Connect with us

REPORT: There Have Already Been More Anti-LGBT Hate Violence Homicides This Year Than in All of Last Year

Published

on

‘The Message This Sends to LGBTQ Folks Is Clear: That We May Not Be Safe Anywhere’

Reports from the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs, examined by Buzzfeed, show there have already been more anti-LGBT hate-motivated homicides this year than in all of 2016. 

According to BuzzFeed News reporter Nidhi Prakash, not counting the Pulse nightclub terror attack hate crime murders of 49 people, in 2016 there were 28 hate-violence-related homicides of LGBT people. Already this year, there have been 33 anti-LGBT hate violence murders across the country.

The numbers translate to roughly one hate-violence-related death every 13 days in 2016. So far in 2017, the pace of those deaths is at about one every six days,” Buzzfeed reports. 

At this rate, these hate murders are on track to double last year’s count.

“Fifteen of those who were killed in 2017 were transgender women of color, and at least 12 were cisgender gay men,” Buzzfeed adds. “The reports came from all over the US, from Texas to New York to Wisconsin.”

One important question is why. 

“I think whether it’s an increase in reporting, an increase in violence, or some combination thereof, it should be a wake-up call for us across our communities that hate violence is not going away,” Beverly Tillery, executive director of the New York City Anti-Violence Project told Buzzfeed. The NYC AVP coordinates with the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs and creates the violence report. 

Tillery adds that hate violence is “certainly not decreasing, and it’s symptomatic of larger and deeper problems in our society that we still haven’t addressed.” 

And while this spike in hate murders is alarming, there likely are more that have not been included. Law enforcement officials may not know, or may choose to not report a victim as being transgender, for example, or may not know the motivation for their murder.

“There are a lot more homicides of LGBT people than what they report,” Dallas Drake, senior researcher at the Center for Homicide Research, tells Buzzfeed. “They don’t report generally from communities that are smaller or where cases are not easily identifiable as LGBT homicides.”

Old Dominion University assistant professor of sociology and criminal justice Vanessa Panfil tells Buzzfeed there’s a backlash against LGBT people.

That backlash, she says, has been encouraged in part by the Trump administration walking back Obama-era guidances and policies that were LGBT-inclusive, such as supporting trans students’ rights and signaling a ban on allowing trans people to serve in the military. As a result, transgender people across the country are relying on courts to decide if they’re allowed to access bathrooms in line with their gender identities — a decision the Supreme Court decided not to weigh in on when it sent a landmark trans rights case back to a lower court earlier this year. 

Pulling back from anti-LGBT homicides and looking at all hate crimes, is there a Trump effect, an unleashing of hate into society, as has been documented repeatedly?

Just look at these headlines:

Anti-LGBT hate crimes in D.C. up 59% in 2016

What We Have Unleashed: This year’s string of brutal hate crimes is intrinsically connected to the rise of Trump.

A Fifth of Hate Crimes Reported Done in Trump’s Name, Researchers Say

Donald Trump Has Unleashed a New Wave of Bullying in Schools

‘Trump effect’ led to hate crime surge, report finds

Q&A: ‘There’s a virus in our country’: The ‘Trump effect’ and rise of hate groups, explained

The Trump Effect: The Impact of The 2016 Presidential Election on Our Nation’s Schools

Kathy Flores, an LGBTQ anti-violence program manager for Wisconsin’s Diverse & Resilient says, “The message this sends to LGBTQ folks is clear: that we may not be safe anywhere.”

To comment on this article and other NCRM content, visit our Facebook page.

Image by Michael Fleshman via Flickr and a CC license

Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

OPINION

‘Hardball? You Bet’: Dems ‘Need to Be Prepared’ After McCarthy Exit Urges Top Political Scholar

Published

on

The American voters sent 222 Republicans and 213 Democrats to the House of Representatives in the 2022 elections, the exact same margin, but flipped, as the 2020 election. But today, with the announcement that ousted, former GOP House Speaker Kevin McCarthy is not only not running for re-election but is quitting Congress at the end off the year, Republicans have a big majority crisis — because of their now tiny majority.

It’s no longer 222 to 213.

After McCarthy’s exit, and with the recent expulsion of now-former Congressman George Santos (R-NY) Republican Speaker Mike Johnson will have a very slim majority.

“The party’s margin in the House fell to three seats from four with the expulsion of Representative George Santos of New York last week,” The New York Times explains. “That leaves almost no wiggle room for Mr. Johnson, who is already dealing with a revolt from the far right for working with Democrats to keep the government funded and faces another pair of shutdown deadlines in mid-January and early February.”

READ MORE: Comer Threatens ‘Contempt’ Despite Hunter Biden’s Lawyer Quoting Chairman’s Media Appearances

“When the House returns in January,” The Washington Post adds, “Republicans can lose only two votes from their ranks to pass any legislation at a time when the chamber faces major decisions on government spending and foreign aid. That dynamic could force Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), who assumed the post after a tumultuous three weeks following McCarthy’s ouster, to work with Democrats to avert a partial government shutdown as soon as mid-January.”

U.S. Rep. Bill Johnson (R-OH) has announced he will retire and exit Congress early next year.

But possibly even before that, Speaker Johnson’s tiny majority could at some point become an opening for Democrats, according to a top political scientist and scholar, Dr. Norman Ornstein.

“Democrats need to be prepared to act swiftly and decisively if the numbers drop below 218– even if only for a day. Quick motion to vacate, [Hakeem] Jeffries as Speaker, immediate agenda,” writes Dr. Ornstein, a senior fellow emeritus at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), “where he has been studying politics, elections, and the US Congress for more than four decades.”

Ornstein offers more opportunities should Democrats be able to take the majority back soon.

READ MORE: Jim Comer Decimated by NBC Reporter in ‘Under Two Minutes’

“Reconciliation bill to secure robust spending, eliminate debt limit permanently, taxes on rich to pay for permanent child tax credit.”

He adds, the number of Republican members “would need to get down to 213. But any set of problems– a Covid outbreak, for example– could bring those numbers down, if only for a day or two. Have a plan ready! Hardball? You bet.”

David Rothkopf, the noted foreign policy, national security and political affairs analyst and commentator, responding to Ornstein’s remarks appeared to urge Republicans to join with Democrats to elect a Democratic Speaker, or even to switch parties:

“This. C’mon you GOPers from purple districts. Trump will have you purged and sent to Siberia. We just need 2 of you. You can be unloved by the GOP or heroes to the rest of America! Make your move now.”

Of course, special elections will be held to replace both Santos (scheduled for February 13, 2024) and McCarthy (likely summer, according to The Post), and at some point Johnson.

But with the extremely large number of members of Congress who have exited or will be, as Ornstein says, Democrats need to be ready.

Continue Reading

News

Comer Threatens ‘Contempt’ Despite Hunter Biden’s Lawyer Quoting Chairman’s Media Appearances

Published

on

Republican House Oversight Committee Chairman Jim Comer is now threatening Hunter Biden with “contempt” of Congress if he refuses to testify behind closed doors. The President’s son has repeatedly offered to testify in public.

Abbe Lowell, the attorney with “close ties inside the Trump White House” who is now representing Hunter Biden, Wednesday morning again reiterated his demand that any testimony before the House Oversight Committee be in a public hearing, and he used Chairman Comer’s own words to make his point.

But Comer, who is moving toward impeaching President Joe Biden despite having offered no actual proof of any impeachable offense, was quick to tell Politico: “He’s been subpoenaed. We expect him to show up. They don’t get to make the rules.”

“I would expect Congress to hold the president’s son in contempt,” Comer said, if Hunter Biden refuses to testify in a closed-door session.

READ MORE: Jim Comer Decimated by NBC Reporter in ‘Under Two Minutes’

“As indicated in my November 28, 2023, letter,” Lowell wrote to Chairman Comer earlier on Wednesday, in a letter published by The Washington Examiner, “Mr. Biden has offered to appear at a hearing on the December 13, 2023, date you have reserved, or another date this month, to answer any question pertinent and relevant to the subject matter stated in your November 8, 2023, letter.”

Lowell made clear his motivation for a public hearing before cameras.

“He is making this choice because the Committee has demonstrated time and again it uses closed-door sessions to manipulate, even distort, the facts and misinform the American public—a hearing would ensure transparency and truth in these proceedings.”

But Lowell cited Comer’s own words from a few of his numerous media appearances to demonstrate how the Chairman welcomed an open-door public hearing. The Daily Beast’s Justin Baragona noted that Lowell, in his letter, “again cites Comer practically daring Hunter to publicly testify.”

Lowell cited Comer’s remarks on October 31 on “The Benny Show.”

READ MORE: ‘Does America Need More God?’: Mike Johnson Laments LGBTQ High School Kids

“We’re in the downhill phase of this investigation now because we have so many documents, and we can bring these people in for depositions or committee hearings, whichever they choose , . . . .”

Also, his September 13 statement on Newsmax.

“Hunter Biden is more than welcome to come in front of the committee . . . he’s invited today. We will drop everything.”

He also cited Comer’s “November 8, 2023, statement in your cover letter addressed to me: ‘Given your client’s willingness to address this investigation publicly up to this point, we would expect him to be willing to testify before Congress.”

(Emphasis included in Lowell’s letter.)

“We look forward to working out the schedule,” Lowell concluded.

READ MORE: ‘Authoritarianism’: Florida Says Its Public Schools Exist to ‘Convey Government’s Message’

 

 

 

Continue Reading

News

Jim Comer Decimated by NBC Reporter in ‘Under Two Minutes’

Published

on

Republican House Oversight Committee Chair Jim Comer melted down in an interview with NBC News Capitol Hill correspondent Ryan Nobles on Tuesday as he once again appeared unable to prove President Joe Biden engaged in money laundering or other illicit acts.

“So sir, there were the two checks,” Nobles told Comer (video below), “the $40,000 check and the $200,000 check that came from the president’s son and into the President’s bank account. There was also subsequent bank records, which were provided through the [Oversight] Committee, that demonstrate that there were also subsequent pieces of information that went from the President to the president’s son.”

Comer repeatedly denied Nobles account.

“That is not true,” Comer claimed.

READ MORE: Comer Says Biden’s Bank Records ‘Don’t Lie’ but His Claims Are Quickly Debunked

“So that you’re saying that that information has been made up then?” Nobles tried to confirm. “Where did that information come from? That came from the Committee.”

“I don’t know,” Comer claimed. “We haven’t seen that information.”

“That is Committee information that is collected from the bank records that your committee has obtained,” Nobles, in something of a “Perry Mason” moment, informed Chairman Comer.

“Just show the check,” Comer insisted.

“Do you have a canceled check for every wire transfer that’s ever come into your account?” Nobles asked.

“Yes,” Comer declared.

“And that’s what has been shown, there is bank records that demonstrate an exact same amount of money,” Nobles explained, as Comer talked over him.

READ MORE: ‘Authoritarianism’: Florida Says Its Public Schools Exist to ‘Convey Government’s Message’

“Are you saying, okay, sir, are you saying those bank records do not exist?” Nobles pressed, “That show the money leaving the President’s account and into his son’s?”

“They were money laundering. You see wires going all over the –” Comer charged.

“Sir, answer this specific question: Is there a bank record that demonstrates the exact amount of money that came from the President’s account into his son’s account that matches the checks that then went back to him? Does that exist? Yes or no?”

“No, no!” Comer blared. “There’s money coming from a law firm.”

“That doesn’t exist? That doesn’t exist, sir?” Nobles asked.

“It does not exist. It’s coming from a law firm. Who put who put the money in the law firm? How do you know the money came from Joe Biden? It could have come from one of Hunter shell companies. You have no idea,” Comer replied.

“Okay. So you are saying that that money that that money exists?” Nobles, making his case, concluded. “That transfer does exist there in the bank records that you and your committee –”

“No!” Comer then declared. “You don’t know what that transfer is.”

READ MORE: No Regrets: Tuberville to Continue Blocking 4-Star Generals While Releasing Hold on Other Officers

Tim Mulvey, the former communications director for the U.S. House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack responded to the clip, writing: “In my experience, when a chairman goes on tv and can’t answer even the most basic questions about ‘blockbuster’ evidence without utterly unraveling, it might not be the strongest case.”

“In under two minutes,” wrote Adam Cohen of Lawyers for Good Government, “James Comer goes from checks that confirm harmless transactions between Joe and Hunter Biden ‘do not exist’ To ‘they exist, but we claim they might be suspicious.'”

White House spokesman Ian Sams posted the clip on social media late Tuesday night, with a snarky comment.

Watch the video below or at this link.

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.