Printer-friendly version
Author:
Taxonomy upgrade extras:
There is a law being proposed in Tennessee that would allow bullying in schools by people who feel they are justified based on their own religious, philosophical and political views against LGBT students.I wonder if they have figured out that federal Hate Crimes laws would trump any attempt to violate the Civil rights of these kids? This comes in the wake of the suicide of a high school student who was being bullied for being gay. I have heard that Michigan just passed a similar law. It is sickening that any State would legally try to justify violence against someone else as a RIGHT! I hope that there are enough citizens who will turn out to oppose any attempt to pass this measure.
Comments
The few of us in Michigan cannot stand against the
majority who feel violence is justified against anybody who is not heterosexual. The only way we can fight this is if we are bullyed by being beaten up. Then we can sue and get our decision in U.S. Supreme Court. Michigan, inlcuding Detroit is full of red necks who think their way is the only way.
"With confidence and forbearance, we will have the strength to move forward."
Love & hugs,
Barbara
"If I have to be this girl in me, Then I have the right to be."
"With confidence and forbearance, we will have the strength to move forward."
Love & hugs,
Barbara
"If I have to be this girl in me, Then I have the right to be."
Tennessee and Michigan
I believe Michigan's law is very similar and originally also allowed the bullying/insulting of LGBT kids by those who justified it with their religious beliefs, but that this part of the Michigan law was stripped out before it finally got signed. I'm not sure, though. Tennessee is also a very LGBT unfriendly place, and becoming more so as conservative Christians take over the political landscape and pass more stifling laws (like making it impossible for transpeople to change that M or F on drivers licenses and other ID... remember the story about Andrea Jones back in November?).
Lisa Danielle
Here's a link to the bill summary...
http://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/billinfo/BillSummaryArchive....
Dio vi benedica tutti
Con grande amore e di affetto
Andrea Lena
Love, Andrea Lena
So in a nutshell...
The law would allow verbal bullying on almost any grounds to be acceptable as long as the perpetrator doesn't physically harm the victim or their property, or threatens to physically harm the victim. In addition, the schools would be forbidden from engaging in any anti-discrimination activity for forms of discrimination not currently covered by present human rights law (i.e. anything other than: race, creed, colour, religion, sex, age or national origin)
If I'm reading that right, it would be perfectly OK to verbally harrass someone not only because they were LGBT, but also if they had any form of physical or mental impairment, or otherwise looked or acted differently from the perceived 'norm' - even if the perpetrator's viewpoint is contrary to the rest of the staff and students...
You could drive a proverbial juggernaut through that loophole!
There are 10 kinds of people in the world - those who understand binary and those who don't...
As the right side of the brain controls the left side of the body, then only left-handers are in their right mind!
"The law would allow verbal
"The law would allow verbal bullying on almost any grounds to be acceptable as long as the perpetrator doesn't physically harm the victim or their property, or threatens to physically harm the victim."
Damn that pesky 1st amendment.
Pesky 1st amendment...
Except that the first amendment doesn't really apply to children. At least the part we're talking about, freedom of speech. Can the child just stand up in class and say to the teacher, "you suck, you don't know anything, my last teacher knew this topic better, why don't you take some courses in it before you try teaching us again?" etc? That would go over well. It's just free speech. Kid has a right to an opinion, right? Except kids don't have the same rights adults do to EXPRESS it. (and even we have limits on that)
Then there's the fact that bullying is nasty and harmful to kids, even without violence or threats thereof. Especially if the kid belongs to a minority, and even more especially if it's an unpopular minority like LGBT... They tend to be ostracized anyway, especially in very homophobic places (like Tennessee). Then to be harassed and bullied on top of that... and it's almost never one on one, but four or five bullies hammering at the lone kid, his/her few friends too scared to step forward too... That kind of thing is terrible for a child, and definitely not conducive to learning and doing good school work (which is why schools often have rules against bullying), and sometimes even traumatic enough to the child that they do something drastic, like that kid who just committed suicide over being bullied (mentioned in the article). Not to mention even if they behave themselves on the school property, the bullies may be more violent off property, as their victim is going home.
Then there's the OTHER part of the first amendment. The separation clause. The PUBLIC schools definitely should not be making allowances to BREAK their rules against bullying just because someone justifies doing so with their RELIGION, flimsy excuse as that is. But they may not have a choice thanks to the lawmakers.
This is a BAD law and deserves to go down in flames. I just hope it won't take multiple kids being harmed or killed before it gets challenged in the courts and overturned.
And with all these "tea party" politicians and other radicals, we can probably expect more stuff like this.
A very disgusted Lisa Danielle
so does this mean
that some racist kid can go and openly insult black kids by throwing out the N word and no one can touch him? Or what if was raised that women are property of men and treats the girls at school like that. That's how I'm reading this bill. So bound for a law suit somewhere.
Tennessee's Bad Bully Law
It probably does mean that, although the legislators behind it (and the fundamentalist group behind them) meant it to apply to LGBT people specifically.
Tennessee Legislature Is At It Again
Why do they try?
May Your Light Forever Shine
May Your Light Forever Shine
Why?
They try - because they can get away with it... Perhaps not forever, but for a long time. (It takes a LONG time for a case to get to the Supreme Court!) And, this kind of law (condoning bullying or any other activity) encourages the actions... When it's children doing it, and it's legal, they learn that it's the "right" thing to do and will continue to do it when they grow up (like many of their parents) whether or not it's the law.
The people that support such laws fall into two groups (in my observations): 1) Those who see this as a way to divide people and appear to support some groups. 2) those who actually hate.
Anne
Putting The Shoe On The Other Foot
Then, I think that organized verbal bullying and harassment of organized fundamentalist groups is in order. Picket the churches. I can imagine some talented poster writers might come up with something like, "Such and such Church, Home of Fascist, Homophobic Biggots" or "Where is Christianity in Your Church When You Train Children To Hate". Groups of gay parents and their children can harass the straight, fundamentalist Christians as they get off the school bus; maybe even harass small groups at the pickup points. We could instill fear and have them looking over their shoulders.
I wonder how long it would take before some of their children would start committing suicide, or become seriously paranoid and wihdrawn. I wonder how long these 'non-violent' confrontations would be allowed before the demonstrations would become violent.
Perhaps the legislators who perpetrate such trash should be harassed night and day at their homes and places of work. Constant shouting of 'biggot' in a rhythmical chant might have some affect.
This should continue unmercifully day and night. A group could follow the (mother and) children as they attempt to shop at the local mall.
I wonder how long this would be allowed? Not very long, I'm sure.
I suggest we find out who are supporting these bills, and let them know how ugly they are.
Portia
Portia
Reading the text of the
Reading the text of the bill, they could pitch this as a First Amendment Rights bill, freedom of expression, except as specifically excluded by Human Rights Law. That makes it very hard to fight. What would need to be done is getting sexual orientation, etc., added to the hate crimes categories.
Yours,
JohnBobMead
Yours,
John Robert Mead
The problem with revenge...
...is that nice people don't do it. The current crop of "superheroes" tends to reflect our own internal ambiguity about the whole notion of "vigilantes" running around "righting wrongs" outside societal norms by showing the "Dark Knights" of the world as deeply-flawed -- and often emotionally-crippled -- people, often as much in need of "help" as the villains they target.
The fact is that hate groups don't exist because it's "legal," but because there are many haters in the world. These individuals may "spin" their actions to try and persuade other, potential, haters to "join in," but the hate is there to start with.
The National Socialist (Nazi) Party in the Thirties already had an agenda of hate, already had organised gangs of thugs to bully and terrorise their enemies, and simply chose from a menu of potential targets to pick and choose the "issues" with the most "legs."
They were anti-abortion, anti-contraception, punished women who dared to raise feminist issues of power and control of their own bodies, promoted father-centered families, female submission to the authority of fathers and husbands, rabidly anti-homosexual... and on and on. In fact, they'd fit right in in many modern contexts, except they'd have to change the targets of their rage slightly, to include the notably dark-skinned (at least in popular prejudice) "Muslims" and exclude a few modern protected classes.
Their record is often distorted by people with axes to grind, such as some who falsely claim that they were pro-abortion, without bothering to mention that their "pro-abortion" policies applied only to Jews, Slavs, Gypsies, and other "inferior" races, the same people who were later targeted by the "Final Solution." In Nazi planning, killing "mongrel" children was simply the first step toward killing their parents.
Cheers,
Puddin'
A tender heart is an asset to an editor: it helps us be ruthless in a tactful way.
--- The Chicago Manual of Style
-
Cheers,
Puddin'
A tender heart is an asset to an editor: it helps us be ruthless in a tactful way.
--- The Chicago Manual of Style
I fear the pendulum
is swinging from the liberal towards more conservative thinking, which means it will probably take another 50 years for what is acceptable today to become so tomorrow. It's done on the pretext of protecting freedom but it erodes freedom like a cancer. It's like putting the Japanese in charge of whale conservation.
Angharad
Angharad
Words Hurt Just As Much As Physical Violence
"It is a truism that almost
"It is a truism that almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so." -Robert A. Heinlein (1907-1988)
Kris
{I leave a trail of Kudos as I browse the site. Be careful where you step!}
Kris
{I leave a trail of Kudos as I browse the site. Be careful where you step!}
This bill explicitly does
This bill explicitly does not extend any protection to any acts or threats of violence. It does not legalize bullying--to the extent words hurt, you just have to deal with it.
What extending "hate crime" protection to cover hurtful but non-threatening words seems like just trying to vote the biggest bully on the block onto your side. I think that's reprehensible.
The 1st amendment applies to everyone including children, because it applies to government, and prohibits government from predicating it's actions on the content of speech--explicit threats of violence excepted. Schools have "in loco parentis" powers to restrict any disruptive speech, but it can only extend to what is required to permit education, not what makes a majority of people people comfortable. Or un-.
Saying, "God's gonna get you 'cause you're gay!", doesn't count.
Does suicide count?
= Give everyone the benefit of the doubt because certainty is a fragile thing that can be shattered by one overlooked fact.
= Give everyone the benefit of the doubt because certainty is a fragile thing that can be shattered by one overlooked fact.
Count as the what? Free
Count as the what? Free speech?
Sure.
But it's something you have to decide to do. No one can make someone else suicide.
Ummm...
Can you make someone suicide? No, then it's murder.
BUT, a vulnerable person can be convinced that it hurts to much to keep on going; that their very existence is evil; that everyone around them would be better off if they weren't there; that there is no way out...
Children are particularly vulnerable to this specially when adults provide the verbal abuse - when these adults are people the child would otherwise be expected to believe/accept. But also when it's their peers.
Some kids (like some adults) can ignore (or at least not be beaten down by) this kind of abuse. But some, through some quirk in their makeup can't. As I said earlier, children are more vulnerable. Why? They don't have the life experience to defend themselves.
Something I've been told by more than one shrink (MD and non MD) is that the current belief is that there is a genetic prediliction for depression and increased risk of suicide. No - this doesn't mean that folks with it will get depressed or commit/attempt suicide. What it means is that with the right set of circumstances they MAY become depressed and commit/attempt suicide AND that people without this genetic prediliction with the same impetus will NOT get depressed.
The evidence for genetic support here is not as complete as it is for the genetic hardwire for sexual orientation or the pre-birth fixing of gender, but it's there.
So - IMO - a law that supports freedom of speech to this extent is encouraging an environment that will put children at risk.
I won't go into the social darwinism that some use to justify this (if they can't hack it, they deserve to die), and I don't believe that's what you're saying... I just bring it up because - there ARE people that seem to believe that just like they believe that it's a simple decision to change your gender and/or who you are attracted to, etc.
Anne
No THREAT of physical harm =
No THREAT of physical harm = no intimidation = no bullying. What you want to snuff out is opinions you don't like. I suggest you do it with argument rather than slanting data.
I had...
...already responded to this post under 'guest reader'. I live in Tennessee. Have done so most of my life. One thing I KNOW is that they have not considered any law legalizing violence against any minority (or anyone for that matter). There is great concern in this state that the rights of people of faith are being abbrogated ie they are not afforded the right (in public venues ie school) to express their opinions (or make any general expressions of faith) specifically because those opinions are (accurately or inaccurately) reflecting a basis of religious tennants to which they claim to subscribe. You know the statment 'I may not agree with what you say but I will defend with my life your right to say it'? Well such is the case here. My opinion is that 99 out of 100 people who claim to be christian don't know squat about it and many times they simply don't know when to shut up. Often what they say does more harm than good to their own cause. Just because they are(maybe) wrong in what they say does not mean they should not have the right to say it (it is part of debate). However the damage is done before they speak up because we have all been defaulted so that one person can save them (us) all.