Connect with us

Missouri Bill To Ban Racial Profiling Draws Attention For Including Gays

Published

on

Legislation Inspired By Michael Brown’s Murder Covers Race, Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity

Two African-American Democrats in Missouri, ground zero for the #BlackLivesMatter movement in the wake of Michael Brown’s 2014 murder at the hands of Ferguson Officer Darren Wilson, have introduced a bill that would ban police profiling of racial and other minorities, including gays. 

The bill would require Missouri law enforcement officers to report the “perceived race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, disability, English language proficiency or national origin” of motorists and pedestrians who are stopped by police. Agencies would then report the data to the state, and if it were to show a pattern of police profiling, they could be subject to increased officer training requirements, funding cuts and even de-certification. 

In addition to anecdotal evidence such as Brown’s shooting, existing data in Missouri shows that a ban on racial profiling by police is sorely needed. Missouri already requires law enforcement officers to report the ethnicity of those who are stopped, and in 2014, blacks were 75 percent more likely to be pulled over than whites, according to The St. Louis Post Dispatch. 

“Blacks and Hispanics also were more likely to be searched as a result of those stops — even though white drivers were more likely to be in possession of drugs, weapons or other illegal contraband,” the newspaper reports. 

Unfortunately, a column in the Post Dispatch misrepresents the new bill, known as the Fair and Impartial Policing Act, by referring to it in a headline as a “driving while gay” measure and questioning the rationale of requiring police to record characteristics that aren’t readily discernible. Not surprisingly, commenters expressed outrage about the proposal, even calling one of the bill’s authors, state Sen. Jamilah Nasheed, a “communist.” 

To be clear, though, the bill would prohibit law enforcement officers from asking drivers, passengers and pedestrians for anything other than ID, motor vehicle registration, name and address. In addition, the identities of those who are stopped and the officers who stopped them would remain private.

Moreover, numerous studies have shown that LGBT people, just like other minorities, routinely are victims of police profiling — especially transgender and gender-nonconforming people, queer people of color, and homeless youth.

In a 2015 paper titled “Discrimination and Harassment by Law Enforcement Officers in the LGBT Community,” researchers at UCLA’s Williams Institute wrote:

“A 2014 report on a national survey of 2,376 LGBT people and people living with HIV found that 73% of respondents had face-to-face contact with the police in the past five years. Of those respondents, 21% reported encountering hostile attitudes from officers, 14% reported verbal assault by the police, 3% reported sexual harassment and 2% reported physical assault at the hands of law enforcement officers.” 

In December 2014, in response to controversies nationwide over fatal police shootings, the U.S. Department of Justice released guidance prohibiting federal law enforcement officers from profiling based on race and other factors, including sexual orientation and gender identity. At the time, the National Center for Transgender Equality said the DOJ guidance didn’t go far enough because it exempted TSA and border security agents, as well as certain anti-terror investigators, in addition to state and local law enforcement officers:

“At a time when many communities are reeling from violence at the hands of police misconduct, our nation’s commitment to equality must be firm and without exception,” NCET Executive Director Mara Keisling said. “Whether ‘driving while Black,’ ‘flying while Muslim,’ ‘walking while Latino,’ or ‘walking while trans,’ it is always and everywhere wrong.” 

(Notably, the Missouri bill includes sexual orientation and gender, but not “gender identity,” in its definition of “biased policing.” However, it includes “gender identity” in describing a violation of the statute.)

In March 2015, President Barack Obama’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing released recommendations mostly focusing on racial profiling, but also addressing LGBT issues. The recommendations included legislation similar to the new Missouri bill, as well as establishing search and seizure procedures “that cease using the possession of condoms as the sole evidence of intent to engage in prostitution-related offenses.” 

Also last year, Democratic Congressmen Ben Cardin and John Conyers reintroduced the End Racial Profiling Act (ERPA), which also includes sexual orientation and gender identity. The bill currently has only 99 co-sponsors:

“From Stonewall to stop-and-frisk, LGBTQ people … have long been targets of profiling and other forms of discriminatory policing,” Lambda Legal wrote in support of the bill. “The consequences have ranged from deportation to death, arrest to assault, homophobic harassment to humiliation.” 

Maryland — site of widespread protests over the 2015 death of Freddie Gray by Baltimore police — recently became the first state to enact a ban on police profiling of minorities, including LGBT people, and it seems likely that other progressive states will soon follow suit.

Let’s just hope debates about these critical measures aren’t reduced to “driving while gay.”

 

This article has been updated. 

Image by N!(K — loveforphotography – via Flickr and a CC license

There's a reason 10,000 people subscribe to NCRM. You can get the news before it breaks just by subscribing, plus you can learn something new every day.
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.

News

Americans Turn Against Trump’s Crime Crackdowns: Report

Published

on

Nine months into the second Donald Trump presidency, a majority of Americans strongly oppose his hard-line crime-crackdown policies, including sending military forces into U.S. cities. Americans also, for the second year in a row, see crime as less serious.

“Americans as a whole lean toward moderation in the use of law enforcement to combat crime,” and “now view national crime conditions more favorably than at any point in recent years,” according to two Gallup studies published Thursday.

President Trump ran on reducing crime during the 2024 campaign, and, despite tremendous opposition from the left, and rather than funding initiatives to address the causes of crime, he has deployed the National Guard to several Democratic-led cities, while battling in court for the right to do so. The President repeatedly, and increasingly, cites the Insurrection Act, claiming he has the right to invoke it and saying that the courts would do nothing to stop him.

READ MORE: ‘How Authoritarians Rule’: National Security Experts Blast Trump’s New Nuclear ‘Fear Show’

“The clearest indication of Americans’ approach to crime fighting comes from a question asking whether more government money and effort should go toward addressing some of the societal problems that may lead to crime or toward strengthening law enforcement,” Gallup reported. “Currently, 67% favor focusing on ‘addressing social and economic problems such as drug addiction, homelessness and mental health,’ while 29% believe more resources should be devoted to ‘strengthening law enforcement.'”

Gallup also reported that “Americans’ resistance to vigorous law enforcement is also evident in their opposition to deploying troops from either the National Guard or the U.S. military to control crime in U.S. cities.”

President Trump in recent days has threatened to send into U.S. cities not only the National Guard, but other branches of the Armed Forces.

“I could send the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, I could, say, send anybody I wanted,” Trump said on Wednesday.

READ MORE: GOP Leader Erupts Over Democrat’s Effort to Fund SNAP — Then Blocks Bill

On Tuesday, Trump told reporters: “You know, people don’t care if we send in our military, if we send in our National Guard, if we send in Space Command, they don’t care who the hell it is.”

“Really, we could do as we want to do,” he insisted.

But according to Gallup, most Americans say the issue does matter to them.

Reporting that “most U.S. adults oppose militarized responses to urban crime,” Gallup found that 60% of Americans “are against sending military troops to cities to control crime,” and “56% oppose sending National Guard troops to U.S. cities.”

Gallup found a “broader public inclination toward moderate, preventive approaches to crime reduction over stringent sentencing and enforcement at a time when Americans are less concerned about the U.S. crime problem than they’ve been in recent years.”

And Gallup is not alone in its reporting.

Earlier this month, CNN reported that a CBS News-YouGov poll showed Americans “opposed Trump’s decision to deploy the Guard to US cities, 58%-42%. A recent Quinnipiac University poll showed they disapproved of Trump’s use of the Guard and federal law enforcement to reduce crime, 55%-42%. And NPR-Ipsos polling in recent weeks showed fewer than 4 in 10 Americans supported Trump’s decisions to deploy the Guard to Washington, DC, and Memphis, Tennessee.”

READ MORE: Public Turns on GOP as Shutdown Fallout Deepens: Report

 

Image via Reuters 

 

Continue Reading

News

‘How Authoritarians Rule’: National Security Experts Blast Trump’s New Nuclear ‘Fear Show’

Published

on

A wide array of national security and intelligence community experts is strongly criticizing President Donald Trump’s new nuclear policy, announced on his social media website, which effectively orders the U.S. Department of Defense to halt a 33-year-old ban on nuclear weapons testing and begin the process again.

“The United States has more Nuclear Weapons than any other country,” Trump declared — wrongly, according to experts. “This was accomplished, including a complete update and renovation of existing weapons, during my First Term in office. Because of the tremendous destructive power, I HATED to do it, but had no choice!”

“Russia is second, and China is a distant third, but will be even within 5 years,” he continued, in the moments before meeting with China’s President Xi for the first time in six years. “Because of other countries testing programs, I have instructed the Department of War to start testing our Nuclear Weapons on an equal basis. That process will begin immediately. Thank you for your attention to this matter! PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP.”

READ MORE: Trump Suggests He Could Invoke the Insurrection Act — and ‘Courts Wouldn’t Get Involved’

The Steady State, an organization of over 300 former U.S. national security professionals across the intelligence, defense, diplomacy, and homeland security fields, slammed President Trump’s remarks.

“Nuclear testing isn’t something you greenlight in a post,” they wrote, “but turning national security into a fear show is how authoritarians rule.”

Other experts also slammed the president.

Tom Nichols, professor emeritus of national-security affairs at the U.S. Naval War College, where he taught for 25 years, is an expert on international security, nuclear weapons, and Russia.

At The Atlantic, Nichols wrote that Trump’s “reasoning is a bit confused: In the space of one short announcement, he managed to get a lot wrong, which is worrisome, because he’s the only person in America who has the authority to order the use of nuclear arms.”

Pointing to Trump’s post, Nichols explained, “Almost none of this is right.”

He wrote that Russia, not the U.S., has the world’s largest stockpile of nuclear weapons. And while China is third, Nichols appeared skeptical that they could reach parity with the U.S. in five years. Doing so would require 1,000 new nuclear warheads a year, when they have only constructed 100 in the past two years, he wrote.

“Also, the United States did not create some shiny new arsenal during Trump’s first term. It is true that America is about to spend a gigantic amount of money—roughly $1 trillion—to modernize its strategic nuclear arsenal, but that plan has been in the works since the Obama administration.”

READ MORE: GOP Leader Erupts Over Democrat’s Effort to Fund SNAP — Then Blocks Bill

Professor of Political Science Michael McFaul, the former U.S. Ambassador to Russia, also condemned Trump’s order to restart testing of nuclear weapons.

“This makes absolutely no sense,” he wrote. “The only winner of renewed testing of nuclear weapons: China.”

The Washington Post’s lead global security analyst Josh Rogin, speaking on CNN overnight, said: “Trump’s brain probably thinks he’s acting tough, and then, by testing nuclear weapons, he’s showing American strength.”

He also noted that “the U.S. did sign a treaty to promise not to test nuclear weapons, and this would violate that, or at least abrogate that.”

Rogin added that “testing nuclear weapons has its own risks. Once we start testing, a lot of other people are gonna start testing.”

“But, you know, from Trump’s perspective, I’m sure, it means he thinks that, this is a real tough thing to do to really show the world that we’re not afraid to test our weapons, maybe we’re not afraid to use them.”

READ MORE: Public Turns on GOP as Shutdown Fallout Deepens: Report

 

Image via Reuters 

Continue Reading

News

GOP Leader Erupts Over Democrat’s Effort to Fund SNAP — Then Blocks Bill

Published

on

Senate Republican Majority Leader John Thune launched into a diatribe attacking Democrats when one — Sen. Ben Ray Luján of New Mexico — asked unanimous consent to pass legislation to pay the 42 million Americans who use SNAP, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. Later, Thune apologized — to reporters, not Senator Luján, for his remarks.

Despite having about $5 to $6 billion in emergency funds for SNAP, the Trump administration decided to reverse its previous policy to pay recipients during a shutdown. That policy, which was removed from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s website, had stated the “Congressional intent” was to make the funds available.

Experts have said there is a legal requirement to fund SNAP via its contingency reserves during the shutdown.

“Senate Republicans blocked legislation on Wednesday that would help low-income households afford groceries during the government shutdown, despite bipartisan support for providing nutrition aid to tens of millions of Americans,” Bloomberg News reported.

Punchbowl News’ Andrew Desiderio described Thune’s remarks as a “blowup,” and said he went “nuclear.”

READ MORE: ‘No Moral Compass’: Cuomo Condemned for ‘Odious’ and ‘Racist’ Remarks on Mamdani

“The senator from New Mexico was absolutely right,” Leader Thune said on the Senate floor Wednesday afternoon. “SNAP recipients shouldn’t go without food.”

Republicans’ position is that Democrats are to blame for the shutdown, now in its 29th day. But polling shows that more Americans blame Republicans and President Trump for the shutdown than Democrats, whom they believe are trying to reopen the government more than Republicans.

“People should be getting paid in this country. And we’ve tried to do that 13 times. And you voted no, 13 times,” he said, pointing to Democrats who have refused to vote to reopen the federal government until Republicans agree to reinstate the Affordable Care Act subsidies that expire at the end of the year. Obamacare premiums are expected to skyrocket without the subsidies.

“This isn’t a political game,” Thune said, angrily. “These are real people’s lives that we’re talking about. And you all just figured that out?”

“29 days and, ‘Oh, there might be some consequences.’ There are people who are running out of money. Yeah, we’re 29 days in.”

“13 times, people over here voted to fund SNAP. 13 times, they voted to fund WIC,” he said of the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children.

READ MORE: Trump Suggests He Could Invoke the Insurrection Act — and ‘Courts Wouldn’t Get Involved’

“My aching back,” Thune said, expressing frustration.

The Majority Leader then went on to charge that Democrats want the shutdown to continue, long term.

“So are they making plans to end the shutdown and reopen the government?” he asked. “Nope. They’re gonna propose a bill to fund food stamps during their shutdown.”

“This bill is a cynical attempt to provide political cover for Democrats to allow them to carry on their government shutdown for the long term.”

After his remarks, and after leaving the floor, Politico reported that Thune told reporters, “Sorry I channeled a little bit of anger there.”

READ MORE: Trump Admin Blames Dems’ Immigration and Trans Policies for Food Stamp Shut Off

 

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.