I Know, I Know

So it's become obvious that I just don't have time to update this here blog doohickey at present. Between going to school full time and Occupying, etc, I haven't had the ability to post regularly here.

However! I'm still writing. You can catch me periodically over at the New City Collegian, Seattle Central Community College's guerilla student blog. ALSO! Brad Crelia at Hivster.com has invited me to return (he's paying me this time so why not) in order to continue posting my column there as well as promoting me to editor.

Kisses!

xoxo

Ian Awesome

Courting Catholics

In the wake of the passing Senate Bill 6239 which is expected to go to the Washington State House of Representatives this week, it appears that opponents of marriage equality have wasted no time in getting their demonstrations started. As early as Friday morning, members of a Catholic charitable organization known as the Knights of Columbus already showed their presence on the Capitol steps carrying a sign stating “Knights of Columbus Support Marriage Exclusively Between One Man & One Woman”.

It's okay, guys, the Knights didn't get the memo that Jesus is cool with you too.

The Knights of Columbus, whose ability to help raise $1M along with the Catholic Church and other anti-marriage organizations during the 2008 California Proposition 8 battle, seem to be in a bit of a bind themselves these days with most of their money and donations going to anti-gay marriage as opposed to relief work right on the heels of their 130^th anniversary, as Nicole Sotelo reports in the National Catholic Reporter:

“On the surface this sounds benign, but “family life” is the Knights’ terminology for predominantly anti-gay initiatives, whereas “community projects” represents soup kitchens and food pantries… Additionally, in 2009 and 2010, Knights officials contributed $200,000 as noted in annual reports to Vox Clara, the bishops’ committee responsible for turning back the clock on the liturgy and implementing the recent controversial language changes in the Mass. They have been a significant funder of the committee since 2006. Over the same time period, the Knights donated almost $1.2 million to fund the bishops’ newly created committee that works against equal protection for gays and lesbians and dubbed it “charity” in their annual report.”

Although Washington has historically been considered one of the most non-religious states, the Catholic Church represents the largest religious organization in this state with 1,058,721 members, inclusive of the Archdiocese of Seattle and the Diocese of Spokane. While many Washington Catholics such as Governor Christine Gregoire (D) - who helped to endorse this bill – are split on the issue of same-sex marriage, they can also be great allies in the fight for greater civil rights.

As same-sex marriage becomes a closer reality for residents of Washington State, it will be increasingly important for members of equal rights groups to garner increasing support religious communities in raising money and awareness about the facts of marriage equality and help to assuage concerns about the negative impact of allowing gay marriage and in speaking out, as I have in my own personal blog, about addressing the fundamental dissonance in fighting against marriage when monies raised could be going toward more constructive ends.

NOM Has A Hissyfit, Part Five Thousand

This is an exciting year for queers in Washington State, as it appears that the legislature is finally on the brink of approving same-sex nuptials for all residents of the Evergreen State. Numerous politicians have voiced their support for a measure legalizing marriage equality, while a number of large corporations based in Seattle and outlying areas have endorsed the proposed law, to include Starbucks:

Starbucks is proud to join other leading Northwest employers in support of Washington State legislation recognizing marriage equality for same-sex couples. Starbucks strives to create a company culture that puts our partners first, and our company has a lengthy history of leading and supporting policies that promote equality and inclusion.

This important legislation is aligned with Starbucks business practices and upholds our belief in the equal treatment of partners. It is core to who we are and what we value as a company. We are proud of our Pride Alliance Partner Network group, which is one of the largest Employer Resource Groups for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) employees in the U.S., helping to raise awareness about issues in the communities where we live and work.

While I'm not a HUGE fan of corporations, I DO get a tickle when they (whatever their other practices) get their heads out of their collective asses and fall on the right side of history regarding LGBT rights. One organization (which seems to have forgotten it was effing broke recently) has weighed in heavily against the measure, specifically targeting Starbucks for their support. Who is it? Our old friends over at National Organization for Marriage:

 

Today, Brian Brown, the president of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), sharply criticized Starbucks' decision to wade into the gay marriage fight in Washington State. That decision comes on top of an earlier decision by Starbucks to ask the Supreme Court to strike down the federal definition of marriage as one man and one woman as well.

"Americans should be able to drink a peaceful cup of coffee without worrying that a portion of the company's profits is going to be used to push gay marriage without a vote from the people," said Brown. "This is a gratuitous leap into a hot button culture war issue; respect for diversity touted by Starbucks ought to include respecting the diverse views of all its customers and employees."

Meh. I'm not sure that Starbucks has actually contributed a dime to marriage equality, but can't you just HEAR Miss Bond's hissyfit in NOM's hatequarters?

Norm Stamper Speaks: "Police Departments Are The Junior Partners In The Community"

Since the formation of the Department of Homeland Security on November 25^th, 2002 under the Presidency of George W. Bush, an unprecedented militarization and escalation of tactics in the US has taken place among police departments. From the arming of our police forces with armored personnel carriers to the frequent use of SWAT teams against unarmed and non-threatening protesters, a rash of police actions have swept the country that has led many activists, advocates, and citizens to ask: is this what our police force should be used for?

In no place is that escalation and use of heavy force more apparent than Seattle. The Seattle Police Department has a long history of excessive force in its actions, perhaps most notable by the slaying of John T. Williams, an indigenous woodcarver who was shot by Officer Ian Birk simply because he could not hear Birk’s order to stop.

Occupy Seattle has seen its share of extreme action, most famously in the case of Dorli Rainey, an 84-year old woman who waspepper-sprayed on November 15th, 2011 after complying with a police order to stand on a sidewalk. In other cases, police have used horses, flash-bang grenades, and physical assault in order to subdue peaceful protesters.

The Department of Justice has, since these incidents, issued a strongly worded letter to the Seattle Police Department for their abuses, specifically citing Occupy Seattle as a matter of interest in their investigation. The Department, under the auspices of Chief of Police John Diaz, has been recalcitrant in the wake of this admonishment and continues to refute the Federal Government’s attempts to rein in what appears to many to be a department which has gone out of control.

In 1999, a notorious riot exacerbated by police action took place in what has now been called the “Battle of Seattle.” The Chief of Police at that time was one Norm Stamper, who after his retirement has publicly stated he regretted his decisions during that action and now works tirelessly against police brutality. Thanks to the Occupy Seattle Media Team, I was able to schedule an interview with Stamper, in which we addressed the WTO riots of 1999, current uses of force in the SPD, and what he feels Chiefs like Diaz should keep in mind.

Ian Awesome: You were chief of police during one of the most notorious stateside clashes between police and protester in recent decades. What are you doing now and how has your tenure as chief of police in Seattle affected your current affairs? 

Norm Stamper: It was during that event that I made the worst decision of my career, which was to permit the use of chemical agents on a non-violent, non-threatening crowd on 6^th. We made that decision because we felt it was a necessity, but there was NO necessity for that decision, and I will regret that forever. That week is unfortunately considered my legacy.
I’m a writer, I do some public speaking, and I am mostly involved in drug policy reform and work for the abolition of the death penalty. 

So what’s happened of course is that every time there is an anniversary for the Battle of Seattle, I’ll get a call asking me for my reflections on what happened in ‘99 and what I would have done differently. Of course, Occupy has really taken hold in this country and captured the imagination of so many people so I’ve been doing a lot of interviews on that as well. 

IA: Occupy Seattle has frequently been the victim of heavy-handed tactics even though the recipients of those attacks were peaceably demonstrating or, in many cases, just sleeping. Do you think the current level of force (such as indiscriminate pepper-spray use, riding horses into crowds, punching, flashbang grenades, and use of SWAT teams) is appropriate to the actions of these demonstrators? 

 The remnants of a flashbang grenade used at our Port Action. Photo by Joseph H.

NS: There are times and circumstances when use of force is justified but, generally, there appears to be no justification of the use of chemical weapons and other methods of force. The iconic UC Davis video is a perfect example. These non-violent demonstrators were causing no harm to anyone, to include the police, and were sprayed in a manner that was almost cavalier. It was as if that officer was watering his roses! 

In short, I think that there has been a massive overreaction across the country. My overarching opinion is that it is too much too soon and that it is exacerbating tensions between Occupy and police departments. 

IA: You recently said on The Nation that the paramilitary bureaucracy today is worse than it was in the 1990s. Would you view incidents such as the use of SWAT teams to evict unarmed and peaceful Occupiers from buildings as a symptom of that increased sense of “protesters are the enemy?” 

NS: You know, I do believe that in general there has been a major increase in the militarization of American law enforcement. We are seeing SWAT teams used for things that were not part of the designed purpose of SWAT teams. They were established to deal with hostages, bank robberies, heavily armed individuals, and often times domestic violence situations where someone is holding their partner at gunpoint. SWAT is a smart response to these problems. What’s happened is SWAT is now being employed for very low level drug offenses, on political protests and other situations. 

SWAT operations can get people killed when used improperly, even though the purpose is to protect lives, to include the lives of alleged perpetrators. There is a problem in law enforcement today and that is scared cops! They have been erroneously conditioned to believe that the next person who answers a door they knock on is going to kill them. If that’s your mindset and orientation and your tools are SWAT, tragic outcomes are all but inevitable.

IA: Recently the Department of Justice soundly chastised the Seattle Police Department with Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez characterizing SPD’s practices to ensure trust with the community as “broken,” which Police Chief Diaz hotly denies. What would your response be were you in his position? Do you have a word of advice you would give to Chief of Police Diaz? 

NS: Well, without being presumptuous, I would offer this view to any chief including Diaz. If you do not conceive of your police department as belonging to the community, then you have the wrong conception of policing a free and democratic society. I think it’s very important the police take the view that they are the junior partners of the communities they serve. If there’s a senior partner in that relationship it is the community by at least a ratio of 51/49, and that isn’t just the business community or blind supporters of the police department, but also critics and those who have been on the receiving end of oppressive police action.

Norm Stamper is just one voice among many calling for the demilitarization of our police forces. The question is, of course, will current federal leadership and individual police departments listen? 

Yes, I'm Really Posting This On My Blog

Sorry for the writing hiatus. I'll come back, I promise.

In the meantime, I made this video about tacos. I'm not sure why the sound doesn't work.



It's been that kind of week.

Barack Obama Signs "Detention" Bill

See you all in hell. By which I mean Guatanamo Bay.

In a move that has horrified civil liberties advocates (not to mention thousands upon thousands of Americans) President Barack Obama signed today a controversial defense authorization bill which contains amendments authorizing the White House to detain persons of interest in terrorism investigations indefinitely by using the US military:

The White House had said that the legislation could lead to an improper military role in overseeing detention and court proceedings and could infringe on the president’s authority in dealing with terrorism suspects. But it said that Mr. Obama could interpret the statute in a way that would preserve his authority. 

The president, for example, said that he would never authorize the indefinite military detention of American citizens, because “doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a nation.” He also said he would reject a “rigid across-the-board requirement” that suspects be tried in military courts rather than civilian courts.

Basically, he has given himself the authority to detain Americans without due process but really really wants us to know that he is going to do the right thing and not use that authority. Right.

Keep in mind he also was going to ease federal restrictions on medical marijuana laws yet has instituted crackdowns on dispensaries in Washington State. He promised to have more lax deportation standards but instead has deported more immigrants than any previous president. So are we supposed to trust him?

Have A Very Nerdy New Year

I couldn't help myself. Happy New Year!

Thanks to Marcia R. and her loud roommate for making this beauty.

Also, I Like It When Men Serenade Each Other For Charity

My favorite winter song made adorbs by Mister Chase and Chris Salvatore. Plus if you download it you'll be donating money to charity!

Happy Holidays And All That Crap

I've been busy schlepping around the country enjoying my winter break, but I thought I'd stop by the blog to give a quick shout-out to all my readers.

It's been a fantastic year, marked with some amazing events. If it weren't for this blog, I'd probably have no focus and little determination; it's because of you guys that I have the drive and motivation to improve my life and the lives of others around me.

So thank you, dear readers. Whether we spend these days alone or with family, I want you to know that you're ALL family to me.

From OneAngryQueer and all our guest writers*, Happy Holidays.

*And guest writers? If you don't start posting I'm firing the lot of you. 

Yes, Discrimination Against HIV+ Employees Still Exists

The US has laws on the books that prevent on-the-job discrimination against employees working in the States who are living with HIV. It's fantastic legislation that I have been grateful for since my positive test result in January, 2009. I have felt secure since then because I felt that I would be be protected in the workplace.  Maybe I shouldn't have that false sense of security, as it is plain that discrimination is still taking place.

One former employee isn't smiling.

One HIV-positive man in a Michigan dental office called Great Expressions is now alleging that his employees and coworkers, once they found out he carried the virus, created a horribly uncomfortable environment at work. They sprayed him with Lysol, ordered him to not touch doorknobs, and eventually fired him over his serostatus.

Lawyers for James White have called his case the worst case of alleged HIV-related job discrimination they have ever handled. According to White, who was an office assistant at Great Expressions Dental Center, his superiors leaked news of his HIV-positive status to fellow coworkers, several of whom began spraying White with Lysol, prohibiting him from touching doorknobs, and wiping down office furniture and equipment after he used it. Finally, during a stint in the hospital to seek care for his HIV, Great Expressions allegedly called White and told him not to return to work.

White has already sought legal action against Great Expressions, with the Detroit chapter of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruling that there was probable cause to believe that the office discriminated against him because of his serostatus. Great Expressions has ignored the ruling, however a Change.org petition has been created with 37,500 signatures at the time of this writing demanding an apology from the administrators of the office.

Just to be clear about the law in the US regarding HIV-positive employees, I got this clarification from the website for the National Association of Social Workers:

Individuals with disabilities are protected under the Americans with DisabilitiesAct (ADA). Persons with HIV, whether they have outwardly manifested symptoms or not, are considered to have physical impairments that substantially limit one or more major life activities. Therefore, the ADA covers them.The ADA gives federal civil rights protection to individuals with disabilities. It also guarantees equal opportunity in public accommodations, employment, transportation, state and local government services and telecommunications. Recent court decisions and pending legislation may affect this protection of HIV-positive people against discrimination.

Equal Employment Opportunity Laws (EEOP) cover all private employers, state and local governments, and education institutions that employ 15 or more individuals. They also cover private and public employment agencies, labor organizations, and joint labor management committees controlling apprenticeship and training.

[Employment practices covered by the ADA] include hiring, firing, job application procedures, job interviews, job assignment, training and promotions, and wage benefits, including health insurance, leave, and other employment related activities.Employers who know an employee is HIV-positive are required to make "reasonable accommodations" for that person.

Great Expressions is clearly violating the law as mandated by the federal government.

People are often taken aback with my willingness to disclose my status, and James White is a perfect example why. People can't hold prejudices or unfair stigma against people living with HIV when someone they like or respect is open about their serostatus. I look forward to the day when this sort of disgusting harassment ends.

 

 

Video: Port Shutdown by Ken Lapworth

One of our fabulous Occupy supporters and Livestream viewers, Ken Lapworth, was on-scene for our Port action on December 12th. You may remember him from his last video about the Portland eviction. His latest installment is found below.

Memos, Conference Calls, and Police PR

In recent weeks, Occupy encampments around the country have faced numerous obstacles imposed upon them by local and municipal authorities. Major evictions have happened in nearly every metropolitan area that can claim an Occupation as its own, with many Occupiers alleging that their forceful evictions included instances of police brutality ranging from pepper spray to Long Range Acoustic Device (LRAD) use.

Many of these evictions happened within days of each other, leading Occupiers to speculate that widespread coordination on a national level had taken place. Mayor Jean Quan of Oakland, in a rambling radio interview with the BBC, was kind enough to confirm that some coordination had taken place, letting slip that an informal call between 18 city governments regarding Occupy had taken place on October 10th.

Thanks, Mayor Quan!

Curious about Seattle's possible involvement in that call, Alex-Jon (AJ) Earl, a dedicated Occupy supporter and sometime reader of OneAngryQueer, requested from Mayor McGinn's office all Occupy-related memos and e-mails that had been communicated between the dates of October 15th and November 16th. They released to him a huge batch of documents equaling hundreds of pages of PDF files. He scoured them, and came up with some interesting information. I was pleased to sit down with him last night and examine some of the documentation provided.

For instance, did you know that Mayor Sam Adams spent a considerable amount of time making phone calls personally to other cities in the country regarding the Occupy movement?

An e-mail from mayoral staffer Beth Hester to journalist Christ Grygiel.

Also, a survey that saw little-to-no publicizing was initiated by officials in Philadelphia in order to aggregate information regarding Occupy and the statistics related to each city's occupation:

Reviewing the survey, it asks questions regarding how many arrests were made, whether or not protesters had blocked bridges, and probes how homeless populations had moved in with Occupations. All in all, it was an interesting read. Why was the government of Philadelphia trying to get information about each Occupation? Were they forming a database?

This, as we dug deeper, is not in of itself a scandal. After all, they're just talking about past experiences with and observations of their Occupations, right?

Braden Pence, one of the members of Occupy Seattle's legal team, did further digging through the documents and turned up even more interesting information. After all, AJ requested the documents in order to further research telephone coordination between mayoral staffs addressing the Occupy movement. They asked, how exactly was Mayor McGinn's office involved?

That's when Braden and AJ struck gold: the Mayor's office, thus far, had told the press that they were not invited to participate in Mayor Quan's now-infamous "informal teleconference" coordinated by the United States Conference of Mayors (UCSM). Multiple press inquiries were met with repeated denials once the news broke on the 15th. Mayor McGinn's office, evidently, was swamped with media requests on that day regarding the teleconference:

Please note in this inquiry that Sean Whitcomb, who works in the Seattle Police Department's Office of Public relations, is referenced. He comes up later.

Again and again, the Mayor's office denied involvement with that conference call, and there is no evidence to indicate that they were, in fact, involved. The thing that astounded us, however, is that they made no mention that they were participating in another less-publicized conference call regarding unspecified topics related to the Occupy movements.

The story about Mayor Quan's story broke on the morning of the 15th of November. However, after dating the e-mails, it is now apparent that on the 14th (the day before) correspondence took place in the Mayor's office suggesting the Mayor sit in on a conference call on the 16th, a detail conveniently unmentioned when press inquiries were made.

Note that Shauna Larsen is the City of Seattle's federal liaison based in Washington DC. Tom Cochran is the CEO of the US Conference of Mayors. 

Larsen then recommended that someone from the Mayor's office attend the call:

Unfortunately, Mayor McGinn was unavailable. However, turns out one of his staffers was: 

Ethan Raup is the director of Policy and Operations. Allison Burson is the Mayor's Executive Assistant.

Yes. Ethan can take that call. No problem.

Keep in mind that the original invitation from the USCM to participate in an Occupy teleconference for November 16th was sent out on the 14th, two days prior. Mayor Quan's gaffe that revealed inter-city communications regarding Occupations nationwide was reported on the 15th, and the media requests above were received by the Mayor's office that day at the same time this conference for the 16th was being scheduled. 

Did they technically give the correct answer when asked about the November 10th call? Oh, sure. Did they blithely forget to mention that they were busily scheduling another call coordinated by the USCM to address the issue of the Occupy movement? Definitely.

So, at this point, we were intrigued by the documents buried in countless pages of what amounted to memo spam; letters about permits and sound ordinances that surrounded short communiques scheduling conference calls that had the potential to affect a large and attention-grabbing movement. Why didn't they mention it? 

Whatever their reasons, that wasn't the only thing Braden and AJ found.

Everyone knows who Dorli Rainey is. The 84-year-old former schoolteacher and mayoral candidate, on November 15th (the day everyone was busily calling the Mayor to get a clear story and only getting half an accurate picture), happened to be on-scene during one of Occupy Seattle's protests, and ended up getting pepper-sprayed while standing on a sidewalk. She had the misfortune to be observing the mounting tensions between OS and the Seattle Police Department that night and got a face full of pepper spray as a result. The iconic photo that resulted from that night's events can be found here. 

In response to the incident (which almost instantly garnered horrific press for the SPD), the mayor began circulating his official apology among staffers to get their input. What's remarkable is that one of the people involved in that chain of e-mails is Sean Whitcomb (remember him from earlier?), a Sergeant in the SPD who works in the Office of Public Relations.  The original, unaltered version of his apology can be found below: 

But Sergeant Whitcomb had some suggestions: 

The perfect person to amend the mayor's apology regarding police brutality: a member of the police department.

In the end, this is what the Mayor released:

I also called in Seattle Police Chief John Diaz and the command staff to review the actions of last night. They agreed that this was not their preferred outcome. Here are the steps we are taking in response, to achieve a better outcome next time: 

• Reviewing with our officers the deployment of pepper spray last night
• Developing a procedure to ensure appropriate commanders are on the ground at these kinds of events.
• Making sure that we have appropriate levels of police resources at protest events.

While the Mayor didn't exactly conform his statement to Whitcomb's advice, it is clear that Mike McGinn altered his apology for the indiscriminate pepper spraying of peaceful protesters by SPD at the urging of... a member of SPD. Who is working for who, exactly? Does the SPD work at the direction of City Hall, or does City Hall form its policy at the behest of the Seattle Police Department?

Unfortunately, we don't have documentation of further communications on these matters. We don't have any e-mails confirming that Ethan Raup actually attended the teleconference nor do we know his thoughts on the call. We don't know what further advice the Mayor's office received from the Seattle Police Department's office of Public Relations. AJ's request for information only covered communications up to November 16th.

Regardless of assumptions and speculations, it is clear that we don't know everything that passes between various departments and mayoral staffers regarding matters related to Occupy Seattle. What was spoken about in that conference call? Why is the Mayor apologizing for police brutality with talking points given to him by the police?

Sounds like it might be time to request more records.

Time Magazine's Person Of The Year: The Protester

Time Magazine gave a nod to the activists who, globally, have taken to the streets in protest of unfair banking and despotic governments by naming Time Magazine's Person of the Year "The Protester."

They credit this year's trend of civil unrest with one man with a produce cart in Tunisia:

It began in Tunisia, where the dictator's power grabbing and high living crossed a line of shamelessness, and a commonplace bit of government callousness against an ordinary citizen — a 26-year-old street vendor named Mohamed Bouazizi — became the final straw. Bouazizi lived in the charmless Tunisian town of Sidi Bouzid, 125 miles south of Tunis. On a Friday morning almost exactly a year ago, he set out for work, selling produce from a cart. Police had hassled Bouazizi routinely for years, his family says, fining him, making him jump through bureaucratic hoops. On Dec. 17, 2010, a cop started giving him grief yet again. She confiscated his scale and allegedly slapped him. He walked straight to the provincial-capital building to complain and got no response. At the gate, he drenched himself in paint thinner and lit a match.

Bouazizi died, but a wave of protests and outrage were born in the Middle East and have grown to encompass the world as people take to the streets. I wonder: will the powers-that-be begin to listen to the chanted slogans and angry shouts at their doorstep? And if not, what next?

Fallout: A Minister's Story Of Police Brutality

In the last video video I posted on OAQ, if you watch carefully you can see a minister being knocked to the ground by police. Now Rev. John Helmiere alleges that the incident was a clear case of police brutality:

Yesterday evening, I was brutally beaten by my brothers on the Seattle Police force as I stood before an entrance to Pier 18 of the Seattle Port in my clergy garb bellowing, “Keep the Peace! Keep the Peace!” An officer pulled me down from behind and threw me to the asphalt. Between my cries of pain and shouts of “I’m a man of peace!” he pressed a knee to my spine and immobilized my arms behind my back, crushing me against the ground. With the right side of my face pressed to the street, he repeatedly punched the left side of my face for long enough that I had time to pray that the crunching sounds I heard were not damaging my brain. I was cuffed and pulled off the ground by a different officer who seemed genuinely appalled when he saw my face and clerical collar. He asked who I was and why I was here, to which I replied, “I’m a minister of the gospel of Jesus Christ, I believe another world is possible.” He led me shaking to a police van where began a 12-hour journey of incarcerated misery.

Click here to get his full account.