Recently in Law Category

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20100428/ts_ynews/ynews_ts1831

 

I just got through reading this little slice of heaven and it is infuriating. Republican Tim James, who is in the gubernatorial race in Alabama appears in a campaign add where he promises to give the state's driver's license exam in English only. His reason?: it will be a cost-saving measure...um, ok? I fail to comprehend how getting rid of the existing non-English versions of the exam will cut costs. He goes on to say: "This is Alabama, we speak English. If you want to live here, learn it".

This topic always gets my blood boiling. I have been all over Mexico and I have yet to see an American make an attempt at speaking Spanish. Also, whenever people do make an effort at speaking English here in the U.S., they get discriminated against because they'll speak it with an accent. This happened to my mom the first time we went to Chicago in 2003. We were in an elevator at the Sears Tower and some people were being rude. My mom made a comment about it in English so that the men would understand, and I see an employee of the building give my mom a dirty look and rolled his eyes...My claws came out at that point. I said, "You got a problem there cheif?"...he denied he had a problem..."So why are you rolling your eyes? You think every Mexican that comes here doesn't understand English or speaks with a heavy accent? Are you that ignorant?" ...he profusely apologized and said I was right in calling him an ignorant moron. I doubt he was sincere but it gave me great pleasure to call him out in front of a large group of people. I've seen this type of crap all the time.

Not only do people have to speak English while they're here but they also have to speak it without an accent as well. Otherwise they're some kind of simpleton who don't know anything.

This proves the point I was trying to make yesterday in class while discussing Cassie's book Black Like Me. Although people are a little more open minded than what they once were, there are still a lot of places in this country, particularly the South, that continue to be overtly racist.  

What do you guys think of this idiot's campaign?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/36714961#36739929

This is an interview that was done with Latino Civil Rights leader Janet Murguia regarding the recent immigration bill that was passed in Arizona. She talks about some of the negative consequences of this bill on the Latino population of Arizona. She argues that the passing of this bill will essentially legalize racial profiling in that if anyone is at all suspected of being in the country illegally, authorities will have the right to search their homes and/or personal possessions. It sounds that if one is of Latino decent, that is all the proof authorities need to, basically, remove your constitutional rights. I'm not all that familiar with this story, but it definitely sounds unconstitutional to me.

What do you guys think? Does it seem to you that racial profiling is inevitable through the passing of this bill? Does the bill need to be changed to better protect the rights of the Latino population in Arizona? If you have not already heard about the passing of this bill, I would imagine that it will be hard to avoid as it snowballs in the uproar it is causing.


Here are a couple more news clips regarding some of the details of this bill - They make it sound that people can be identified as "possible illegals" based on appearance only, including the type of SHOES a person wears.....Are you kidding me?! Is our country going backwards away from civil rights legislation? What the hell....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/36714961#36735699

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/36714961#36726296

Something tells me this bill will not be around for too long....

 

I came across the following article: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36449471/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts about a man named Albert Snyder. His 20 year old son was killed in Iraq four years ago and now he is in a legal battle against the Westboro Baptist Church. Church members picketed his son's funeral with signs reading "Thank God for Dead Soldiers" and "You're Going to Hell". The church, which is mostly comprised of the Phelps family, has targeted several soldier funerals and claim that "military deaths are the work of a wrathful God who punishes the United States for tolerating homosexuality." This is completely perposterous to most people, but the question becomes: When do we draw the line when it comes to freedom of speech? It is illegal for someone to yell "Fire!" in a public place, but it is perfectly legal to express such hatred towards others because of their sexuality, race, ethnicity, and the like. I have a serious problem with this. Next week the U.S. Supreme Court decide whether or not the actions of the Westboro Baptist Church are protected by the first ammendment. What do you guys think? Where do we draw the line in terms of freedom of speech?

"For seven years, her husband taunted, threatened and thrashed her, she says. After she filed for divorce, he struck again, throwing enough acid on her face to destroy her left eye."

This is a short article about the tea party movement that's been happening that found some surprising (or maybe not) findings about people in support of the movement. The study found that people who think the government has done too much to support blacks are also more likely to support the tea party.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/05/constance-mcmillen-fake-p_n_525856.html

 

above is a link to an article talking about a girl who was not allowed to take her girlfriend to prom. The prom was canceled when they found out she wanted to do this, but she fought for it to stay and the prom happened anyway. Her and only a few people showed up to the prom. Apparently, the rest of the school attended a "secret" prom which she was not invited to.
What do people think about this? School is already a place where people feel insecure about themselves, but this sort of thing is only adding to the feeling of being out-of-place. Should this have been totally ignored, or was this really an issue?

She said that she had a great time at prom, but how is her transition back into school going to be?

Author Tim Wise does an excellent job describing the state of racism in America (both before the age of Obama and during his 2008 presidential campaign). Wise's book is broken down into two main parts, or essays as he describes it. The first is an overview of racism and discrimination in America, citing both explicit and subtle forms of racism within the realms of employment and income, housing, education, criminal justice and law, health care, and even going into great detail of the inequality demonstrated during hurricane Katrina in 2006 and the 2008 presidential campaign. This portion of the book was mainly aimed at getting across the point that racism in America is still going strong, despite the fact that statistics show that most white Americans believe Obama's election as our president signals the end of racism in our country. Wise argues that although the election of a black man to our highest ranking position is a big step in the right direction, it does not mean that white people view black people on the same level they may see the president (he uses the analogy of Bill Cosby and the Cosby Show in terms of how white people view him differently because he does not fit the stereotype-consistent role of the "black man in America". Wise also spends a good portion of this part of the book criticizing Obama for his failure to address racism in a more direct fashion, stating that Obama has often side-stepped the issue of race in America and what needs to be done to promote more equality within the realms I mentioned above. My question regarding the first part of the book is: Is it really Obama's task to focus more of this effort on racism in America because he is our first black president? Because of the fact that he is our first black president, does it just come with the territory, whereas presidents before him were not "expected" to tackle this issue because they were old white men?

The second essay of the book focuses on what needs to be done to help alleviate modern racism (or racism 2.0, as Wise refers to it). In particular, Wise focuses on what white America needs to do in order to help promote equality in our country. He mentions five main goals for white America: 1) Take personal responsibility addressing racism and white privilege. 2) Listen to black people regarding racism. 3) Stop the denial of our disturbing history dealing with race. 4) Connect with anti-racist white culture to help promote understanding. 5) Speak up! - When you see racism, no matter how subtle, take action and make a difference.

Overall, I thought this book was a well organized argument for how racism is still a very big issue in our country and it can be seen where ever we go. Wise definitely did an excellent job getting the point across about how Obama's election to president does not mean racism is ending, it is simply not what it used to be....racism has evolved. Wise point out several instances of racism and discrimination in the book that relate to many concepts we have discussed in class, including stereotype threat, ingroup/outgroup biases, situational factors that bring out hidden prejudices, and institutional and modern racism. I would recommend this book to anyone who is looking for a good overview of where America stands in our battle against racism and discrimination.

Paul Mooney is one of the Kings of comedy. He has written stand up comedy for Richard Pryor, Redd Foxx, Saturday night live and many other venues. He is mainly known for his active stance in confronting racism in America through Stand up Comedy and going on different talk shows to address these issues faced by society today. Paul has a strait forward or blunt approach he takes which makes most White people uncomfortable and upset. There are a lot of good youtube videos that go into greater detail with his views. Do you think by him being direct about these issues help or harm the message he is trying to portray?

"Goldman Sachs Group Inc was sued for alleged bias by a former vice president, who said the Wall Street bank consigned her to a "mommy track" that led to her firing while she was on maternity leave."

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2417890320100324

I found this article that talks about how homosexuals that live in states that ban same-sex marriage have an increased risk for developing mental disorders. I don't find this surprising because it's basically telling a person they are wrong for doing something that seems completely natural to them. It also infringes on their personal rights and is essentially telling them that it is unlawful to be with the person they love.

Does this surprise you at all? Do you think that studies like this will aid in passing same-sex marriage laws or will people continue to ignore the evidence? How would you feel if the gov't told you cou couldn't be married for some reason you felt you had no control over?

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/life/health-fitness/health/Policies-up-risk-of-psychiatric-disorder-in-gays-lesbians/articleshow/5640204.cms

The case of 17 year old Chelsea King has been making headlines all over the news. A few days ago, Chelsea King, an honors student at a local San Diego high school was reported missing after not returning home from a jog. Her father found her BMW and other belongings at a trail overlooking a lake. Sadly, today they reportedly found her body in a shallow grave. She was sexually assaulted and then murdered. They currently have a registered sex offender named John Gardner in custody for the rape and murder of this teenage girl.

In this article: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,587622,00.html, they go in to great detail about the massive search conducted to find Chelsea.

"The San Diego County Sheriff's Department, along with the FBI and law enforcement from Riverside, San Bernardino and Orange counties, launched on all-out search for Chelsea using helicopters, infrared devices and search dogs to scour the park's rugged terain."

I personally have never seen this kind of response for missing person's who are of lower SES status and/minorities. A few months back I read an article in my hometown's newspaper about a 16 year old high school student who went missing in El Paso, Texas. The young lady had texted her mom to pick her up at school but when she got there, her daughter was nowhere to be found. The woman later received a message from her daughter saying that she was in Juarez and needed to be picked up there. Sadly, the young woman has not been seen or heard of since October. There were no massive searches by anybody, no helicopters, no info-red camera's, nothing. These poor parents have been all over Juarez, recently named the most dangerous city in the world, looking in hospitals and shelters in the hopes of finding their daughter.

Why is it that the cases of these rich, white, upper middle class victims make the headlines all over the national news while others do not?

 

 

The Southern Poverty Law Center's annual report just came out, and it reported that there was a 244% increase in the amount of "Patriot" groups forming. These groups espouse anti-government conspiracy theories and blind Patriotic messages of upholding the constitution. This rise blamed on the state of the economy, frustrations of unemployment, and derivations of rhetoric coming out of the Tea Party movement.There was a 40% overall increase in hate groups throughout the U.S. in the past year. The report also sites a number of crimes connected to these hate groups in the past year.

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/news/splc-report-number-of-patriot-groups-militias-surges-by-244-in-past-year

In the report they talked about a moving toward a bit of a threshold. In my opinion I very much believe that this report is related to the events at the various universities. I think that frustration, especially economic frustration is a potent variable when it comes to expressing prejudice and hate toward the out-group. Moreover, when frustration is fueled by conspiracy theories, fear mongering, and misinformation, the corollaries are to sure to be hateful and harmful.
 


    

In Guyana, the former British colony located in South America, it is illegal to wear transgender clothing in public. Guyana's laws also prohibit homosexuality, considering it a crime. Homosexuals and transgender men have been the object of discrimination in that country, because of their status as an "illegal" group.   

After being arrested for cross-dressing, a group of transgender men have asked the Supreme Court to overturn these laws in their country. International human rights groups are supporting this initiative, but they must face the opposition from the powerful religious groups and the lack of interest of the government.

They chose February 20th to file their request before the Supreme Court, because that date corresponded with the second annual World Day of Social Justice, a UN initiative that seeks to contribute with the promotion of equal rights and justice for all.

For the the complete news article, click here: http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2010/02/22/world/international-uk-guyana-transgender.html

For a news article including a international public opinion forum (supporting or against the initiative), click here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/caribbean/news/story/2009/03/090313_crossdressing.shtml

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/23/us/23scotus.html

Two cases of racial discrimination were brought to the table of the Supreme Court.

   Firefighters filed that there has been issues with the Chicago fire department, claiming that they has been issues were applicants who took the exams passed, and because of there ethnicity (White's & Hispanic's) there test were throw out based on racial bias. 
  
   According to new york times"The Chicago firefighters sued under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits race discrimination in employment and required them to file a claim within 300 days of the contested practice. the Argument on Monday concerned whether each of 11 rounds of hiring based on the 1995 test reset the clock on the statute of limitations."
   Based on the statute of limitations, I don't believe that the Supreme Court should not throw the case out, if there is a problem the Chief Justices should take it into consideration that there is a problem that has not only affected someone because the color of their skin, but it effected their families as well. Because of someone using bigotry, and a bias to select applicants.    

Henry Lewis Gates is a professor at Harvard university. He was coming home from a flight and he couldn't get in his door. A White woman called the police said that someone was breaking into his house. After the situation, Henry was later arrested when he asked for the officers badge number. After watching this clip do you believe his arrest was racist? Also what measure could the cop have taken to be more reasonable or understandable?

Pope Benedict XVI has expressed his opinion against the proposed anti-discrimination laws in the U.K., which seek to prevent discrimination against job applicants based on race, gender, age, or sexual orientation. These new laws would also apply to religious organizations that employ lay people, which could mean legal actions against the Catholic Church for denying employment to homosexuals or transsexuals.   

One news article quotes Pope Benedict: "The effect of some of the legislation designed to achieve this goal [of equality] has been to impose unjust limitations on the freedom of religious communities to act in accordance with their beliefs. In some respects it actually violates the natural law upon which the equality of all human beings is grounded and by which it is guaranteed."

His remarks have caused discontent among secular groups, who are already planning protests during the Pope's visit to the U.K. next September. The president of the U.K. National Secular Society said: "The taxpayer is going to be faced with a bill for £20m for the visit in which he has already indicated he will attack equal rights and promote discrimination."

The news articles can be found here:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/02/02/world/main6166603.shtml 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/feb/02/equality-laws-unjust-pope-uk

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2009/05/28/2009-05-28_black_cop_killed_by_white_officer.html

This is a strong problem that we face in today's society. What do you think can be done to make police more aware and cautious about these things?

A parliamentary panel that wants Muslim women to stop veiling their faces recommended Tuesday that France ban such garb in public facilities, including hospitals and mass transit, and a leading panel member said he foresees such an interdiction by the end of 2010.

http://scpr.org/news/2010/01/26/french-report-wants-limits-muslim-face-veil/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+893KpccSouthernCaliforniaNews+%28KPCC%3A+News%29

And you thought your neighbor was upset when he found out the courthouse downtown WASN'T going to put up a Nativity scene this Christmas?  Try this on for size:  You know that tradition your people have had for centuries that is simply a choice of clothing?  Yeah, you're going to have to stop that now. 
     While the article linked above explains that the purported motive behind this move to ban the face coverings is driven by issues of gender equality, what happens when cultural traditions are jeopardized by those claiming to be "helping" ?  Tell you what, if they try to take away my "Noah's Ark" T-shirt and my gold cross necklace, I'm gonna lose it!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJ8npzELNmQ&feature=related

The G-20 was established in 1999, in the wake of the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis, to bring together major advanced and emerging economies to stabilize the global financial market. Since its inception, the G-20 has held annual Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors Meetings and discussed measures to promote the financial stability of the world and to achieve a sustainable economic growth and development.

To tackle the financial and economic crisis that spread across the globe in 2008, the G-20 members were called upon to further strengthen international cooperation. Accordingly, the G-20 Summits have been held in Washington in 2008, and in London and Pittsburgh in 2009.

http://www.innocenceproject.org/

I know this is delving into my psych and law roots a little bit, but this is the link to the Innocence Project's website. The Innocence Project is an organization devoted to exonerating the wrongly convicted through the use of DNA evidence or identifying flaws in the judicial system. Many of those who have been exonerated were put in prison in the first place because of faulty eyewitness testimony. This is relevant to us because a lot of these eyewitness ids were made by a person of a different race than the wrongly accused. We will inevitably be discussing the cross-race effect in this class, so I thought this website would help provide some evidence of how much of an issue the CRE is. There are a lot of interesting stories on here, and they have also recently updated the site with some of their greatest accomplishments of the decade.  

http://www.lambdalegal.org/

Lambda Legal is the oldest national organization pursuing high-impact litigation, public education and advocacy on behalf of equality and civil rights for lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, transgender people and people with HIV. 

An amicus brief is a document which is filed in a court by someone who is not directly related to the case under consideration. The American Psychological Association has submitted many briefs to courts when they believe education on psychological issues is important for the case at hand. The APA has submitted briefs on sexual harrassment, sexual orientation, disabilities rights and many other topics. Check out a list of the briefs by topic with links to the briefs themselves.

http://www.apa.org/about/offices/ogc/amicus/index-issues.aspx

 

http://www.justice.gov/crt/

The Civil Rights Division is committed to upholding the civil and constitutional rights of all Americans, particularly some of the most vulnerable members of our society. The Division enforces federal statutes designed to protect the civil rights of all individuals and prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, disability, religion, and national origin. Established in 1957, the Division has grown in size and scope over the decades, and has been instrumental in many of our nation's battles to advance civil rights, from the desegregation of our nation's schools to the prosecution of hate crimes, from ensuring girls and women have equal opportunities in schools and the workplace to guaranteeing that individuals with disabilities can access civil services to which we all have a right.

 

http://www.justice.gov/crt/legalinfo/natlorg-eng.php

Laws prohibiting national origin discrimination make it illegal to discriminate because of a person's birthplace, ancestry, culture or language. This means people cannot be denied equal opportunity because they or their family are from another country, because they have a name or accent associated with a national origin group, because they participate in certain customs associated with a national origin group, or because they are married to or associate with people of a certain national origin.