12 responses to “Doherty Doesn’t Want to Protect Transgender People”

  1. dubnotdubya

    Shame on you, Doherty: More than 800 reported murders of trans people in the last four years.

    VN:R_U [1.9.20_1166]
    Rating: 0 (from 2 votes)
  2. DogDiesel

    “Shame on you, Doherty”
     
    Really??? Did you take the time to research the law and why the Republicans opposed it. No? Thought so. Unless you’re just trying to impress your left wing brethren, you can feign loathing all you want but I doubt Doherty is reading this.

    VN:R_U [1.9.20_1166]
    Rating: -1 (from 3 votes)
  3. leftyrite

    How frightening it must be to know how little people generally understand of your circumstances– and then be disowned by a guy whose only claims to electability lie in his looks and in his utter predictability as a bigot.

    Am I correct in thinking that Doherty was once in law enforcement?

    Wow. What a mess.

    People do not choose such difficult paths in life, and only after running what must be one of the most frightening of gauntlets do some of them ever find self-acceptance.

    Yes, this is very much a valid political issue. It goes to common decency and basic human rights.

     

    VN:R_U [1.9.20_1166]
    Rating: +1 (from 3 votes)
  4. davidc

    More than 800 reported murders of trans people in the last four years.

    52 of which were reported to be in the US. 

    VN:R_U [1.9.20_1166]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  5. cailin rua

    Doherty really needs to be called out for scapegoating.  I am surprised how no one seems to recognize this.  He betrays his ignorance in the comment he made to Ian Donnis but that is really beside the point.  What does the amorphous and undefined class of people he refers to have to do with the price of beans?

    Was he worried about the concerns brought by the ACLU when the law was first up for a vote in 1994?:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_Against_Women_Act

    “The American Civil Liberties Union had originally expressed concerns about the Act, saying that the increased penalties were rash, the increased pretrial detention was “repugnant” to the US Constitution, the mandatory HIV testing of those only charged but not convicted is an infringement of a citizen’s right to privacy and the edict for automatic payment of full restitution was non-judicious (see their paper: “Analysis of Major Civil Liberties Abuses in the Crime Bill Conference Report as Passed by the House and the Senate”, dated September 29, 1994). However, the ACLU has supported reauthorization of VAWA on the condition that the “unconstitutional DNA provision” be removed.[3]”

    Does he care about the fact that 80% of women raped on Indian reservation are raped by men off the reservation?  Does he mention anything about the constitutional issues involved with tribal jurisdiction?  Is he willing to have an intelligent debate about the issues involved?  Is he even capable of engaging in an intelligent debate on the subject?

    http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/ict_sbc/congressional-research-service-shows-bias-with-vawa-legal-opinion

    How about the compromised position women and men who are blackmailed like so?:

    “Totally aside from all that I can offer another problem the legislation posed which was a hot topic on immigration discussion boards was that any woman(I never heard of a husband using it) that came to the USA on a fiancee or spouse visa for the purposes of immigrating and gaining permanent residence could claim the sponsoring US spouse was abusing her and she instantly and without any investigation was granted permanent residency, this was to prevent an abusive spouse from threatening the victim with deportation.”

    “http://www.immigrationfraudvictims.us/fraud101.html

    “the immigration provisions of the law are, in fact, gender-neutral, and in fact my firm won a green card case under VAWA on behalf of a man who was abused in a number of ways by his US citizen wife. And it’s certainly not automatic.”

    Eva Luna, Immigration Paralegal”

    http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/archive/index.php/t-648147.html

    No Doherty claims those “male transgender” people made him do it.  I find it sad that no one in an activist role here has seen it as necessary as it is to call this guy out.  These are the “tough” issues that Doherty has chosen to avoid.  He is totally disingenuous and obviously not courageous enough to tackle the real problems presented by the VAWA and instead has chosen to focus on an invisible, amorphous, undefined minority.  I don’t see leadership.  I don’t see any integrity in the non position he has taken.  One wonders who is feeding him his talking points, probably someone from the False Memory Foundation Syndrome Foundation.  Look ‘em up.  
     

    VN:R_U [1.9.20_1166]
    Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)
  6. DogDiesel

    Where do you draw the line in creating a special class of protected people under the law. I won’t dispute your statistics of 52 in the US over the past four years but there were over 14,000 murders in the US in 2010 alone according to the FBI. Is there something in the law that exempts murderers of the transgendered from prosecution? We keep on creating new classes of protection in a country that everyone is supposed to be equal under the law. It makes no sense.

    VN:R_U [1.9.20_1166]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  7. davidc

    DD, I agree with you.  I wanted to clarify that the 800 deaths cited above were not US, they were worldwide (obviously deaths outside the US would have no bearing on VAWA).

    While murder is always wrong, (a) it’s already illegal and (b) is federal law requried to address these 53 deaths over four years?

    VN:R_U [1.9.20_1166]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
    1. DogDiesel

      “DD, I agree with you. ”
       
      Sorry, I misinterpreted your comments.

      VN:R_U [1.9.20_1166]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  8. cailin rua

    My comment has been in moderation for almost 24 hrs.  I don’t know if it is because I provided three links in order to cite quotes I copied from various sources or if it was because of the length of my reply or both.  The moderator has access to the links I provided.  I have lost patience waiting so, here goes:

    Doherty really needs to be called out for scapegoating.  I am surprised how no one seems to recognize this.  He betrays his ignorance in the comment he made to Ian Donnis but that is really beside the point.  What does the amorphous and undefined class of people he refers to have to do with the price of beans?
    Was he worried about the concerns brought by the ACLU when the law was first up for a vote in 1994?:

    “the immigration provisions of the law are, in fact, gender-neutral, and in fact my firm won a green card case under VAWA on behalf of a man who was abused in a number of ways by his US citizen wife. And it’s certainly not automatic.”
     
    How about the compromised position women and men who are blackmailed like so?:
    “Totally aside from all that I can offer another problem the legislation posed which was a hot topic on immigration discussion boards was that any woman(I never heard of a husband using it) that came to the USA on a fiancee or spouse visa for the purposes of immigrating and gaining permanent residence could claim the sponsoring US spouse was abusing her and she instantly and without any investigation was granted permanent residency, this was to prevent an abusive spouse from threatening the victim with deportation.”
     
    “The American Civil Liberties Union had originally expressed concerns about the Act, saying that the increased penalties were rash, the increased pretrial detention was “repugnant” to the US Constitution, the mandatory HIV testing of those only charged but not convicted is an infringement of a citizen’s right to privacy and the edict for automatic payment of full restitution was non-judicious (see their paper: “Analysis of Major Civil Liberties Abuses in the Crime Bill Conference Report as Passed by the House and the Senate”, dated September 29, 1994). However, the ACLU has supported reauthorization of VAWA on the condition that the “unconstitutional DNA provision” be removed.[3]”
    Does he care about the fact that 80% of women raped on Indian reservation are raped by men who don’t live on the reservation?  Does he mention anything about the constitutional issues involved with tribal jurisdiction?  Is he willing to have an intelligent debate about the issues involved?  Is he even capable of engaging in an intelligent debate on the subject?

    How about the compromised position women and men who are blackmailed like so?:
    “Totally aside from all that I can offer another problem the legislation posed which was a hot topic on immigration discussion boards was that any woman(I never heard of a husband using it) that came to the USA on a fiancee or spouse visa for the purposes of immigrating and gaining permanent residence could claim the sponsoring US spouse was abusing her and she instantly and without any investigation was granted permanent residency, this was to prevent an abusive spouse from threatening the victim with deportation.”

    “the immigration provisions of the law are, in fact, gender-neutral, and in fact my firm won a green card case under VAWA on behalf of a man who was abused in a number of ways by his US citizen wife. And it’s certainly not automatic.”

    Eva Luna, Immigration Paralegal”

    No Doherty claims those “male transgender” people made him do it.  I find it sad that no one in an activist role here has seen it as necessary as it is to call this guy out.  These are the “tough” issues that Doherty has chosen to avoid.  He is totally disingenuous and obviously not courageous enough to tackle the real problems presented by the VAWA and instead has chosen to focus on an invisible, amorphous, undefined minority.  I don’t see leadership.  I don’t see any integrity in the non position he has taken by using the inclusion of the lgbt to distract from the obvious issues he is avoiding.
     

    VN:R_U [1.9.20_1166]
    Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)
  9. cailin rua

    I am sorry about my errors in copying and pasting which resulted in me copying and pasting the same paragraphs twice and omitting others . . . sorry I made such a mess of it. . . One more try:

    Doherty really needs to be called out for scapegoating.  I am surprised how no one seems to recognize this.  He betrays his ignorance in the comment he made to Ian Donnis but that is really beside the point.  What does the amorphous and undefined class of people he refers to have to do with the price of beans?
    Was he worried about the concerns brought by the ACLU when the law was first up for a vote in 1994?:
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_Against_Women_Act
    “The American Civil Liberties Union had originally expressed concerns about the Act, saying that the increased penalties were rash, the increased pretrial detention was “repugnant” to the US Constitution, the mandatory HIV testing of those only charged but not convicted is an infringement of a citizen’s right to privacy and the edict for automatic payment of full restitution was non-judicious (see their paper: “Analysis of Major Civil Liberties Abuses in the Crime Bill Conference Report as Passed by the House and the Senate”, dated September 29, 1994). However, the ACLU has supported reauthorization of VAWA on the condition that the “unconstitutional DNA provision” be removed.” [1]
    Does he care about the fact that 80% of women raped on Indian reservation are raped by men who come in off the reservation?  Does he mention anything about the constitutional issues involved with tribal jurisdiction?  Is he willing to have an intelligent debate about the issues involved?  Is he even capable of engaging in an intelligent debate on the subject?[2}
     
    How about the compromised position women and men who are blackmailed like so?:
    “Totally aside from all that I can offer another problem the legislation posed which was a hot topic on immigration discussion boards was that any woman(I never heard of a husband using it) that came to the USA on a fiancee or spouse visa for the purposes of immigrating and gaining permanent residence could claim the sponsoring US spouse was abusing her and she instantly and without any investigation was granted permanent residency, this was to prevent an abusive spouse from threatening the victim with deportation.”[3]
     
    “the immigration provisions of the law are, in fact, gender-neutral, and in fact my firm won a green card case under VAWA on behalf of a man who was abused in a number of ways by his US citizen wife. And it’s certainly not automatic.”
    Eva Luna, Immigration Paralegal”
     
    No Doherty claims those “male transgender” people made him do it.  I find it sad that no one in an activist role here has seen it as necessary as it is to call this guy out.  These are the “tough” issues that Doherty has chosen to avoid.  He is totally disingenuous and obviously not courageous enough to tackle the real problems presented by the VAWA and instead has chosen to focus on an invisible, amorphous, undefined minority.  I don’t see leadership. I don’t see any integrity in the non position he has taken by using the inclusion of the lgbt to distract from the obvious issues he is avoiding.

    [1] From the Wikipedia article on the VAWA 

    [2] From the Indian Media Network article on the VAWA

    [3] From the Straight Dope Discussion Board with a link from Eva Luna from: “http://www.immigrationfraudvictims.us/fraud101.html”

    VN:R_U [1.9.20_1166]
    Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)
    1. DogDiesel

      If it’s already illegal to commit these crimes then why do we need these extra protections for specific classes of people?

      VN:R_U [1.9.20_1166]
      Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)
  10. cailin rua

    “If it’s already illegal to commit these crimes then why do we need these extra protections for specific classes of people?”

    I think that is a worthwhile question to ask even if I wouldn’t agree with the conclusions you may come to.  It isn’t a new question, however.  You may be surprised to know that there are people concerned about the effects of enhanced sentencing and unintended consequences who may be directly affected by laws like VAWA or hate crimes legislation:

    http://www.bilerico.com/2009/02/loving_hate_why_hate_crimes_legislation.php

    What I linked to above does not directly refer to the VAWA but the discussion is about “extra protections” and relates to some of the same issues raised by Doherty’s comment.  The problem is that Doherty wants to pick and choose which issues involving the VAWA he wants to discuss, in order to avoid the pushback he will get from other , much larger minority groups that would factor into his ability to get elected.  Then there are important civil rights issues that were not important to him when Joe Biden, a person with a well known lack of concern for writing legislation that has had a large impact on minority civil rights, drafted the bill. Doherty was enthusiastic about the VAWA in 1994.  

    Maybe emphasizing Doherty’s and the Republican Party’s stand on the VAWA wasn’t the best tack for the Cicilline campaign to take but there are lots of other things about the proposed VAWA legislation to discuss and debate.  Doherty has clearly taken the low road without regard for any of the other issues involved.   

    VN:R_U [1.9.20_1166]
    Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.