 |
| Brian Camenker |
That's why I am a huge proponent of letting them talk freely because sooner or later, they always wind up with their foot in their mouths. You can set your watch to it.
A perfect example would be Brian Camenker, the leader of the Southern Poverty Law Center declared hate group Mass Resistance.
Mass Resistance has that title of a hate group for the following reasons:
In 2006-2007, Mass-Resistance pushed for an amendment of the 1996 statute that would have required that parents be notified of any discussion of gay or lesbian issues in the schools. The group proposed language that lumped sexual orientation (which includes heterosexuality, homosexuality and bisexuality) in with criminal behaviors like bestiality and polygamy. During legislative testimony supporting the amendment, Camenker falsely claimed that no homosexuals died in the Holocaust and that the pink triangle the Nazis forced imprisoned gays to wear actually signified Catholic priests. The amendment did not pass.
Camenker, who has long focused on the purported “homosexual agenda” in the schools and frequently claimed gays are dangerous to kids, has repeatedly cited discredited claims from organizations like the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality that link homosexuality and pedophilia.
Allow me include that additionally, Camenker and a local parent David Parker orchestrated a two-year long moral panic by first falsely claiming that Parker was arrested for merely wanting his son to be opted out of classroom discussions of homosexuality and then claiming that his son was physically assaulted by the children of lgbt household for his father's stance.
In 2008, another person affiliated with the organization, Michael Olivio, was arrested after he was caught taking pictures of children at a local middle school school. He and Camenker claimed that he meant to take pictures of students at a high school because the state Commission on Gay, Lesbian, Bi-sexual and Transgendered Youth had held a meeting there (taking pictures of gay students is another sideline of Mass Resistance).
And last but not least, it was Mass Resistance behind repeated smears of Obama appointee Kevin Jennings, including the phony "fistgate" scandal.
As hard as it is to believe, the subject of today's post, Camenker goes around yet another bend of homophobia. He was being interviewed by the phony news service One News Now on the possibility of gay jurors. According to One News Now, here is the scenario:
The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has heard arguments that challenge a prosecutor's decision to remove a lesbian juror from a case involving Daniel Osazuwa, a homosexual Nigerian immigrant convicted of assaulting a guard when he hugged him. When the guard reacted, he fell to the ground, and Osazuwa toppled on top of him. Osazuwa contends that this greeting is a friendly gesture in Nigeria.
And the following is what Camenker said:
"There are a million reasons why someone might want to not include someone who is a practicing homosexual from a jury, especially [from a case] that has to do with homosexuality," the MassResistance spokesman points out. "This is very dangerous, I think."
Camenker goes on to warn that the Ninth Circuit's decision in this case will set precedence for future similar cases. And he contends that if the court rules in favor of the lesbian juror, it would secure special protection for homosexuals.
Camenker is right. Why if gays are allowed to serve on juries, particularly in cases involving gay issues, the next thing you know, they will get uppity and want to be treated like regular human beings.
8 comments:
Right. "Millions of reasons." Anyone who speaks in this sort of hyperbole can always be disregarded. What a bozo this Camenker fellow is. I don't understand this sort of person at all. He needs to be locked up in a padded cell.
Yes, if gays are allowed to serve on juries, they might even be allowed to pay taxes and vote.
What baffles me is his claim that allowing LGBTs to serve on juries amounts to a special privilege. Don't most people hate jury duty? I would love being able to get out of it by saying I was gay.
I say we let this guy keep going. Maybe next he'll argue that gays shouldn't have the right to pay taxes.
I've never once been asked about my sexual orientation when I was on jury duty. If I get seated on a jury it only means that I passed muster with both lawyers.
If I'm not a plaintiff or defendant, I don't walk in with an agenda.
I know what "peer" means. If anyone doesn't want to accept me as one, that's their problem.
I think a big help is to understand the agenda of wackos like Camenker (who's been at it for a long time--20 years, if not more).
I suspect there are at least 2 things at work here, perhaps 3:
1. A personal disapproval of homosexuality (which is legitimate).
2. Much more important, these folks MAKE MONEY by spreading hate--primarily through speaking engagements and selling books.
3. In *some* cases, they may be trying to cover up or divert attention from their own homosexuality (real, or feared). This has certainly been the case with almost ALL the Repugnican gay haters.
RE:1. A personal disapproval of homosexuality (which is legitimate).
If i said I personally disapproved of black people, would that be legitimate? Bigotry is bigotry and cannot be justified because it is simply one's own disapproval.
Anonymous 09:43 makes an interesting and legitimate point.
I think personal aversion to or distaste of/with sexual behaviors is a far more "intimate" matter than one's views of other *ethnic* or race groups.
Of course, there are various "learning" aspects as well. In decades past, many conservative Xian denominations taught (and some still do teach) rate-hatred based on (mis-)understandings of the bible; so in a sense, a person who hates, based on such an upbringing, is a victim (in a very real sense) of his parents or personal culture.
Look, don't get me wrong, I think ALL hatreds of others are wrong; in part, however, I may differ from others in that I seek, not merely to condemn them, but also to understand them--how they arise, what purpose they serve in a person's life, etc.
A further observation to my remarks above:
Everyone is entitled to like or dislike other individuals or groups--race/ethnic groups, behavior groups, socioecon groups, etc.
There are differences, however, between (a) personal, private views, (b) what or how those are expressed, and (c) advocating hatred or different treatment of those groups based on their distinguishing characteristics.
That is the primary point I was trying to make in my comment about "legitimate" like or dislike.
Post a Comment