for resolution to Quazi’s case has raised accusations that the Harper government is not supportive of women generally.

Katha Pollitt at The Nation has written about Quazi quite a bit, providing this roundup of media coverage on her case earlier this month:

Little by little, the media is picking up on Nazia’s story. On March 8, International Women’s Day, CBC’s Connect with Mark Kelley featured a terrific interview with Shahla Khan Salter of Muslims for Progressive Values Ottawa. Watch it here and then leave a comment here.

As Shahla makes clear, Nazia’s story is not about Islam or “Muslim values” or multiculturalism or a clash of civilizations or any of those other buzz words floating around. There are plenty of Muslims who support women’s rights. Nazia’s story is about men’s control of women, an unbelievably oppressive government, and Canada’s shameful failure to help one of its own citizens.

I’m glad that Pollitt included that quote from Shahla Khan Salter, and it appears to me that this story is not about Islam at all, but rather about two different countries’ grotesque violation of women’s rights, one through direct oppression and the other through incompetence and indifference.

It is horrifying that Quazi has no rights in Saudi Arabia. It is depressing and frustrating that the Canadian government is not helping her.   Pollitt writes in a different article:

How far have women come if a democratic, secular country like Canada permits a father to imprison his adult daughter in the cage of Saudi laws?

While obviously I am very happy (very!) to live in countries where I have a much greater access to basic rights than I would in Saudi Arabia, I don’t believe that democracy or secularism  are necessarily guarantors of women’s rights.  Especially at this point in time, with the Stephen Harper’s conservative government in power in Canada – a government which has, since its inception,  “run roughshod” over women’s rights. (You should also check out Jessica’s older posts for more testimonial on the mess that is the Harper government.)  Quazi is a woman of colour and a first generation immigrant, and this is a Canadian government that has shown itself to care very little  about people like Quazi.

We need to advocate for Quazi.  Politt offers a number of ways that we can help:

What can you do? If you’re Canadian, get involved in this Human Rights Watch campaign. If you’re not, you can still write a polite note to the Foreign Secretary to express your concern and urge prompt action:

The Honourable Lawrence Cannon
Minister of Foreign Affairs
House of Commons
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0A6
Email: Cannon.L@parl.gc.ca

Also, you can write the Saudi ambassador to the US:

Adel A. Al-Jubeir
Ambassador
Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia
601 New Hampshire Avenue
NW
Washington, DC 20037
press@saudiembassy.net

And to the Saudi Ambassador to Canada:

Mr. Asaad Al-Zuhair
Ambassador
Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia
99 Bank Street Suite 901, ,br/> Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K1P 6B9

Join the ‘Help Nazia Quazi Come Back to Canada’ Facebook page to show your support and keep up with the latest developments.

And if you are a young woman or trans person who self-identifies as Muslim, I would seriously recommend that you check out AQSAZine run by a collective of young Muslim women and trans folks working to resist violence.   The following is from their website, and you can also find them on Twitter and Facebook:

AQSAZINE is a grassroots zine open to 16-35 year old women and trans people who self-identify as Muslim. It is a creative avenue for us to express ourselves, share our experiences, and connect with others. In Arabic, “aqsa” implies the furthermost, as in reaching out to the furthest possible point. AQSAZINE aims to motivate the utmost resistance to violence in all its forms. 16-year-old Aqsa Parvez, who was murdered on December 10th, 2007, also inspires this zine. It is to honour her and other Muslims who experience and resist violence. We strive to work from a feminist, anti-oppressive, pro-choice, queer and trans positive framework.

–

Photo from The Coast

Racialicious’ Note: Racebending is a site that was set up in response to the whitewashed casting of The Last Airbender. Racebending has since extended its reach to discuss the poor representation of people of colour in film and tv in general.

In case you missed the headline yesterday, Facebook has banned the Racebending.com group, implying we were “hateful, threatening, or obscene.”

The response from the community has been overwhelming and we are extremely grateful to all of you who spoke out in solidarity with the cause. Strong voices of dissent emerged, led by respected names in the Asian American community such as Asian Pop writer Jeff Yang, comic artist Tak Toyoshima, and Oiyan Poon of APAs for Progress.

We are still trying to contact Facebook for an explanation. In the meantime, we encourage our members to join our Facebook page or follow our Twitter for the latest.

Hopefully we’ll be able to open a dialogue with Facebook soon on this subject. It did get us wondering, however: what does it take to get your group banned? What – besides open discussion of racial issues in American media – does Facebook consider “hateful, threatening, or obscene”?

As it turns out, we beat out some stiff competition for the ban. A few minutes’ searching Facebook groups turned up quite a lot of material. We were very surprised that these groups satisfy Facebook’s “Terms of Service” and merit continued broadcasting on the social networking site. Given that these groups are thriving under Facebook’s policies, getting banned is almost an accomplishment.

Let’s take a look.

Facebook Asks Why Can’t Asians Drive?

First up, this group is a “Just for Fun” example of blatant racism, with slurs against the mentally handicapped thrown in for good measure. The ensemble is completed with the use of stereotypical “ching chong” font.

Facebook Accepts Rape Jokes

Apparently extracting humor from the victims of sexual assault is not sufficient for a group to be removed from Facebook. There are actually several groups based on this theme – easily thousands of members when added altogether.

Facebook Hosts “F*CK ISLAM”

This group is called “F*CK ISLAM.” The group explains its position:

There are many races to be found in islam. It’s your ideology we are revolted and annoyed by. I don’t care what colour you are. You are primitives. What’s worse is that you are primitives with access to modern weapons that your semi-evolved brains couldn’t ever have created on your own.”

It goes on for pages and pages, but this is the basic gist and tone of the group’s message.

Facebook Accepts the BNP

Last, we have the official Facebook group of the BNP (British National Party). For those unfamiliar with British politics, this Wikipedia entry may prove enlightening.

Their aim is to restore the pre-1948 demographics of the country by “firm incentives” for “immigrants and their descendants to return home.” Since 1982, they have fought hard to repeal British anti-discrimination laws. From their chairman:

Our fundamental determination to secure a future for white children is restated … We don’t hate anyone, especially the mixed race children who are the most tragic victims of enforced multi-racism, but that does not mean that we accept miscegenation as moral or normal. We do not and we never will.”
-Nick Griffin, Chairman of the BNP

Perhaps it’s not that these groups don’t violate the Facebook Terms of Service. Perhaps Racebending.com – a safe space for the open discussion of race in American media by consumers of American media – was simply deemed a high-priority for banning: something particularly “threatening” to users of Facebook, to casual readers. Perhaps the dialogue taking place among its six thousand members about where Americans of color fit into the national landscape was considered especially dangerous – especially incendiary, especially worthy of silence and censorship.

Unfortunately for them, the attempts at censorship have had the opposite effect: the community is speaking up. We’re louder than ever. And we’re not going away.

It’s the first time that 1 in every 100 adult Americans is in prison, proof of an exploding prison system that our country can ill afford and a movement away from rehabilitation programs. Even more disturbing are the racial disparities within the prison system. More than 60% of people in prison are racial and ethnic minorities which means that 1 in every 36 Hispanic adults and 1 in every 15 black adults are in prison. How did this all happen? A change in laws and policies over the past decade have convicted more offenders, including non violent offenders, and put them away for increasingly lengthy sentences. For many, it is a system that is not providing the same returns in public safety in relation to this growth, and a rapid movement to change unfair laws has seen growing progress.

The 1980’s saw the “War on Drugs” launched in a big way. It was also the time for many federal policies that disadvantaged communities of color. One example: sentences for crack cocaine offenses (the kind found in poor Black communities) that were treated a 100 times more severely than powder cocaine offenses (the kind that dominates White communities). According to the Drug Policy Alliance Network,

Reform advocates say no other single federal policy is more responsible for gross racial disparities in the federal criminal justice system than the crack/powder sentencing disparity. Even though two-thirds of crack cocaine users are white, more than 80 percent of those convicted in federal court for crack cocaine offenses are African American.

The differences in sentencing were based on a myth that crack cocaine was more dangerous than powder cocaine and that it was instantly addictive and caused violent behavior, all of which has been disproved. What it’s actually led to is a costly system that focuses on low-level offenders and users instead of dealers and suppliers, imprisoning addicts that could benefit from rehabilitation programs. One analysis by Senator Richard Durbin, a Democrat of Illinois, estimates that an increased focus on community programs and an end to the sentencing disparity could lead to a savings of half-a-billion dollars in prison costs.

With mounting pressure on Congress to do away with legislation that has devastated communities, we are at an opportune moment to instill justice back into the system. While The House Judiciary Committee has already passed a bill that ends the sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine, the Senate Judiciary Committee will likely vote on a bill soon. Some Senators want to reduce the sentencing disparity instead of eliminating it but this watered-down compromise will do little to restore fairness. Let the Senators hear your voice.

We were excited to get this announcement from the Mixed Race Film & Literary Festival in the Racialicious mailbox:

The 3rd Annual Mixed Roots Film & Literary Festival will take place at the Japanese American National Museum, 369 East 1st Street, June 12-13, 2010, in downtown Los Angeles.

The Festival is currently accepting film, literary, performance, and workshop submissions.

The Mixed Roots Film & Literary Festival, a fiscally sponsored project of the New York Foundation for the Arts, is gearing up once again to celebrate the storytelling of the Mixed racial and cultural experience, from interracial and intercultural relationships, to transracial and transcultural adoptions, and, anyone who identifies as having a biracial, multiracial, Hapa or Mixed identity.

In the last two years, the Festival has showcased many talented filmmakers, writers, and performers including Rebecca Walker, Kip Fulbeck, Danzy Senna, Angela Nissel, Sundee Frasier, Karyn Parsons and many more.

The 2010 Festival will bring together innovative artists, film and book lovers, multiracial individuals and families for two days of writing and film workshops, readings, film screenings, and live performances. Events are free and open to the public.

The call for submissions for films, workshops and readings and performances by writers, actors, comedians and musicians is open now until March 1. There is no submission fee. However, entries received after March 1 and by March 20 MUST pay a $50 late entry fee. No entries will be accepted after March 20. For specific submission requirements and festival information visit: http://www.mxroots.org.

Reader Ray tipped us off to this musical currently playing at the Edinburgh Theatre Festival: Mercy Madonna of Malawi.

Putting an African spin on the story of four-year-old Mercy James who was adopted by the original Material Girl earlier this year, Mercy Madonna of Malawi is an upbeat musical that takes stock of a world in which a global superstar and a developing nation can find common ground. Without taking sides, it asks whether it is right for a child to be taken away from her culture if it means enjoying a life of privilege.

No matter what I might think of trans-racial/cultural adoption, I think it’s really admirable that Mercy Madonna of Malawi is trying to portray both sides of the adoption debate without judgement. And as reader Ray said, the fact that Madonna is being played by a man makes the whole thing even more intriguing.

I mean, you gotta love that picture.

If you’re lucky enough to be in Edinburgh, Mercy Madonna of Malawi runs Aug 7-31 at the World @ St George’s West. And let us know what you think of it!

(Above: Police arrive with heavy reinforcements to forcefully remove demonstrators PHOTO: Thomas Quirynen)

The rhetoric was sharp enough to cut down Amazonian hardwoods. Yesterday, Sunday June 7th, after a number of ministers had been paraded out Saturday and the day before, Peru’s el Señor Presidente, Alan Garcia decided to make it personal. After a joint police-military operation aimed at stopping an Indigenous protest had gone awry, leaving many dead on both sides, Garcia declared the Indigenous elements to be standing in the way of progress, in the path of national development, wrenches in the gears of modernity, and part of an international conspiracy to keep Peru down. In a troubling statement on the resemblance of the Indigenous protesters to the infamous Sendero Luminoso (Shining Path) armed insurrection, Garcia seemed to imply the Natives were a band of terrorists as he stood in front of hundreds of military officers in a nationally televised speech. He continued to decry the Indian barbarity and savagery, and called for all police and military to stand against savagery.

Clearly, the battle lines were being drawn. Garcia demonstrated he is not about to allow anything to get in the way of “our development” of the oil and mineral resources the Amazon has to offer. Especially by a bunch of confused savages (his words) who are pawns to the international market and to Indian elites and therefore have no real reason to be resisting. At this point, it was obvious he thought nothing of the Indigenous cause, and what they actually stood for. There is too much money to be extracted from oil, from minerals, from logging, and from possible agriculture in the Amazon region, the 2nd largest stretch outside of Brazil. All on land with less than 200,000 Indigenous people. All now supposed to be open for business, as a result of a series of laws passed under the auspices of Free Trade Agreements signed with both Canada and the United States.

(Above: Indigenous protestors confront the police on the highway outside Bagua PHOTO: Thomas Quirynen)

All those who lost their lives – certainly more than the 30 or so officially cited – have in the end given their lives for these free trade agreements and their domestic implementation. After wresting a concession from Congress – a la Bush – Garcia was able to push through 99 changes to the law of Peru. A number of these were ruled unconstitutional later, one dealing with property law standing out. Indigenous groups disputed from the beginning that these laws threatened the integrity of the Amazon, its cultural and biological diversity. Since the beginning, they were ignored. Living up to their Amazonian warrior mythology, they decided to take action.

Protests have lasted now over 50 days, only recently erupting into bloodshed when Garcia suspended civil liberties, declared a state of emergency, and decided to send in the military to end the dispute. This was all done in the name of Garcia’s idea of ‘democracy,’ which should be farcical to anyone who has the least idea what democracy means. Indigenous groups have maintained they want to be included in this so-called democracy, meaning they have a say over what happens in their lands, and that their rights be respected. This is clearly within international law now, after the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was approved two years ago.

(Above: Police take away so called Indigenous ‘terrorist’ PHOTO: Thomas Quirynen)

The Declaration lays out provisions that clearly establish the rights to free, prior and informed consent over development projects in Indigenous territories, and the right to be involved in any decision making processes that would impact on Indigenous Peoples’ lands, resources or rights. Repeated demands have called for there to be dialogue with Indigenous groups. Garcia’s response? Yes, there has been dialogue – within the government, by elected officials. Obviously, this hasn’t done enough to safeguard the rights, the lives, and the livelihoods of Amazon peoples, and a number of the new laws have been shown to be unconstitutional. Indigenous leaders quickly condemned the tragic loss of lives as the fault of the government, who was not committed to dialogue, but arms. Even the ex-president has placed the blame on Garcia for not seeking dialogue with Indigenous representatives.

Lamentably, this whole situation could have easily been prevented, had the government cared enough about its own citizens’ lives and effective dialogue more than getting its own way. Instead, on Friday morning, police and military descended on an Indigenous encampment near the Amazonian towns of Bagua Chica and Bagua Grande. Reports from the ground contradict the government version, in which security forces, reluctant to use force, were ambushed and had to defend themselves with bombs, helicopters, and machine guns. Other reports establish that a private meeting was held between the military, the Indigenous leadership, and a local bishop, among others, the night before the violence. Indigenous groups were reportedly given until 10am to make a decision to leave or stay, and were guaranteed that nothing would happen until then. In response, many decided to go home. But the government apparently lied. The operation started around 6am.

Local sources instead claim they were sleeping, unarmed, when bullets were fired in their direction. When the police finally arrived to physically remove protesters, it was then that many police were disarmed, killed, or taken prisoner by the masses of protesters, probably numbering over 2,000 in days prior, now down to a few hundred. By now, the war had been declared, and wouldn’t stop well into the night as police and military continued in a violent sweep, ending up going into the towns and reportedly searching house by house in vengeance. Police entered with weapons of war against civilians. Now the military has been reported to be wearing civilian clothing to carry out what seems more and more to resemble a civil war. Families decry that they haven’t been allowed to enter the areas to search for missing family, or enter jails to visit and feed prisoners. All this done in a declared state of emergency, with many liberties and human rights withdrawn for local citizens.

Then came the outrage. But not by locals or Indigenous groups, though that was palpable. By the very same government who initiated the action. Their reports came out throughout the next day – a dozen security forces murdered in cold blood, maybe 3 Indians hurt. Now 24 police and military cruelly assassinated, about 9 Indians dead (no information how). The choice of words is translated from government pronouncements, and reflects their dim view of Indigenous deaths, despite many being civilians, with a few children among those murdered.

(Above: Battle continues in Bagua town PHOTO: AIDESEP)

On the other side, Indigenous groups reported at least 30 civilians and Natives were killed, but also that government officials had gone through lengths to disappear some of the bodies, a claim documented by Amazon Watch (see link below). Some AIDESEP members in the communities dispute that the number is much higher, closer to 100, including peasants and civilians. Video evidence clearly shows Natives armed only with spears against a tactical unit in one confrontation, and photos show police firing live weapons from the roofs, reportedly into crowds gathered below. A national newspaper even reported that one could clearly find pictures of more than a dozen Natives and civilians dead, online. No matter, the numbers had suddenly taken on a new importance.

This had been the worst episode of violence since the 90′s, so one might think the government might want to cut its losses and signal a shift towards more productive measures. Indeed, both sides could claim that they lost a number of lives, impetus to stop the bloodshed. Except that the war had already been declared, and may only be heating up. Hence the president’s fiery rhetoric, about how dare the savage Indians hurt our humble police, who didn’t want to raise their weapons. With their claim of nearly 30 deaths to the Indians’ 9 pushed them to call it a massacre (matanza, masacre) and seemed to pave the ethical and emotional road towards stronger retaliation, as all news channels were flooded with pictures of the soldiers bodies being flown out. The president of the ministers’ congress today appeared before congress and on national television to decry all the foreign news reports that fail to coincide with official numbers. Not only that, of course, these Natives were getting in the way of our development, of our modernity, denying us our basic human rights. Many of these government claims are thin disguises to misrepresent the Indigenous movement and its positions.

Take the issue of development. Indigenous communities have repeatedly said they aren’t against development, but it has to be a different kind of development, one more responsible. A reasonable claim, especially considering that the loss of the Amazon rainforest is one of the top drivers of climate change. On the issue of leadership and responsibility, the government has maintained that this was a top-down movement led by Alberto Pizango, president of AIDESEP, the Interethnic Association for the Development of the Peruvian Rainforest, an Indigenous organization with representation from Amazon communities. This flies in the face of the history of the protest, which has literally involved thousands of communities, and shown itself to be led by local communities in their own decision making structures. The government has instead tried to pin the blame on Pizango as the main instigator, as a political agent of other parties or perhaps other countries, and a criminal mastermind who has tricked his followers into rallying against perfectly good legislation. They have gone so far as to issue a warrant for his arrest now, with many news reports hinting he has fled to Bolivia, and the Indigenous leadership have lost contact with him.

The other easily disputed claim is that this is an Indigenous movement uniquely, the implication being that this does not apply to anyone non-Indigenous, and others should repudiate the movement. It is well known in and around the Amazonian towns, however, that there have consistently been Mestizos, those of mixed race who make a slim majority of Peruvians, as part of the movement. In recent days reportedly a number of disenfranchised army reservists also decided to join the Indigenous cause. Looking at the protests in and around Bagua, it can clearly be seen that as many as half the protesters were not Indigenous, but were there in support. Also in the past, it has been a number of labour unions and farmer groups that have participated in national strikes, concerned over the same free trade agreements as Amazon communities. The implications here are critical, though, and seem to seek a precedent in declaring the Indigenous movement to be a criminal, or even terrorist, movement and outlaw their activities, organizations, and politics.

What comes next? On the Indigenous side, there have been calls for a national strike on Thursday, the 11th. In this case, many labour groups have been involved from the beginning, so it remains to be seen whether this will go farther than strikes in the past, which have shut down vital transportation and oil infrastructure, as well as Machu Picchu, the main tourist destination of Peru. Indigenous leaders have said, however, their protest will continue until they are able to renegotiate the controversial laws. On the government side, we can only wait and hope for the best. If the inflamed words and rallying of the troops are any indication, however, they may be getting ready to try and strike down harder on the Indigenous movement sooner rather than later. Reports have come in that Special Forces have been seen in the area. All this may spell out more bloodshed in the name of democracy. However, they are also acutely aware they are under the international microscope right now, despite the lack of substantial media reporting about the situation here in Peru.

And that may be where hope rests. This is a critical moment, as the government plans its next steps. There needs to be a strong international focus on Peru, to let them know they cannot get away with more human rights abuses. Already, protests are planned across the United States, with more in planning in Canada. Letters have been sent to the government and to representatives at embassies around the world. AIDESEP has called for a national inquiry into the events of Bagua and the deaths. They have also issued a request for an international observer committee to come and be witnesses to the situation. A national strike is planned for this Thursday, with participation from diverse groups, calling for resolution to the situation and the resignation of Alan Garcia. AIDESEP is also collecting funds to aid in its work and support observers to get into the region.

A curfew has been imposed. Amazonian towns have been militarized. AIDESEP officials are in communication with the communities that there are many missing, many presumed dead. The government has begun persecuting and threatening jail for Indigenous leaders, while the leaders have said they are ready to go to jail to defend their rights. The fear is growing that the government is trying to build support to further repress Indigenous groups. This is not a path to peace and reconciliation.

For now, the protests will continue. If we are serious about safeguarding the human rights of the Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples of the Amazon, we need to act now. The violent repression of Indigenous protests and the loss of civil liberties must come to an end. If we want to protect and preserve the Amazon, and its bio-cultural diversity, especially in the face of climate change, there is no better protection than keeping it under the control of those who have maintained it forever. The free trade laws that open up the Amazon to logging, mining, oil and agroindustry must be suspended. Indigenous Peoples’ rights – to self-determination, to their lands and resources, to their lives – must be protected and guaranteed. If we are to stop other atrocities and bloodshed, the battle line must be withdrawn, immediately, and there must be dialogue.

For up-to-date information and planned actions: http://peruanista.blogspot.com/

So far actions are planned in Canada, the US, Australia, India and more.

Website of AIDESEP: Aidesep, pueblos indígenas amazónicos del Peru | Portada

Donations can be made to “SOLIDARIDAD AIDESEP”, at
Bank Name: Banco de Crédito del Perú
Account number: 193-1070011-1-01
Account name: AIDESEP-VARIOS
Swift Code: BCPLPEPL
Address: Jr. Lampa 499, Cercado de Lima, Peru

Peruvian news network, with many (shocking) videos: http://enlacenacional.com/

Collection of actions to take and media sources: http://beckermanlegal.com/Peru.htm

In depth analysis of the situation: https://nacla.org/node/5879

AmazonWatch investigates disposed bodies: http://www.amazonwatch.org/newsroom/view_news.php?id=1843

Send a letter to Peruvian officials: http://amazonwatch.org/peru-action-alert.php

Preliminary blog: Calm at the Center of the Storm: Reporting from the Amazonian Peoples’ Headquarters in Lima | rabble.ca

More photos: http://www.flickr.com/photos/powless/sets/72157619320374511/

Democracy Now! Report: http://intercontinentalcry.org/democracy-now-reports-on-bagua-massacre/

News Report from Australia: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/06/08/2592391.htm?section=world

On April 22, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in the case of Ricci, et. Al, v. DeStefano, et al., a case brought by seventeen firefighters who claim that they were discriminated against by the City of New Haven after the City decided to throw out the results of a required advancement exam. The New York Times story notes:

Mr. Ricci did well, he said, coming in sixth among the 77 candidates who took the exam. But the city threw out the test, because none of the 19 African-American firefighters who took it qualified for promotion. That decision prompted Mr. Ricci and 17 other white firefighters, including one Hispanic, to sue the city, alleging racial discrimination. [...]

The city says it was merely trying to comply with a federal law that views job requirements like promotional tests with great suspicion when they disproportionately disfavor minority applicants.

“The fact of the matter is it’s a flawed test,” said Victor A. Bolden, the city’s acting corporation counsel.

Mr. Bolden added that he had sympathy for Mr. Ricci. “There’s no question that there are people who are disappointed,” he said. “But disappointment doesn’t lead to a discrimination claim.”

The promotion exam was offered in the fall of 2003, and no one has been promoted since, Mr. Bolden said.

The suit brought by Mr. Ricci and his colleagues says that the city’s rationale for throwing out the test is illegitimate and that they were denied a chance for promotion on account of the color of their skin.

Since this made the Court’s docket, it officially became a matter of serious weight. I called together some of the other correspondents and we had a chat about what this case means, what it could mean for industries that seem to just stay segregated, and the unanswered questions we still have after examining the available briefs and news articles. – LDP

Fatemeh: So I don’t feel like I have anything to weigh in on this “reverse racism” fuckery.

Latoya: Why?

Fatemeh: Because I feel like there are angles I’m not seeing. But also because I can’t get past the technicalities: no one was actually denied from having a job because of his race.

Latoya: Makes sense. I wonder if that’s why everyone else is hesitating. Even Carmen is hesitant to comment.

Fatemeh: Yet “African-Americans held 32 percent of the entry-level positions in the Fire Department in 2007, according to data compiled by the city, but only 15 percent of the supervisory positions.” That makes it sound (to me) like there aren’t equal opportunities for advancement for black firefighters.

Latoya: Is the test racially biased? Because that’s part what is being argued. I wonder if the court will maintain that testing measures are colorblind, and therefore race should not be a consideration.

Fatemeh: I’m sort of skeptical that the test is colorblind. Some guy in the story is like, “You learn everything you need to know on the job here.” With that reasoning, everyone should have the same amount of knowledge when they take the tests, and everyone should do about the same, right? So a few outliers who have better training, or worked harder to study, or whatever, will get higher scores and be promoted. So if the test is not racially biased, then black firefighters would score similarly to white ones.

Latoya: True. And that’s what also makes this so weird. What I am concerned about is that this could easily set a precedent for hiring decisions and ideas.

Fatemeh: Exactly.

Latoya: If they decide whites are unfairly discriminated against for their achievements, what kind of messages will that reinforce?

Fatemeh: Straight-up white privilege. “I worked hard to get where I am!” Of course you did. But why did you advance, when your black coworker worked just as hard (or harder) and hasn’t gotten where you are?

Latoya: How will it impact the advertising industry, that has been hit with civil rights cases but still maintains a heavily white workforce? Are they off the hook now?

Fatemeh: I’m confused; how do you link the ad industry to this?

Latoya: A Supreme Court decision has long reaching effects. This isn’t just going to impact firefighting. It impacts anything with a racial disparity component. So in predominantly white industries, I am concerned that if the court comes down on the side of the plaintiffs, it will deliver other industries a get out of jail free card.

Fatemeh: Okay, I get you. The ad industry is a huge example of a racially disparate workforce.

Latoya: Industries that have been proven to be discriminatory may be able to take this law and twist it to maintain the status quo.

Fatemeh: I see your concern now, Latoya. Do you think there would be a way to prove that the test is racially biased? Could they offer up numbers of black supervisors compared to white ones, even though the black & white populations in the department aren’t drastically different?

Thea: I read this “The city says it was merely trying to comply with a federal law that views job requirements like promotional tests with great suspicion when they disproportionately disfavor minority applicants.” and I was glad that the city is so proactive about tests that produce racially disproportionate results.

At the same time – and maybe this is out of character! – I feel for the guys who studied hard, did well, and then had their tests thrown out. I don’t think it’s accurate for them to call discrimination; i.e. say that they have been disadvantaged on the basis of their race. However I do agree that it’s not totally fair. There’s a difference right, between something that is unfair and something that is unfair on the basis of race?

This just seems like such a mismanagement on the part of the system. It creates divisions between ethnic groups. Again I don’t think the white firefighters had grounds to call discrimination, but I think they had the right to be pissed off and complain about it.

I dunno, it’s a weird case and I see why people are hesitant to speak about it. Yes it was unfair, but I also agree with you Latoya that it could set precedents that will get twisted around.

Incidentally I’ve heard that the majority of the human rights complaints filed to the Ontario Human Rights Commission are filed by straight white male professionals…

Latoya: Thea, agreed. I can definitely feel the frustration there – but I’m not sold that in it self constitutes racial bias. Art, what do you think about the case?

Arturo: One thing that stuck out the most:

This test and the department handling of it seem to be very flawed going in — the minority failure rate going in should have been raising flags before this case went up the flagpole.

Latoya: Here’s something else that had me come up short, reading the [NYT] article:

“In a brief supporting the white firefighters, the National Association of Police Organizations saw the injection of racial politics into public safety. Promotion decisions should be based on merit, the group said. Race-neutral decisions foster camaraderie and a sense of fairness, it added, saying that people who work in public safety “are, in the main, effectively colorblind.””

Latoya: Maybe I’m just a little jaded.

Fatemeh: Red flags go off when I hear the word “colorblind.”

Latoya: But I don’t trust the fact that people who work in public safety are colorblind. Not police. Not social workers. Not the people who decide ecologically unsafe materials go into minority neighborhoods.

Fatemeh: Exactly! This colorblind bull isn’t really fooling anybody!

Arturo: I’d love to have seen somebody from NAPO get called to the stand to prove that remark.

Latoya: Yeah, especially post Oscar Grant. There are still major issues with discrimination.

Fatemeh: Mm-hmm. This whole case seems kinda sketch.

Arturo: Not to mention the Court it’s going to. I shudder at the thought of Antonin Scalia writing about this.

Latoya: Word.

Fatemeh: OH, sweet gawd.

Latoya: Justice Roberts seems to be of the mind that if we all ignore the issues of race and discrimination, they will magically vanish.

Arturo: Another question: why would NAPO, in effect, ignore the findings of the International Assn. of Black Firefighters?

Fatemeh: I wish we knew more about this precinct. Ricci was #6, so he wouldn’t be the in the top five considered for promotion. If he doesn’t even get to be promoted, why is he fighting for this? Are any of the “top three” in this class-action? I wonder if there are race issues in the precinct that we don’t know about. Why go to the Supreme Court?

Latoya: We should try to get a look at the actual brief, if possible – though reading it would be a pain. The court gets that stuff delivered in boxes. Let me do some poking around – continue discussing.

Arturo: I’d want to look at the test — even the story says it uses inaccurate terminology

Fatemeh: I’ve been watching a lot of CSIs lately. I feel all sleuthy!

Arturo: Fatemeh’s got her Caruso shades on!

Latoya: Do you both think that the people who brought the case were motivated by racial resentment?

Arturo: Odds are at least some of them are

Fatemeh: Exactly.

Arturo: But there’s a disconnect here: Where does “this test is flawed” take you to “this test is biased against white people”? And where did the plaintiffs place with their results? I’d hate to think they’re making Ricci the poster boy because of his condition, but people are strange …

Fatemeh: It goes back to the “reverse racism” idea: groups of color are being given extra handouts, blah blah blah

Arturo: I’d like to know about admission standards for the NHFD. How do you let people in if you don’t think they can work their way up?

Fatemeh: Frankly, I don’t like the way the NYT framed this case. “Here’s poor Mr. Ricci, who’s worked so hard but is being denied a promotion by the big-bad PC city!”

Latoya: Fox News is going to have a field day with this

Latoya: <---looking for the SCOTUS blog post on this

Arturo: Fox: “We interrupt our live coverage of the Tea Parties to bring you NEW HAVEN UNDER SIEGE!”

Fatemeh: TEA PARTIES! AHAHAHHAA

Latoya: lol

Fatemeh: I’d love to see this article written from the other angle. “Jeffrey Simmons has worked at the NHFD for eighteen years. He’s been angling for a promotion for seventeen of those years. But the city’s discriminatory tests have kept him from advancing for those same seventeen years.” Booyakasha!

Arturo: The test itself is the key. How is nobody passing it? I would have thought performance was the biggest marker in this kind of job. Or maybe I watched “Backdraft” too many times.

Latoya: Whoa, I need to read the SCOTUS blog more often

Docket:08-833 Title: Oliver v. Quarterman Issue: Does juror consultation of the Bible during sentencing deliberations deprive a defendant of Sixth Amendment rights and what standard of proof should apply in evaluating the possible prejudice to the defendant?

Latoya: Damn. Anyway, back to searching…

Fatemeh: It sort of tickles me that SCOTUS has a blog. I wonder if they’re on Twitter? (giggle)

Fatemeh: “RBGinsburg is rolling her eyes at Scalia for the 8,000 time today.”

Arturo: bwaha

Latoya: lol

Arturo: “Antonin Scalia would rather be hunting duck”

Latoya: lol

Fatemeh: HA!

Arturo: The more I think about it, the more NAPO supporting the plaintiffs bugs me. Nice message to send your members of color.

Latoya: The message they’re sending is “You’re next.” Remember, SCOTUS sets precedents.

Latoya: WTF? Reading Scalia’s opinion on the Navajo’s claim for compensation:

“For over 15 years, the Indian Tribe known as the Navajo Nation has been pursuing a claim for money damages against the Federal Government based on an asserted breach of trust by the Secretary of the Interior in connection with his approval of amendments to a coal lease executed by the Tribe. The original lease took effect in 1964. The amendments were approved in 1987. The litigation was initiated in 1993. Six years ago, we held that “the Tribe’s claim for compensation . . . fails,” United States v. Navajo Nation, 537 U. S. 488, 493 (2003) (Navajo I), but after further proceedings on remand the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit resuscitated it. 501 F. 3d 1327 (2007). Today we hold, once again, that the Tribe’s claim for compensation fails. This matter should now be regarded as closed.”

Fatemeh: That is fucked. Up.

Latoya: They go on to say the federal government cannot be sued without their consent. Damn. Who consents to be sued?

Arturo: WOW

Fatemeh: Wha…?

Fatemeh: I feel like my head is gonna explode.

Latoya: Let’s talk a little about the role of institutional bias in these kinds of decisions.

Arturo: Are we talking about bias from the city side, or within the FD?

Fatemeh: I mean, the nat’l firefighter association is backing Ricci, the chief justice is getting all huffy about ending racial discrimination by ignoring it…

Latoya: <---heading to the SCOTUS wiki

Latoya: SCOTUS wiki FTW! http://www.scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=Ricci%2C_et_al._v._DeStefano%2C_et_al.

Latoya: all the docs, the brief, the overview

Arturo: I hate that the angle here is, “well, we just don’t wanna get sued.” (ironic, though, isn’t it?)

Latoya: LOL, very much so. And yes, this really isn’t a case motivated by justice.

Arturo: What the hell is a Concerned American Firefighter? Nevermind, i see it now: white people.

Latoya: The Anti Defamation league supports neither party. Interesting. Wonder why?

Latoya:

“The ADL has endorsed limited racial preferences in order to remedy specific discrimination, it has repeatedly opposed the non-remedial use of race-based criteria, except under highly limited circumstances in the educational context where the government can identify a compelling interest to justify them, and has narrowly tailored their use to meet those legitimate interests.”

New Haven thus far has not been put to its proofs as to whether it has a compelling interest in scrapping the test results – that is, whether, under the facts of this case, there was a “strong basis in evidence” that it would have been subject to Title VII liability. The record as it now exists leaves unresolved questions that require resolution by the District Court.

Arturo: Hm.

Latoya:

When government uses race as a decisive factor in allocating opportunity or benefits, and ignores merit and classifies people based on immutable characteristics, it violates core vales of equal protection. Even in higher education, one of the few areas in which this court has been willing to permit some limited use of race, the means by which it may permissibly be considered is far more nuanced than the approach New Haven used here. Thus, in Grutter, The University of Michigan’s Law School was allowed to take race into account in its admissions.

Latoya:

As one component of a “highly individualized, holistic review” that focused on each applicant’s talents, abilities and background. GRUTTER, 539 U.S. at 337. The process did not run afoul of equal protection because it used race as just one factor; the individualized nature of that inquiry being deemed of “paramount” importance. (In contrast, Michigan’s Undergraduate Admissions System, which essentially awarded “bonus points” to minority applicants, was struck down for doing just that, in the companion case of Gratz V. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244 (2003)).

Latoya: Good point.

Arturo: “Highly individualized” I get, but “holistic”? What an odd choice of words.

Latoya: It is. The ADL seems very pro-Ricci. I’m wondering why they have declined to support either party.

Latoya:

Another equal protection case involving public safety promotions, Cotter v. City of Boston, 193 F.sUPP.2D 323 (d.mASS. 2002), AFF ’D. IN RELEVANT PART, 323 F.3D 160, 172 & N.10 (1ST CIR. 2003), illuminates what that inquiry might look like. In Cotter, eight white Boston police officers challenged the promotion of three African American officers who received lower scores on the promotional exam for Sergent. Boston cited three interests it claimed were sufficiently compelling to justify its move: the operational impact of having a racially diverse police force, the need to remedy past discrimination within the Department, and the desire to stave off litigation it claimed would have been filed by a minority-officers’ association or the officers themselves. 193 F. sUPP. 2D AT 338. In analyzing the City’s claimed desire to avoid litigation, the District Court looked to Shaw II for guidence. 193 F. sUPP. 2D 351, citing Shaw II, 517 U.s. AT 908 N.4. 4

Arturo: And back to the lawsuits it goes. I mean, really, why would you make that public? What message does that send to anyone who *does* get promoted? You’re basically encouraging resentment against POCs with those kinds of statements.

Latoya:

Note, however, that in Cotter the record presented two significant factors in support of the City’s determination that this record lacks: 1) a documented history of past discrimination within the department and 2) expert reports showing that, under two different measures of statistical significance, the exam had a disparate impact on African-American candidates. 193 F. sUPP. 2D AT 346- 351. The record here contains no such evidence on New Haven’s behalf; indeed the City specifically declined petitioners’ request to have the test results validated. [...] New Haven thus far has not been put to its proofs as to whether it has a compelling interest in scrapping the test results – that is, whether, under the facts of this case, there was a “strong basis in evidence” that it would have been subject to Title VII liability. The record as it now exists leaves unresolved questions that require resolution by the District Court.

Thea: Is it like everyone is passing this around? Is that an accurate surmise?

Latoya: No, that’s how these cases work. They normally spend years going back and forth.

Thea: Yah, i was just going to say that’s prolly not out of the ordinary.

AJPlaid: Yep. My question is why. Why was this kicked up so quickly?

Latoya: That’s a good question. According to the filing, the lower court judges who dissented urged the court to take a look and as the NYT article stated, it’s been ages since the court ruled on race in hiring.

AJPlaid: Right. See, my instinct keeps going off.

Latoya: What’s your instinct saying?

AJPlaid: Again, this is the move that folks have been waiting for: that we don’t have to adhere to racial “preferences” anymore. And, with Obama, it’s the legal equivalent of the “post-racial” narrative enacted.

Latoya: Very true – post racial legislation and precedents. Oh, here’s something interesting. The Latinos have spoken.

Arturo: Did we leave a message?

AJPlaid: LMAO!

Latoya: Here’s what the International Association of Hispanic Firefighters Association had to say:

This Court should affirm the Second Circuit’s judgment that a decision to avoid potential discrimination is not itself discrimination. To reverse will exacerbate racial tensions in public safety departments in Connecticut and in other workplaces throughout the country by giving credence to the notion that racial justice is a zero-sum game with every win for a person of color representing a loss for a white person, or vice versa.

AJPlaid: Bingo! I’m with the Hispanic Firefighters Association with this one.

Latoya:

The City of New Haven was faced with evidence that its promotional tests had a serious adverse impact on Latinos, as well as African Americans. For the lieutenant’s exam, the pass rate for Whites was 58.14%, but for African Americans, it was 31.58%, and for Latinos, it was a mere 20%. Pet. App. 426a, 429a- 432a, 437a. The pass rate for Latinos fails the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s four-fifths rule by a wide margin, supporting an inference that the test created a serious disparate impact on Latinos, in particular. The pass rates for the captains exam were similar. On the captain’s exam, Whites passed at a rate of 64%, while African Americans and Latinos each passed at a rate of 37.5%, again, failing the four-fifths rule by a wide margin. Id. at 427a, 433a-436a, 438a.

Latoya: The briefs are fascinating. I need to read some more in defense of the respondent. But everyone is interpreting the idea of the law differently.

AJPlaid: So no one wants to say – as Thea astutely pointed out – the system or test stinks. Instead they’re saying ” AA stinks.”

Arturo: Hm. any stats on Asian applicants?

Latoya: Nothing standing out. Some of the briefs are joint filed, but nothing Asian specific.

AJPlaid: So, yeah–it would behoove the city to create a fairer *test.* The BS in the article about New Haven folks not knowing “uptown” and “downtown” is exactly that.

Arturo: It might have been a poorly-phrased way of saying those terms aren’t commonly used for specific parts of town. San Diego, for example, has neighborhoods called Downtown and Old Town. In Wichita, the downtown area *is* called Old Town.

AJPlaid: True. But, having been to New Haven…they know.

Latoya: Most of the pro-briefs are arguing that the test is race neutral and valid.

Arturo: I’d like to know who, exactly, came up with the test.

AJPlaid: Good point.

Arturo: I mean, if it was just 3 or 5 white guys …

Latoya: True, but that gets back to the ADL brief. The defendants didn’t get the test analyzed – they just chose to disregard the results. The ADL seems to want the test checked and verified with the results presented to that circuit court. So, is the onus on [the City] for this?

AJPlaid: Hmmm…I don’t think so. But perhaps, they want to be impartial arbiters before deciding which side they’re on.

Arturo: As leery as everybody seems to be of further litigation, that makes sense.

Latoya: True. I think this is as good as it’s going to get [for this discussion]. Y’all seem kind of *blech* about talking law. Which means readers will probably be blech about reading it.

Arturo: To be fair, I haven’t gone into much detail on the briefs

AJPlaid: Right, Arturo. I keep going back to this statement from Judge Arterton:

But the city’s motives were lawful, Judge Arterton said. They included fear of public criticism, the possibility of “lawsuits from minority applicants that, for political reasons, the city did not want to defend” and a desire to promote “diversity in the Fire Department” and “managerial role models for aspiring firefighters.” (NYT)

Arturo: But the argument itself is intriguing, even if there’s still a bunch of open-ended questions surrounding it.

Latoya: Right – And that’s where the two types of briefs split.

AJPlaid: Not so much *blech* , Latoya, just not on surer footing about all the angles.

Latoya: I suppose. The problem is it won’t be argued until the 22nd and it will be a while on a decision.

Arturo: That bit of evidence you presented earlier re: Latino test scores would seem to tilt things in favor of the defendants a bit.

Latoya: Well, it would depend though.

AJPlaid: On what?

Latoya: On what the court feels like is the real thrust behind this case.

AJPlaid: True.

Latoya: The petitioner supporters are all arguing that these types of hiring practices are, in fact, race neutral. And if we are willing to disregard the more race neutral forms of judging merit, then how is that getting us anywhere?

AJPlaid: But nuts-and-bolts of how AA gets implemented doesn’t appear race-neutral at all.

Latoya: Right – they are arguing that we are trying to override merit with quotas.

AJPlaid: Especially to those white folks who been used to racial preferences as a matter of course.

Latoya: Which is why some of the pro-respondent briefs were anti-quota. They argued that in this case, there was no quota – no one was promoted, so no harm, no foul.

Arturo: The counter to that argument is, if this is so “race-neutral,” why are black and latino applicants passing rates so low?

Latoya: Arturo, you know what they are going to argue in relation to that. You’ve been on this planet as long as I have. We’re *always* unqualified, even if we are.

AJPlaid: That’s it.

Latoya: And/or too lazy to study. After all, the guy with dyslexia could do it, because he *tried*

Aturo: except he *didn’t* — he wouldn’t have passed under the system, anyway.

AJPlaid: But I’d argue that’s not how AA is supposed to work. But that’s how it’s been used.

Latoya: Implication being blacks and Latinos either aren’t trying and just don’t have the aptitude. Art – also correct. We really need to try to find someone else involved in this case to get some stories from.

Arturo: Hm. Do we know if New Haven has any ethnic media?

Latoya: Not sure. Does someone want to check while I am rolling through the briefs?

Arturo: Well, there’s an “alternative” paper, the New Haven Advocate. Let me keep checking …

AJPlaid: Connecticut’s Ethnic Newspapers are here.

Arturo: Black Coalition Weekly. Hm.

Latoya: There also seems to be the assumption [in the pro-petitioner briefs] that the act of throwing out the test amounts to a race based preference, which is prohibited under the law.

AJPlaid: Still looking…

Arturo: that’s one question I’d like someone to ask: wouldn’t throwing out this test call for a re-test? And thus, wouldn’t our Mr. Ricci get another shot at making the top 3?

AJPlaid: Here’s a regional Black newspaper, coming out weekly: http://www.inqnews.com/Frontpage.php. Cursory glance: nada.

Arturo: I didn’t see anything, either.

Latoya: Ugh. This is when racial bias in the media blows me. Did they bother to interview any of the black or Latino firefighters?

Arturo: Obviously, it’s the NHFD’s fault for not having more dyslexic personnel to cover.

AJPlaid: I also see West Indian American and Inner-City News. Again, either jainky website or no website.

Arturo: I can’t even find a website for Black Coalition Weekly.

Latoya: <----sighs deeply

AJPlaid: Feel you.

Latoya: This is strange

Arturo: ?

AJPlaid: Uh-oh

Latoya: It's like everyone who is not a plaintiff vanished from public record.

AJPlaid: You know my favorite word for such things....

Arturo: Whitewash?

AJPlaid: Conspiracy.

Arturo: The FD site says the department isn't recruiting at the moment.

Latoya: I feel a mild level obsession coming on

AJPlaid: Of course not. Isn't it policy to not comment on cases, or am I dreaming?

Latoya: There has to be one person who went on record that is not a plaintiff. It's policy not to comment - but this is an old case. It was around for a while. Someone *had* to have said something before it went to trial.

AJPlaid: True.

Arturo: Maybe the BCW had something -- but without a site, it's a bit more involved to figure that out.

AJPlaid: But if the case is getting heard on 4/22, then the gag rule may be informally put on. And to break the roundtable, we'd need that info stat.

Arturo: Point.

AJPlaid: "break"=to go live

Latoya: Can someone check the Hartford Courant for information? They seem to have broke the original story that was picked up.

AJPlaid: On it.

Arturo: This is so NCIS. (Gods, I hate afternoon cable TV.)

Latoya: NCIS?

Latoya: <----watches TV once a week, at most.

AJPlaid: http://www.courant.com/news/local/hc-firefighter-race-lawsuit.artapr06,0,5219178.story

Aturo: Hm. It’s a wire story. This story is definitely slanted more favorably toward Ricci.

Arturo: It’s like CSI, but covering the military.

Latoya: Wait, so is that like JAG?

Arturo: I would imagine so. JAG doesn’t have a gothy lab asst., so I don’t watch it.

Arturo: Nobody on record for the defendants

Latoya: Hmmm.

Arturo: No black firefighters interviewed

AJPlaid: Nope.

Latoya: [The LA Times reported that the plaintiffs] said Boise Kimber, an outspoken black minister, was a key political ally of Mayor John DeStefano Jr., and that he pressured the city civil service board into rejecting the test results.

Arturo: Although the mention of the Obama administration [siding with both the City and the ADL] is a new wrinkle.

Latoya: It is.

Arturo: Looks like the Times re-ran the Tribune piece

“Payton emphasized that New Haven had not rejected the white firefighters because of their race, but rather rejected the use of the written exam as the sole determinant of who would be promoted.”

Arturo: That’s a key distinction.

AJPlaid: Yep. But the Obama wrinkle: thoughts?

Arturo: I’d like to know *who* in the administration was quoted there.

Latoya: I’ll second that, though I doubt we’ll get an answer. Some of the cases in the briefs (specifically the Michigan decision) cite the Bush Administration, no further info.

Arturo: It’s not a bad addition to the piece, but to not have a firefighter of color mentioned in the piece is disappointing. I’m also not digging that in every draft, the story centers on Ricci. It’s coming dangerously close to exploitation.

Latoya: Word.

AJPlaid: yep.

Arturo: I feel for the guy, I really do, but Savage is making him into some sort of Tiny Tim. We also haven’t heard from any applicants of color who took the test. How do we know none of *them* didn’t work just as hard?

AJPlaid: We don’t–and won’t–know.

Latoya: Man, we need to take this to the streets.

AJPlaid: Perhaps the reporter did talk to PoCs, and the editors took it out.

Latoya: Can we work our networks? Someone reading has got to be in New Haven

AJPlaid: I know Kai Chang lives in CT. Maybe he knows or kept up with the case.

Arturo: I’d have to check my Facebook, but I think I have a contact in CT.

Latoya: Alright, let’s do that then.

AJPlaid: Maybe hop on Twitter and ask, too. Anything else, Madame Editrix?

Latoya: No, you all have been awesome.

AJPlaid: Witticisms, criticisms, etc., etc.?

Arturo: It’s what we do.

Latoya: We can snark at the court after they release a statement. I wonder how often they get heckled.

Arturo: It’s a miracle it doesn’t happen more often.

AJPlaid: I heard Justice Thomas was booed at the Inauguration.

Arturo: Of course, if the SC was based in Philly, it’d be different

Latoya: lol

Arturo: “YOU SUCK, SCALIA! YOU SUCK!”

AJPlaid: LOL

Latoya: LOL, we should go old school. Bring tomatoes.

Arturo: And TP his car!

Latoya: Spray paint his garage

AJPlaid: Not that I’ve done anything like that….mind you.:D

Latoya: lol

Arturo: I’m too new-school. I just defriend evildoers on MySpace.

Latoya: We’ll send Scalia a tweet to get on MySpace. Then we de-friend him.

Representative Betty Brown of Texas made waves yesterday by requesting that Asian voters “adopt a name we could deal with” when voting and filling out identification forms. The “we” specifically means meant Americans – but obviously, in Brown’s world, there are no Americans of Asian decent.

The Houston Chronicle notes:

“Rather than everyone here having to learn Chinese — I understand it’s a rather difficult language — do you think that it would behoove you and your citizens to adopt a name that we could deal with more readily here?” Brown said.

Brown later told Ko: “Can’t you see that this is something that would make it a lot easier for you and the people who are poll workers if you could adopt a name just for identification purposes that’s easier for Americans to deal with?”

In reading over this article, three things jumped to mind:

Issue One: Problem was, most of these people were already using two names:

Ko told the committee that people of Chinese, Japanese and Korean descent often have problems voting and other forms of identification because they may have a legal transliterated name and then a common English name that is used on their driver’s license on school registrations.

Issue Two: Ko, brought up people of Chinese, Japanese, and Korean descent. They all got lumped into “Chinese” when she gave her answer.

Issue Three: There is already a problem with Asian American voters being disenfranchised for various reasons. This comment may actually work out to be something positive for Asian American voters as Brown’s ignorant remarks brought attention to a measure that would have normally flown under the radar.

UPDATE: Readers PPR Scribe and Sukjong note that there is a fourth issue at play.

Issue Four: Brown’s comments help to reinforce the common stereotype that Asian-Americans are perpetual foreigners, that these citizens who are trying to exercise their right to vote are not “real Americans.”

Obviously, Brown denies any racism in her comment. Her spokesman Jordan Berry notes:

Berry said Democrats are trying to blow Brown’s comments out of proportion because polls show most voters support requiring identification for voting. Berry said the Democrats are using racial rhetoric to inflame partisan feelings against the bill.

“They want this to just be about race,” Berry said.

Typical.

Feel free to let Betty Brown’s office know what you think (politely people, make sure you say something that can go into an official record):

Email: betty.brown@house.state.tx.us
Office #s:
(512) 463-0458
(903) 675-9500

(Thanks to readers Kameelah, Cherrie, McKeeKee, and Brinstar for the tip!)

Related Posts

Racewire – What’s In a Name

Joined by Phil Yu (Angry Asian Man), Jay Smooth (Ill Doctrine), and Kety Esquivel (NCLR and Cross Left), I moderated a panel at SXSW called “Can Social Media End Racism.”

We organized the panel over email (and one lively dinner discussion) and came up with the main outline for the session.

We began by playing part of the trailer of abUSed: The Postville Raid while people were walking in, to the pull them into the moment and get people thinking about how videos and documentaries help to spread the word about current issues in social justice.

Then we introduced the ourselves.

The panel opened with me explaining what the panel was not. The panel was marked intermediate, which means we were not going to spend time on racism 101. (Jay added that racism 101 has a role and a purpose – just not a role in this session.) We wanted to outline some common experiences with racism online, tackle the question “Can Social Media End Racism,” and ways in which to take action.

The questions posed to the panel were:

1. What are your experiences with racism online? (And why did you get started using social media)?

2. Can Social Media End Racism?

We then entered into a discussion about using social media to fight racism.

There are three ways to leverage social media in combating racism in your communities:

1. Spread Knowledge

We talked about podcasting (like we do with Addicted to Race), using a blog as an information resource (Angry Asian Man), and using short videos to explain a point (Ill Doctrine).

We also featured this favorite from Jay Smooth on How to Tell People They Sound Racist:

2. Creating a Refuge

We talked about the need for creating a refuge as sometimes, anti-racists need a place to regroup, or a place to have a conversation without being dragged back into the same five fights about race and racism. I spoke a little bit about Racialicious and our moderation policy here. Kety talked about creating the Sanctuary with other bloggers and protecting that space from assault.

3. Mobilizing the Base

At this point we started running out of time, so we had to condense this section. I briefly covered how social media helped to push issues like Jena 6 and the ICE Raids into public discussion, and how the current controversy around Avatar, the Last Airbender is following those same principles to build a stronger voice to let Hollywood know whitewashing is not acceptable.

Jay and Phil also talked about the ability for cross-regional and interracial organizing that was spurred on by Hot 97′s Tsunami Song.

When then opened the floor to questions and got some amazing ones that will actually become other posts. Some to look out for:

ericajoy: Dear folks at #racesxsw: How do you approach those who swear that racism doesn’t exist anymore and use the “only a few crazy people” argument ?

DocDre: can you defeat racism from a defensive posture? #racesxsw

swirlspice: RT @HopeChat: but don’t we have 2 face the reverse is true. social media can B used as a tool of racism as well. #racesxsw

BlackWeb20: Great question from Dana Boyd about racism across countries and how to combat it/how to deal with the broad geographic context of race conversations? there aren’t agreed about norms, what’s race? what’s racism? #racesxsw

Also, there was an intriguing question which was essentially “how do we deal with real racism, i.e. economic racism?” I’ll tackle both the question and the way it was phrased in another post.

Quotables (as determined by the Twitter Feed)

@jsmooth995: “Each racist moment online is like a snowflake, unique and beautiful, and every YouTube comment is like a blizzard.”

@racialicious “A comment said, ‘You’re so angry because you have a BIG VAGINA.’ @newdemographic replied ‘That’s why I keep my LAPTOP IN IT’”"That’s why I carry my laptop in it.”#racesxsw (This is the big vagina story).

8asians: Angry Asian Man: “I say fuck comments; I don’t have the time to deal with it. anonymous [comments] emboldens people.” #racesxsw

allaboutgeorge: #racesxsw Peterson: “There’s no ‘end racism’ app or we would’ve pushed that button a long time ago.”

racialicious: @jsmooth995 – “Fighting racism is like brushing your teeth. You can never do enough teeth brushing in your lifetime.” #sxsw #racesxsw

allaboutgeorge: #racesxsw @jsmooth995: “Most of my videos come from watching something on television and feeling infuriated and yelling back at the screen.”

And Nezua, who was not at the conference, for the win: @racialicious actually you can do too much tooth brushing, which erodes the gums….of racism.

(Many thanks to all the tweeps, but especially @allaboutgeorge who made whole quotes for me to copy and paste.)

More Detailed Write-Ups:

Liz Henry – SXSWi: Ending Racism with Social Media

MockRiot – SxSWi Notes: Can Social Media End Racism?

Justin Ellis for the Press Herald - NXT: The Next Generation: Can Social Networks Fix Racism?

I’ll also be summarizing some of the amazing panels I attended at SXSW and talk a bit about the people we met in later posts.

[Tiny Programing note - Y'all I am dying. I have not been home since 3/12. Last week was SXSWi, this week I'm a Poynter Sense-Making Fellow which means I am in Florida this week having amazing conversations with interesting people and after that I am flying to Boston for WAM!2009. Posting schedule is going to be a little off this week and I am late with all my write ups, but bear with me - we'll be back on schedule starting next week. - LDP]

Yes, you read that right. According to friend of the blog Allison:

For many years, Beacon Press–a nonprofit book publisher since 1854–has had the privilege of publishing Octavia Butler’s “Kindred,” the story of a modern black woman transported through time to the antebellum South. Octavia Butler died tragically in 2006; those familiar with her life and work know how singular and important her legacy remains. This year marks the 30th anniversary of the novel, and Beacon is deeply honored to announce a collaboration with the Butler estate to produce a graphic adaptation of “Kindred.” The press is currently inviting proposals from cartoonists who appreciate Octavia Butler’s legacy, and reflect hercommitment to social justice in their own work.

Those interested in discussing a proposal should email the editor of the Graphic Books list, Allison Trzop, at atrzop AT beacon DOT org. The deadline is March 16.

Please spread this far and wide, anyone who knows anyone who is an illustrator, graphic artist, whatever.

There was a lot of uproar last month when it was announced that M. Night Shyamalan’s movie adaptation Avatar: The Last Airbender would star a lot of pretty white people, with no Asians in sight. The animated Nickelodeon show takes place in an Asian-inspired fantasy realm. Hollywood, of course, is a Caucasian-inspired fantasy realm.

The controversy hasn’t really died down. Avatar fans are still angry. And one of the movie’s actors, Jackson Rathbone, who will play Sokka, seems to think he can easily pull off playing Asian with just a new hairstyle and a tan: ‘Twilight’ Star Jackson Rathbone Hopes To ‘Show His Range’ In ‘Last Airbender’.

Due in theaters in summer 2010, “Airbender” has already begun to face a bit of controversy over the casting of white actors like Rathbone, Ringer and McCartney to play Asian characters – a concern the actor was quick to dismiss. “I think it’s one of those things where I pull my hair up, shave the sides, and I definitely need a tan,” he said of the transformation he’ll go through to look more like Sokka. “It’s one of those things where, hopefully, the audience will suspend disbelief a little bit.”

No dude. The audience will have to suspend disbelief a lot. Or just not go see the movie. This is just another obvious, ridiculous example of how Hollywood studios are really not interested in casting Asians in roles, even when the parts clearly call for it. That’s racist!

As I mentioned last time, a loud, vocal letter-writing movement, spearheaded by this site, is mobilizing to protest these casting decisions. We’re talking real paper snail-mail letters, because online petitions and emails are easily ignored. Write to:

Mr Mark Bakshi
President Features Production
5555 Melrose Avenue
Shulberg Building
Suite 211
Room 115
Los Angeles, CA 90038-3197

and

Kathleen Kennedy and Frank Marshall
Kennedy/Marshall Company
619 Arizona Avenue, Fl. 2
Santa Monica, California 90401

If you wrote in the first time when this news surfaced last month, you may have noticed that these addresses are different. That’s apparently because both Paramount Pictures and M. Night Shyamalan’s office returned-to-sender the first wave of protest letters. Do they really not care that much? Everything you need to know about the Avatar letter-writing campaign is here. I’m seriously that the studio gives a crap, but it’s still worth speaking out.