It’s a small one, but it’s very important. Judges ruled that crossdressers are entitled to immunity from persecution. It’s right here in the Examiner.
The good quotes?
“Sexual orientation and sexual identity are immutable; they are so fundamental to one’s identity that a person should not be required to abandon them,” said the opinion by Judge A. Wallace Tashima"
and
"Because there was no evidence of criminal conduct, the immigration board may have been referring to his dress or sexual orientation as a justification for rape, Tashima said in Thursday’s opinion. "The “you asked for it’ excuse for rape is offensive to this court,” he said. "
What do people think? I for one am really happy about this one. It sets a national precedent.
I’m happy about it. Just last night on 20/20 I saw a report about a woman who was killed becuase the police in the town did not arrest 2 men that raped her. When she reported it, they were more concerned with why she was ‘abnormal’ rather than her rape, did not charge the rapers, they found out she reported it, became enraged and killed her.
I say it is a victory indeed.
It sounds to me, from reading the article, that the individual in question had a legitimate fear of being mistreated and/or killed in his homeland, and thus a claim for asylum is justified. I hope he fares better in the USA (though of course the Brandon Teena story makes one wonder if he will not find this country as hospitable as he might be hoping.)
Sounds great. I hope that he’s happy here. And, Arnold, so long as he stays in major urban areas, he’ll probably be all right. I would be willing to bet that he’ll be hailed as a matter of fact.
Of course I agree with the verdict! I see it as a no-brainer.
I’m just wondering if anyone is gonna have the balls to come in here and disagree. If they do, they’d better be prepared for the hog-pile of their lives.
Because of my conservative (reserved) nature and my pro-gun NRA leaning, a lot of people assume that I’m some kind of christian fundie right-wing hawk.
I’m more Libertarian (and yes; I know about the problems of getting a working Libertarian government) in my politics though, and I haven’t practiced any organized religion in over 14 years.
I find harassment against people, for whatever reason, abhorrent.
I may not personally approve of the gay lifestyle, but I think that a person, a citizen, has the right to do/be as they please, as long as no one else is harmed in the process.
This ruling is a good thing; hopefully more and better will follow across-the-board for all civil liberties.
Ooooohhhh, please tell me more about this “Gay Lifstyle!” Drinking mineral water? Listening to Judy all day? Arguing over what shade of cerise the walls should be painted?
[/End Hijack]
I hope you all ignored that. Just me and my UNABATED RAGE.
While I have no problem with the decision to allow asylum, I am a little surprised at the reasoning. I was under the impression that it had to be the government itself that was the source of danger if someone were to request asylum. While I realize that the two people who assaulted this fellow were policeman, that is a different thing than actual government-sponsored persecution. So apparently, it either is not required that the government itself be the persecutor, or the equivalent argument about some American police singling out blacks for abuse would be valid justification for a black man to request asylum protection in another hypothetical country that has our immigration laws. So which of the above is true?
According to the article, they had to prove the man was persecuted because of his membership in a fixed “social group,” which is a legal category under the asylum law.
His lawyer argued that transsexuals in Mexico were a “social group” under the asylum law. He cited testimony by Thomas Davies, an expert in Latin American history and culture, that in Mexico and most of Latin America, males who assumed female roles were targeted by gay bashers and often beaten and raped by police.
It was under the “social group” law that he was granted asylum.
People should be constrained from initiating force or fraud, but people who are peaceful and honest should be free to discriminate with respect to their own association with other people using any criteria they please.
Of course. But I was speaking to the question: “Is it still legal for employers and landlords to discriminate on the basis of being transgendered (crossdressing, transsexual, etc.)?”.
Rape is an ethical abomination, despite whether ninety-nine percent of the population in a democracy might say otherwise.
Care to explain why? The U.S. grants asylum to people who are “unable or unwilling to return their home country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.”
Do you not think that being raped by the police for your membership in a particular social group qualifies as persecution?
So you believe that right should extend into professional relationships (i.e. landlord/tenant, employer/employee), rather than personal ones only?
I personally disagree with that. If a transgendered/transsexual person were to be the best candidate for a job, I believe the employer should be obligated to hire them, whether they wish to “associate” with them or not.
My understanding is that asylum can also be requested if the government connives at, or does nothing to prevent, the alleged violations or dangers.
Sweet_Lotus: For the love of God, don’t go there! The last thing we need is another libertarian thread!
Which actually brings another question to mind. Libertarian, you said «But I was speaking to the question: “Is it still legal for employers and landlords to discriminate on the basis of being transgendered (crossdressing, transsexual, etc.)?”.» How was your post in any way a response to that question? It seems to me instead that it was another attempt to wrench a thread towards a discussion of the Libertarian issue.
What if the employer considered a lesbian midget with original plumbing like herself to be the best candidate? Or must the employer use standards for “best candidate” that you, rather than she, establishes?
Arnold
Actually, that appears to be what you are doing, inasmuch as you are the first to use the “L” word.
At any rate, I was merely pointing out that employers and landlords, and any other peaceful honest people — including you — ought to be free to associate with whomever the wish for whatever reasons they believe matter.
