Trigger Warning on post and links for graphic descriptions of sexual violence against sex workers, including sexual torture; rape apologism

This past April, a woman who was doing sex work was picked up by one John Hauff and driven to his home to engage in a pre-negotiated sexual encounter. Hauff requested some bondage elements in that encounter — to which the woman agreed, while setting strong limits.

John Hauff allegedly violated those limits wildly. Instead of loosely tying her to the bedpost and stimulating her with a vibrator, as she says she agreed, he allegedly chained her to the ceiling and forced painful sexual acts on her involving extreme bondage, paddles, electrical shocks, speculums, and catheters.

The first page of this article in the Seattle Weekly offers a lengthy, extremely explicit description of the allegations in question.

The second page goes on to begin (technically in the second paragraph down):

But is John Hauff a monster? Or is there, as some in the bondage community suggest, another way to interpret what happened between John Hauff and the woman he picked up on Aurora Avenue on April 2—one that makes Hauff less a cruel and sadistic rapist than a participant in a bondage session gone haywire?

Rape is not BDSM¹ gone wrong. And what has been alleged is not “BDSM” or “bondage” but rape and sexual torture. Anyone in bondage/BDSM communities making the argument that there is only a thin line between BDSM and rape is doing themselves an incredible disservice. They serve not to speak for the rights of those who wish to engage in consensual, non-mainstream sexual behavior, but for rapists. To conflate BDSM enthusiasts with rapists is to wrongly vilify BDSM and its participants, the vast majority of whom don’t rape people. And it is to suggest that anyone who agrees to any BDSM elements in a sexual situation is more or less requesting to be raped.

As it turns out, though, this article ends up splitting very neatly among gender lines. All of the women consulted in the piece — one who previously engaged in consensual BDSM scenes with Hauff, and the executive director of the Center for Sex Positive Culture — absolutely agree that the allegations as described constitute sexual violence and are utterly unacceptable.

The men who weigh in on the subject are, shockingly, a little bit less sure. One of them is Master Ray, a man who makes his living doing BDSM trainings, and who seems to have rather antiquated views on gender roles.

The other is Jonathan Kaminsky, the author of the piece himself, who sets up this absurd, rape apologist framing on the basis of nothing more than the word of one BDSM practitioner (against the word of two others), and seemingly his own gut instinct about how rape allegations just can’t be trusted. This is despite the fact that Hauff admitted to police that he did not stop the first two times the woman told him to.

The article is supposedly intended to interrogate whether or not Hauff’s “fetish will set him free.” It’s a real possibility, with both rape culture and mainstream views and misunderstandings regarding BDSM being what they are. But Kaminsky doesn’t explore the prejudices of the average public. He doesn’t consult lawyers regarding defense tactics, or speculate on what “expert” witnesses may be called to the stand to act as apologists. He just asks some people who also engage in BDSM what they think of the case. Most of them say “this sounds like rape.” One reads from a rape apologist script. And suddenly, we’re supposed to believe that there is meaningful “controversy” here and reason to entertain the possibility of a gray area.

We’re not supposed to notice that this angle was manufactured by the author, who turned “one guy I talked to” into “some in the bondage community” and closed his article like this:

Only two people know what happened the night of April 2, what boundaries were drawn, what deals were struck, and how, when, and to what degree they were breached. It is possible that their understanding of what happened on that night differs. It’s possible we’ll never know the truth.

…

What we do know is that no bodies were found in his yard, and no other women have come forward with terrible stories of kidnap and rape. We also know this: The events of April 2 have marked a dark chapter in the lives of prostitute and client alike.

Indeed.

Of course, anyone with the slightest familiarity with rape culture will know that “only two people know what happened” is the classic way of saying that we better take the alleged rapist’s word for it. And anyone who knows anything about alt-weeklies that do their damnedest to seem street-smart will also know that the Seattle Weekly editors have absolutely no excuse to not know the term “sex worker” or how the unnecessarily repeated references to the victim in this case as a “prostitute” (instead of a rape victim) are incredibly stigmatizing towards her in the current U.S. cultural climate. And anyone who knows anything about life will know that not having decaying corpses on your property or a long line of highly marginalized victims who are willing to step forward and involve themselves in a very public case hardly means that you didn’t rape that one woman who says you raped her.

But surely we can all agree that this sucks as much for the rapist as it does for the rape victim, can’t we?

Frankly, if this is what passes for objectivity and journalistic ethics these days, I don’t want it.

But back to Master Ray. Well, some of his own views are as terrifying as they are long-winded:

When the subject turns to John Hauff, Master Ray’s face hardens. He’s never met the man, he says, pausing to sip from his glass of milk. He knows only what he’s seen on TV and heard on the radio. Because he doesn’t have all the details, Master Ray cautions that making a judgment “would be improper and foolish.” Still, he says, there’s something about the young woman’s story that troubles him. She acknowledges negotiating up front for a certain amount of bondage, Master Ray points out. She got in his car willingly, and they drove to his place. There was no threat of brutality in the car.

“It wasn’t a kidnapping,” Master Ray says. “It was a negotiated sex scene between a hooker and her client. And somewhere along the line, she crossed her own panic line and cried ‘Help!’ ”

As for her texting of Hauff’s license-plate number, Master Ray points out that this is standard operating procedure in the fetish community, and doesn’t necessarily mean the young woman was unusually leery of Hauff. “We call that a ‘safe call.’ It’s perfectly legitimate and normal,” he says. Once she’d revealed the text message to Hauff, Ray continues, “What happened next? She got dressed. He took her back where she belonged. He dropped her off. There was no threat. No murder. No ‘Keep quiet or I’ll come get you.’ ”

During a bondage session in which the rules have already been agreed upon, a dominant partner’s saying something to arouse a submissive partner is as common as flirting, Master Ray says. If, during a bondage scene, Master Ray were asked by a submissive he didn’t know if he planned to kill her, he would read it as a sign that this type of talk turned her on. “So I’m going to smirk and say something like ‘We’ll see,’ or ‘Maybe later,’ or ‘Only if you’re not pleasing to me, only if you don’t satisfy me,’ ” explains Master Ray. “Call me a smart-ass, but I’m going to say something that is going to elicit a response from her.”

When the prostitute asked Hauff if he was going to kill her, Master Ray says, “We don’t know what tone of voice she used.” Her question, he says, could have been understood as a clue that this form of “danger” was a turn-on for her. “And the worst part of it is that between the time it happened and when she finally decided to report it, her feelings, her thoughts, can change,” Master Ray says. “Shame can set in. And then he gets punished because now she’s feeling bad about it.”

Still, Master Ray acknowledges, Hauff’s alleged use of such techniques as bladder manipulation and electric shock, which are at the outer edges of the bondage-play repertoire, give him pause. “If he did spring this on her, then he crossed a line,” Master Ray says. “That would not be tolerated in the [fetish] community.”

There’s something about the woman’s story that bothers him: namely, that he doesn’t seem to think a woman (let alone “a hooker”) who agrees to any kind of sexual contact can then be raped. The fact that she admittedly cried “Help!” doesn’t count. After all, her rapist didn’t kill her. (Master Ray is wrong about her not being told to keep quiet; Hauff allegedly told the woman to not involve the cops, easily understood as a threat in itself.)

His argument seems to be “this would have been completely consensual, if both parties consented.” Which, obviously. The very point is that one party explicitly says she did not consent. But Master Ray asserts that we don’t know the tone of voice she used when asking if Hauff was going to kill her, so the consent was probably implied.

Personally, I’d say that Master Ray sounds like an incredibly irresponsible and dangerous dom, if his portrayal of how he treats partners he does not know and has not negotiated said elements with in advance is accurate. And yet, we are supposed to respect him as an expert not only in BDSM, but also in consent as it relates to BDSM. As if BDSM communities are somehow uniquely immune to rape culture.

According to Master Ray “the worst part of it” is not that a woman was allegedly raped and tortured, but that she might be lying about it. Which alone should tell us all we need to know about him. The myth that women quickly become “ashamed” of their sexual activity and then falsely claim rape in order to protect their patriarchally-approved virtue is a pervasive if widely debunked one. The fact that said myth is able to be twisted and applied to sex workers — the same women who are routinely portrayed as having no virtue left in a world that judge’s women’s virtue on the basis of their chastity — is nothing more than evidence of how far misogynists are willing to contort their own logic to support men’s right to rape (at least certain) women with impunity.

Indeed, one of the truly remarkable things about this case is that the police care at all. One could indeed speculate that the particular amount of violence used and the non-mainstream sexual acts allegedly forced are likely the reason. In a culture where consensual kinky sex is vilified, rape involving elements that would be considered kinky in a consensual setting will always be more severely demonized. In a culture where sex workers are routinely raped by police, where sex workers are almost always too afraid to report their rapes to police, where judges call the rape of sex workers “theft of services,” it’s not a stretch to imagine that we wouldn’t be seeing the same amount of resources or outrage applied had the woman consented to one kind of sex and then forced into another, with no BDSM elements present. We’d be hearing choruses of “what did she expect?”

Clearly some commenters aren’t content to entirely avoid those choruses now. Some people can’t get past the idea that a woman who agrees to any kind of sex deserves whatever violence might be inflicted on her. This is far more so when the woman in question is a sex worker.

But no matter what the Seattle Weekly or Master Ray sees fit to either imply or outright say, there is no such thing as blanket consent. Every person has the right to say no, to set limits, and to have those limits respected. When those limits are violated, it is assault. No matter what other acts they may have agreed to. No matter who they are.

Thanks to Una Feral for the link.

Trigger Warning for descriptions of sexual violence and being confronted by one’s rapist

Just a couple months ago, I wrote about how a case in which an alleged rapist defended himself, and therefore cross-examined his own accusers, ended in a threat of suicide from one of the alleged victims. In a follow-up, I noted the extraordinary brokenness of a system that consistently fails to protect the needs of victims and puts their emotional and physical safety in danger.

Now here comes another story in which an accused rapist was given access to his alleged victim in court, after he elected against repeated advice to act as his own defense. After spending more than two hours questioning the woman he allegedly raped, Luis Munuzuri-Harris abruptly decided that he would now like a lawyer, after all.

A rape suspect who is acting as his own lawyer grilled his alleged victim on the details of the sex assault, and then asked the judge for a court appointed lawyer — who could now call the woman back to the stand and make her relive the ordeal again.

Rape suspect Luis Munuzuri-Harris had repeatedly rejected suggestions that he use the public defender, but changed his mind after he questioned his accuser.

Having already been subjected to the trauma of being questioned directly in open court by the man she has accused of raping her, this woman must now give her testimony again, for the lawyer that Harris has finally decided he wants with extraordinarily convenient timing.

The article notes that the judge, who it seems has advocated for the accuser as best he can throughout the trial, is considering a mistrial. A mistrial, however, would also require the accuser to repeat the trauma of her testimony. What Harris has accomplished here, then, is a situation in which the victim has no choice but to relive the horror of the night on which she was raped not only once, but twice. There is, effectively, no way out. (UPDATE: A mistrial has been denied.)

Like TigTog at Hoyden About Town, I have severe suspicions that this was likely Harris’ plan all along, to traumatize and intimidate the victim by questioning her directly, only to then secure himself a legitimately effective defense. It seems highly likely that the intent was never for Harris to defend himself against these charges, but to use and abuse the system against his accuser as dramatically and punitively as possible.

But ultimately, whether that was his intent or not, abuse was absolutely the result. Further regardless of intent, any system which would allow the potential for an alleged abuser to enact this kind of (further) abuse in its name is not one which is upholding the tenets of justice.

The good news is that court transcripts certainly make it appear as though the victim is highly tenacious:

The request for a lawyer comes after days of tense emotions in the Florida courtroom as Harris questioned the woman for more than two hours about the night of the alleged crime and asked her personal questions such as whether she wore underwear.

When Harris asked her, “When this person walks up to your car … do you get out of your car?” she corrected him, “When you walk up to my vehicle.”

At another point, she corrected his question by saying, “I was raped by you. You forced sex upon me.”

But the fact remains that we don’t know what’s going on in her head, the trauma she may be experiencing privately. It’s also true that a victim should not have to be extraordinary just to report violations of hir body. Whether weak or strong, timid or bold, shy or outspoken, all of us should be able to bear witness to the violence others subject us to without fear of retaliation and intimidation or the knowledge that the system which purports to protect us will stand idly by. A victim should not have to be extraordinary to get a chance at justice. One’s right to not be harmed should not be based on arbitrary determinations of virtue, or their ability to respond in a certain way to a traumatic event.

With such high stakes in the U.S. judicial system, as I’ve discussed in my previous posts on this topic, there are inevitably competing rights. In light of a remarkably long history of defendants’ rights being violated, marginalized individuals being falsely convicted by prejudiced courts, and non-violent offenders being subjected to highly punitive sentences, the rights of defendants need to be protected, and indeed should be protected better than they currently are.

But in any real system of justice, someone needs to be on the victim’s side. Someone needs to center the victim’s needs. The current model of “justice” is not only oppressive towards those accused of crimes, it is also oppressive to many of those who have been the victims of crimes. This system not only harms communities by overcrowding prisons and enacting persistent and intrusive state surveillance, but by also assuring those communities that it cannot be trusted to take their right to not be victimized seriously. Which is to say that if it is inherent to this system to have such high stakes that it is no longer legitimately possible to protect and advocate for victims without furthering other means of oppression, we need a new system.

Trigger Warning for rape apologism, brief descriptions of sexual violence

Former pro-baseball player Lenny Dykstra (left) was recently accused by a woman, his former housekeeper, of repeated sexual assault. According to the woman’s claim, Dykstra forced her to perform oral sex on him every Saturday. Earlier this week, prosecutors declined to file charges, apparently citing a lack of evidence that the sexual contact was forced.

No story that I could find on the topic provided many more details than that. Indeed, providing a stark insight into their priorities, more than half of the LA Times article (the longest article available) consists of information not about the rape charges, but about Dykstra’s recent financial problems. Nevertheless, with the information available, I cannot form an opinion on whether prosecutors made an ethical decision, though I do find it interesting that they seemingly accept that the sexual contact took place, and only dispute whether a housekeeper giving oral sex to her boss every week like clockwork was non-consensual. I also, of course, do not know whether or not Lenny Dykstra is guilty of the allegations made against him.

So while all of these things certainly matter, they’re not what I wish to discuss today. What I’m interested in is Dykstra’s comment to the LA Times denying the charges, and how exactly he chose to frame that denial:

In an interview with the Los Angeles Times, Dykstra denied the allegations, saying the woman was trying to extort him to buy drugs.

“If she was assaulted on Saturdays, then I’m a … ballerina dancer on Sundays,” Dykstra said. “This is a maid. That’s not even worth commenting on, are you kidding me?”

This is a maid. That’s not even worth commenting on. The allegations are not worth commenting on, apparently, because she’s a maid.

I probably don’t have to tell you that we live in a world where rape allegations are very rarely taken seriously. Rapes are glossed over, covered up, shushed. Victims are blamed, accused of petty ulterior motives, called liars or worse. Police dismiss complaints, hospitals refuse to do rape kits, and prosecutors decline to file charges — even when there’s video evidence or eye witnesses. If rape accusers aren’t working for the CIA (see: Julian Assange allegations), then they’re jealous or regretful, and always vengeful.

Rape allegations are very rarely taken seriously, but the fact is that some allegations are taken more seriously than others, some accusers defended more vigorously, and some attacked more vitriolically or dismissed more easily. Some accusers are seen as having credibility while others do not, and it is not a mistake that these accusers more often than not fall into camps according to relative marginalization and privilege. Some accusers are seen as being rapeable, are seen as having violence against them matter, and some are not. And it is still no mistake which victims tend to already be relatively valued by society. When Dykstra dismisses the allegations against him with nothing more than “This is a maid,” with an affirmation that she and her claims are not worth his breath, we see the heart of this matter.

It takes for granted a set of shared and oppressive cultural assumptions to say the words “This is a maid. That’s not even worth commenting on, are you kidding me?” You must be kidding Dykstra. Who would take anything a maid says seriously?

The word “maid” is intended here as a blatant insult. (Indeed, the more correct term is “housekeeper.”) And what, exactly, do we know about maids?

Firstly, we know that the word maid is specifically gendered. Maids are women. Unlike culturally gendered terms, such as “nurse,” most people don’t just (wrongly) assume the term to refer to a woman; they know it. “Nurse” is the term for both men and women who work in the profession. But men and women housekeepers are not both called “maid.”

We also know that maids are both economically and socially devalued. According to the 2009 wage data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the median wage for maids and housekeepers is a mere $19,250 — hardly a reasonable living wage. So, maids tend to be poor. But regardless of actual wages, housekeeping is still decidedly perceived as a “low status” occupation, not only because there is usually little pay and upward mobility available in the profession, but also because the work itself is not valued. Cleaning, scrubbing, picking up after people — these are all seen by most middle and upper class folks as submissive, degrading activities. Which is, of course, part of why they hire other people to do them. (It’s also no mistake that they are activities usually associated with women, or even called “women’s work.”)

We also know, or think we know, that maids are disproportionately women of color. I was unable to find statistics verifying whether or not this perception is accurate (if you’ve got them, toss them my way). But whether accurate or not, the fact remains that in the U.S., maids are understood to be more likely to be black, Asian, and especially Latina than the general female population. Maids are also commonly assumed to be immigrants, whether documented or undocumented.

Now, with the identify of Dykstra’s accuser rightly concealed, we obviously do not know her race, her immigration status, or even her wage. We do, however, know that even if she is white and U.S.-born and was paid handsomely, Dykstra was unequivocally playing into all of these assumptions about maids when he made his misogynistic, classist, racist comment and openly declared that their word does not matter, that violence against them does not matter, and that neither should be considered worth anyone’s time.

Saying “This is a maid. That’s not even worth commenting on, are you kidding me?” in a country where the term “maid” rightly or wrongly conjures up an image of a poor, migrant, Latina woman in a large number of minds is hardly a neutral act. Especially when poor, migrant, and non-white women are always more likely to have sexual violence against them be disbelieved or ignored. Abhorrently, in a culture that still links sexual assault to sexual attraction (and sexual attraction to social value), his words also suggest, “Who would want to rape a woman like that?”

I also can’t help but notice his syntax. It’s true that when speaking, especially when upset, few of us speak with perfect grammar. I don’t even write with perfect grammar. But in light of the rank misogyny, classism, and racism of his words, I find that it stands out. She is not a maid; this is. The dehumanizing sentiment is furthered by “That’s not even worth commenting on.” Presumably, Dykstra is using “that” to refer to the allegations, but coming right on the heels of “This is a maid,” it is jarring phrasing. If the spite of a dismissal framed as “This is a maid” did not transform the accuser into a thing quite starkly enough, “That’s not even worth commenting on” certainly does.

She is a thing. A thing to be raped? Perhaps. Certainly not a thing to care about, to protect, to value, to believe.

This has an impact on rape victims. Attitudes like this determine whether or not victims report, whether or not their friends and communities and judicial systems believe them, whether or not they blame themselves, whether or not rapists find themselves free to rape again and again. And attitudes like this do not harm equally, but discriminate against those already most disadvantaged on the social ladder.

I don’t know whether or not Lenny Dykstra committed the rapes of which he was accused. But I do know that his words, his defense, make life easier for rapists, and much, much harder for rape victims. Especially those marginalized rape victims who already are among the least likely to be acknowledged in our heteropatriarchal, racist, all-around kyriarchal system, who already have it much more than hard enough.

Trigger Warning for discussions of suicide, sexual violence, rape apologism, victim-blaming, and bullying.

Near Detroit, rape charges have been dropped against 18-year-old Joseph Tarnopolski, following the suicide of his 14-year-old alleged victim Samantha Kelly.

A 34th District Court judge dismissed a rape case against an 18-year-old man who was charged with having sex with a 14-year-old girl who killed herself Monday.

Judge Brian Oakley dismissed the case following a brief argument after the hearing that the prosecutor’s office did not have sufficient evidence to proceed.

“Under the law we did not have sufficient evidence to prove that a crime had occurred without the testimony of the victim. As a result, we had to move to dismiss the case. Our thoughts and prayers are with the victim’s family at this difficult time,” the Wayne County Prosecutor’s Office said in a statement.

Samantha Kelly killed herself Monday after family members said students at Huron High School harassed her after learning of the charges against Joseph Tarnopolski, also a student at Huron High.

While the decision to drop prosecution efforts adds another layer of tragedy to one that is already of unbearable proportions, my scorn here is not actually directed at the prosecutors. Most rape cases rely heavily on victim testimony. And unfortunately, they no longer have it. If it were to emerge that the prosecution has access to significant other evidence that a rape occurred and are still declining to prosecute, I’d revise my opinion. But with what we know now, it’s unlikely that they are to blame.

My scorn is reserved for rapists, and just as much for those who support rapists with apologism, victim-blaming, and harassment. My scorn is reserved for those who not only fail to protect and support victims of assault, but who actively bully them. My scorn is reserved for those who decided that Samantha Kelly was a liar, chose to shout that belief from the rooftops, and actively opted to make her life a living hell.

The case itself is a particularly complicated one. The charges themselves were for statutory rape, and originally both Kelly and Tarnopolski said that the decision to “have sex” was “mutual.” Later, however, Kelly publicly recanted her earlier statements and claimed that Tarnopolski had coerced her, and that she did not consent. Kelly is dead now, and so it’s impossible to do more than speculate about why she first told one story and then changed it to another, or to know which version of the events was true. What’s relevant is that before she made her second set of allegations, the harassment was “limited” to Tarnopoloski — who fanned the flames on Twitter with statements like “All girls are, are liars and backstabbers! I hate you all. Way to ruin my life. Seriously, now this will be on my record for life!” — and his friends. After she made the second set of allegations — on local television — it was widespread among the entire school.

It seems that for once, school officials actually tried to support the accuser and discipline the bullies. But they were unable to halt the violence and harassment:

Factions soon developed. The day of his arraignment, a number of students at school wore shirts supporting him and others wrote “Joe’s Innocent” on their hands until school officials intervened.

Two kids were suspended for 10 days, Huron School District Superintendent Richard Naughton said.

Another student was disciplined for hitting Samantha with a clump of mud he pulled off his shoe.

Samantha tried to commit suicide Oct. 25 by taking pills, her mother said. She underwent treatment, and did not return to school until Monday.

The principal said he met with Samantha’s mom several times, including Monday morning. Justice talked about changing her daughter’s school, but Samantha said she wanted to stay, Rowe said.

Samantha was given a principal’s pass, which allowed her to get out of class with no questions asked if anything happened, and she was asked to report concerns about behavior to the school, Rowe said. She reported two incidents, which the school investigated, and one student was suspended.

I don’t know whether or not the school could have done more after the violence and verbal bullying started, but I do know that all of us need to a do a lot more before it starts. Few of us, adult and adolescent alike, know how to deal with rape allegation in our communities. Few of us know how to adequately support alleged victims. Few of us know just how few rape allegations are false, and that the narrative that women regularly lie about rape to get themselves out of trouble is a myth. Few of us know the reasons why a rape victim might actually lie to protect hir rapist, why sie might recant an allegation after it has been made, or why sie might originally claim that a rape was a consensual experience. Few of us understand the impact that sexual violence has on one’s mental and emotional health, and just how much rape apologism and victim-blaming tend to exacerbate it.

It is my experience both from my personal life and from talking with countless other rape survivors that the most important thing to a person who has been raped is simply to be believed. But far too rape victims currently get that. Samantha Kelly certainly didn’t get that. She got the exact opposite.

I can’t say if that’s what made Kelly decide to take her own life. None of us can say what did. But I do feel absolutely confident that whatever her reasons, the lack of support and the active bullying did not help. And it is long past time that we start preparing everyone for these kinds of situations before they occur. It is long past time that we publicly educate about how to respond to rape accusers, and the importance of treating them with dignity. It is long past time that we learn to combat bullying, and create strategies for denouncing it on a community, peer-to-peer level. It’s long past time that we make sure our communities don’t let misogyny have this kind of all-encompassing power over women’s lives.

Compounding this tragedy yet again, Samantha Kelly’s family does not have the money to pay for her funeral. Donations to defray costs for her family can be made to Michigan Memorial Funeral Home, 30895 W. Huron River Drive, Flat Rock, MI 48134. Please consider giving if you can.

h/t Sally Mercedes

Last year, a woman named Maria Bolanos called the police during a domestic dispute with her partner, hoping that they would protect her. Now, as a result of that phone call and the subsequent interaction with police, because she is an immigrant who is undocumented, it is probable that she will be deported soon.

Last Christmas Eve, Maria Bolanos made a decision she would later regret: During a fight with her partner, she called the Prince George’s County police and sought their protection.

The call for help had disastrous consequences for Bolanos, a 28-year-old undocumented immigrant from El Salvador. Within months, she found herself ensnared in an increasingly controversial immigration enforcement program designed to deport undocumented criminals.

Bolanos now faces deportation and possible separation from her 21-month-old daughter, who was born here and is a U.S. citizen.

Her case illustrates what immigrant-rights advocates and some local officials consider the shortcomings of Secure Communities, the centerpiece of the Obama administration’s immigration enforcement efforts and a program that has helped generate a record number of deportations.

Secure Communities, which already operates in the District, Maryland, Virginia and will soon be running nationwide, relies on the fingerprints collected by local authorities when a person is charged with anything from a traffic violation to murder.

In Bolanos’s case, the officer who responded to the domestic dispute at her apartment in Hyattsville later charged her with illegally selling a $10 phone card to a neighbor – an allegation she denies. The charge was eventually dropped, but by then Bolanos had been been fingerprinted and found by Immigration and Customs Enforcement to be in the country illegally.

She has been told she probably will be deported after a Wednesday hearing before an immigration judge in Baltimore.

First of all, fuck the police officer who charged Bolanos. A woman being abused calls for help from the authorities, expects them to protect her, and is instead charged with illegally selling a $10 phone card. A $10 phone card. Fuck that. It is the height of irresponsibility, misogyny, racism, pick an -ism. It’s so repulsive it makes the bile rise up in my throat.

Fuck that officer, and fuck the Obama administration with its “Secure Communities” plan. “Secure Communities” apparently means broken communities, separated communities, communities missing parents and other family members, communities living in fear, communities in which women can be beaten with impunity because if they call the cops to help them, no matter how fearful for their lives they just may be, they will be severely penalized. This is what “Secure Communities” means? Fuck that.

No, I’m not sorry for either the language or the sentiments. I’m fucking pissed.

With a record number of immigrants deported in the past year — only half of whom, I should note, have criminal records, with even the overwhelming majority of those being drug convictions — immigrants are worse off under Obama than they were under Bush.

Let me repeat that, today, on election day: Immigrants are worse off under Obama than they were under Bush. On election day, when the Obama administration is touting the improvements they’ve made to the U.S.in effort to get us out there to support their fellow Democrats, “reminding” us how much worse life was under Republicans, how much worse it could be again.

To be clear, I’m not telling anyone not to vote. I’m headed out myself later on this afternoon. And the day I actually vote Republican is the day that hell freezes over. I’m simply pointing out some facts about the lies we’re being told. I think we should all know the truth, and stop taking those lies at face value.

Because immigrants are less safe and more vulnerable to being removed from their homes under Obama than they were under Bush. And the Obama administration has the gall, the audacity, the outright conceit and smugness, to brag about it.

Even for someone who labels himself progressive, people’s very lives have become a political bargaining chip.

And anyone with a single progressive bone in their entire body should be outraged at that truth. At the truth that people’s lives do not matter unless they have a certain slip of paper. That certain people just don’t deserve protection, don’t deserve to live peacefully and unmolested. That certain people just aren’t really people anymore, anyway.

We are talking about people. Real, living, breathing people with hopes and dreams and families and inner lives. I think it’s time to center that. The fact that while the Obama administration and bureaucracy has forgotten, Maria Bolanos is a person.

Maria Bolanos works two jobs to pay her bills. She does janitorial work at an apartment complex Monday to Friday from 7 a.m. to 3 p.m. and pulls a 6 p.m. to 3 a.m. shift at a restaurant Thursday through Sunday.

“Dora the Explorer” plays endlessly on the TV in her second-floor apartment, in deference to the wishes of her daughter, Melisa Arellano-Bolanos.

Framed pictures of the the Last Supper and of Jesus and Mary hang above the dining table. A photo of Bolanos’s partner, Fernando Arellano, hugging Melisa is tucked into one corner of one of the frames.

Bolanos said she came to the United States in 2004 in search of a better life. She paid $7,000 to coyotes to help her cross the border via the Arizona desert.

The first time her party was caught, she said. She was released in the desert across the Arizona border from Mexico after being fingerprinted and photographed by authorities–and almost immediately crossed the border again.

She found her way to the Washington area and met Arellano at a restaurant where she worked. Arellano, now 34, was also undocumented and from Mexico. They fell in love and moved in together. Melisa was born in January 2008 at Washington Hospital Center.

She’s a person. A person who, because her partner allegedly assaulted her, because she allegedly sold some fucking phone cards, was shackled and detained. Shackled and detained, despite her pleas to be released on account that she was breastfeeding, until a doctor found her breasts engorged with milk.

She’s a person who would have no legal recourse if she was assaulted again. A person who has been let hung out to dry, saying, “You would have to be crazy to call the police. I would never call the police again.” A woman of color who, because of who she is, does not have the same exact right to not be beaten as a U.S.-born white lady like me.

A woman involved in a domestic dispute was so afraid of her partner that she called the police. Now, as a direct result of that phone call, she’s likely going to be deported. And though her story may be particularly outrageous, it’s not isolated. This shit is happening all the fucking time.

via Amanda Hess

Trigger Warning for extreme homophobia, including homophobic language and death wishes, as well as discussions of suicide.

Last Wednesday, as many of you are likely aware, there was a call to wear purple in response to the recent spate of publicized suicides by LGBT youth who had been extensively bullied, and the event was dubbed Spirit Day. Many activists who have been working on these issues for a long time have pointed out that these suicides are nothing new but are only now receiving media attention, and that most of the publicity has surrounded the loss of white gay men to the exclusion of trans* youth, bisexual and lesbian youth, and queer youth of color. There were also criticisms of Spirit Day specifically.

But while it would seem that all people could support not bullying people to the point where they feel there is no way out but to kill themselves, the day also inevitably brought out “criticisms” from homophobic and transphobic bigots who think that LGBT youth killing themselves isn’t really such a bad thing, after all.

One such bigot who spewed his homophobia¹ wherever he could was Clint McCance, who is notable because he is not just a private citizen/bigot, but a board member for Midland school district in Arkansas.

“Seriously they want me to wear purple because five queers killed themselves. The only way im wearin it for them is if they all commit suicide. I cant believe the people of this world have gotten this stupid. We are honoring the fact that they sinned and killed thereselves because of their sin. REALLY PEOPLE.”

After being challenged by a commenter, this was Mr. McCance’s reply:

“No because being a fag doesn’t give you the right to ruin the rest of our lives. If you get easily offended by being called a fag then dont tell anyone you are a fag. Keep that shit to yourself. I dont care how people decide to live their lives. They dont bother me if they keep it to thereselves. It pisses me off though that we make a special purple fag day for them. I like that fags cant procreate. I also enjoy the fact that they often give each other aids and die. If you arent against it, you might as well be for it.”

“I would disown my kids they were gay. They will not be welcome at my home or in my vicinity. I will absolutely run them off. Of course my kids will know better. My kids will have solid christian beliefs. See it infects everyone.”

In his post, McCance doesn’t just make light of queer youth killing themselves as a result of a homophobic society that supports extensive shaming, shunning, harassment, and violence; he suggests that such youth killing themselves is a natural response to a non-heterosexual orientation, and a deserved one at that. He argues that harassment directed at gay people is deserved and asked for by the very act of being gay. And the context of his statements further suggest that “if they all commit suicide,” this would be a good thing and a benefit to society — a breathtaking display of hatred.

I’m inclined to state here that suicide is no joke, but the fact is that I don’t think McCance ever meant his statements to be taken as one. He seems deadly serious in his convictions — and I place a particular emphasis on the word deadly. Because words have an impact. Words matter. They matter, as we’ve been tragically shown over and over again, when slurs are being screamed in your face and devaluing your very personhood every single day. They matter when they’re threatening you with violence. They matter when they’re telling you that you’re better off just not existing. They can matter very, very much when you’re thinking of killing yourself, and a person in a position of authority over the policies of your own school says that your identity is so repulsive to him, he hopes that you do.

Words matter, too, because they back up real attitudes. Many parents do actually disown their children because of their sexual orientations or gender identities. Kids end up homeless all the time for this very reason. Or they stay closeted and terrified and hate themselves because they fear exactly this happening, usually with very good reason.

And many people do believe that gay people who contract HIV/AIDS deserve to die. We saw the effect of this attitude most prominently in the United States when the AIDS epidemic first hit during the Reagan era, and countless people died painful deaths hated, alone, and afraid. People still die disowned by their families in the U.S. today, and human rights violations against HIV-positive people are a worldwide epidemic. Precisely because of attitudes like the one that Clint McCance expressed above, that people with HIV deserve to die — and, even worse, that HIV is a legitimately serious, deadly disease whose existence is both beneficial and thrilling to those who do not have it.

McCance’s words matter not just because the ideas behind them they have a concrete real world impact, but because he is in a position of authority, in one of the currently least appropriate places I can imagine. He is an elected official, and he works for a school. While the suicides of LGBT students are currently making the news in unprecedented numbers. At a time where it’s possible that homophobia (and transphobia to a lesser extent because of lesser coverage) and the bullying that accompanies it might just be starting to be taken seriously by mainstream U.S. — or at least one can hope — a school board member is telling LGBT students in his district that they are worthless and disgusting, and that he literally hopes they die.

And this is the best he can offer when the public responds with outrage:

I reached McCance on his cell phone this morning about 8:30 a.m.. “I really can’t comment right now,” he said. He said he planned a meeting with a lawyer this morning and didn’t want to say anything further until he’d had that meeting. He did comment that the matter had “been blown out of proportion.”

Blown out of proportion. People are dying because of the kinds of things he said, he not only refuses to mourn but actually celebrates their deaths, and then claims the issue has been blown out of proportion.

The Arkansas Education Department has responded a bit more appropriately:

The Arkansas Department of Education strongly condemns remarks or attitudes of this kind and are dismayed to see that a school board official would post something of this insensitive nature on a public forum like Facebook. Because Mr. McCance is an elected official, the department has no means of dealing with him directly. However, the department does have staff who investigate matters of bullying in schools and we will monitor and quickly respond to any bullying of students that may occur because of this, as we have with other civil rights issues in the past.

Of course, condemning the remarks as simply “insensitive” suggests a serious case of Not Getting It.

The Arkansas School Board Association said:

Members of the Arkansas School Boards Association Board of Directors and staff were appalled to read the comments purportedly made by the Midland School Board member in which he denounces gay students. Our organization expects school board members to support the education and promote the welfare of all students in their districts. With 1,500-plus school board members in Arkansas, we are saddened that the comments made by one individual will reflect poorly on other board members who work hard on behalf of the children in their communities.

ASBA has no tolerance for bullying or attacks on children, and we certainly would not tolerate such actions, either physical or verbal, by adults.

When school board members take the oath of office, they swear to uphold the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Arkansas. ASBA expects board members to adhere to state and federal laws, and bullying would certainly fall under those statutes.

A concern for those officials who don’t actively want LGBT students dead over those LGBT students themselves also suggests misplaced anger and sadness.

While an elected official cannot simply be fired, it’s unclear whether there is a process to remove from office those officials who do not uphold the duties of their jobs, and/or flagrantly violate them — as wishing harassment, violence, and death against students within a school board’s district would indeed seem to fit the bill with regards to a school board member. But if not, one would think that at the very least, these governmental bodies and his co-board members could and should make a loud public demand for his resignation.

A protest was apparently held this morning. It should really go without saying that in light of these comments, an apology is frankly and patently not good enough. Nothing less than McCance resigning or somehow otherwise being removed from his position on the school board is an acceptable response to an incident that should have never occurred, and in a world that took the safety of LGBT youth seriously, never would have. And until everyone else holding a position of authority over Midland school district does everything in their power to not only renounce the remarks but ensure that McCance no longer has a job on the board, they too are liable for and implicitly endorse what he had to say, and any effect it has on their students.

UPDATE: Clint McCance has resigned.

I recently wrote about a case out of Michigan where a prosecutor declined to file charges in a rape case by saying there was no element of force or coercion, despite the victim’s testimony and the corroboration of key parts of her statement by one of the accused parties. While it turned out that the alleged perpetrator’s statement didn’t amount to a confession, now making headlines is a case where an accused rapist did confess, and prosecution was still refused.

District Attorney Ken Buck told the woman he could not press charges against her attacker, despite the man’s admission to police that she said no. Buck said he must only prosecute cases in which he has a reasonable chance of convicting someone, and this was not one of those cases.

“A jury could very well conclude that this is a case of buyer’s remorse,” Buck said.

The woman, whose name is being withheld because the Tribune does not identify people who allege sexual assault, is 21 and from Colorado Springs.

She says she was drunk Dec. 1 when she called a former lover — she specified he was not an ex-boyfriend — to invite him to Greeley.

Although they used to have a sexual relationship, they hadn’t spoken in a year. There was a falling-out after she had an abortion, according to him, and after he made a pass at her younger sister, according to her.

Police did not release the man’s name because he has not been charged.

The man arrived and had sex with her, while she lost and regained consciousness and repeatedly told him no, she said. She told police she was pretty sure, but not certain, that she said no several times.

The man told police she said no a couple times, but he had thought she wanted to have sex with him. He said she was barely conscious when he finished, and that’s when he realized he made a mistake, according to the police report.

“He tried to wake the victim up to get her more conscious so he could apologize,” the report says.

Let’s go over all that again. The woman was drunk. She was drifting in and out of consciousness. Already, consent is impossible. Then, the alleged rapist admits that the woman said no. He even admits to needing to wake the victim up after the “sex” was over. And the last time I checked, “sex” with an unconscious person who has said no is rape on multiple counts.

But prosecutor Ken Buck indicates that this can be easily seen as “a case of buyer’s remorse” — perhaps the oldest misogynistic trope in the book, that women regularly happily and enthusiastically consent to sex, but decide that it wasn’t such a good idea in the morning and then ruin the poor man’s life by filing rape charges for completely unknown and incomprehensible reasons. The idea that a person who would so much as seriously think the term “buyer’s remorse” when referring to an alleged rape — let alone would use that phrase publicly with media — was allowed to be a DA is astounding and disgusting to me.

But this case was four whole years ago. Surely all instances of injustice and rape apologism/victim-blaming matter, but why bring up this one right now?

Because Ken Buck is now the Republican nominee running for the Colorado U.S. Senate seat in the upcoming election.

When Weld County District Attorney Ken Buck refused to prosecute a rape case five years ago, he probably had no idea that anyone beyond a small circle of people would care.

He learned otherwise quickly enough as the victim demanded a meeting with him (which she secretly — but legally — taped), organized a protest and made sure the media knew all about her plight.

Today, Buck is the Republican nominee for the U.S. Senate seat held by Democrat Michael Bennet. He leads narrowly but trails by double digits among female voters, many of whom believe his stances on abortion and other women’s issues are draconian.

The alleged rape victim is back and determined to be heard. She told her story to the Colorado Independent and provided the tape of their meeting (click here for a pdf of the transcript), in which Buck appears to all but blame her for the rape and tells her that her case would never fly with a Weld County jury.

“This case matters to the Senate race today because it shows his general view of women,” said Kjersten Forseth, who is interim executive director of ProgressNow Colorado and has also listened to the tape.

“This shows us how he views women and what he thinks their role is. It shows us that even when a woman is the victim of a rape he will not advocate for her. It shows that he is not a believer in women’s rights. He will not side with rape victims. This case is a statement on what his beliefs really are,” Forseth said.

“Do we want him making policy for the entire United States?” she asked.

Good question. From the transcript (which is only 4 pages long, and you can read for yourself by clicking the link above):

(118) KB: It’s the totality of the circumstance… prior relationship with him… talk to the experts who try rape cases and have not found a prosecutor yet who would …

(130) Victim: His statement says, “When he finished, … (reading police report)…tried to get the victim to wake the victim up so he could apologize.” How is that not “physically helpless, meaning unconscious, asleep, or unable to act” (legal code)

(139) KB: Because when you look at what happened earlier in the night, all the circumstances, based on his statements and some of your statements, indicate that you invited him to come to your apartment… that you told him how to get in …. It would appear to me and it appears to others that you invited him over to have sex with him. Whether that you, at that time, were conscious enough to say yes or no… ?

(147) V: So you’re telling me that previous sexual relations is enough to provide consent, and you’re telling me that because of me calling him and because of previous sexual relations and because I invited him up and told him how to get in, that invited him up for sex…

(153) KB: I’m telling you that’s what the circumstances suggest, to people, including myself, who have looked at it. Although, you never said the word yes, but the appearance is of consent.

V: Even though, he also stated that I told him no.

Wow. I hardly know where to begin. What we seem to have here is a victim who is knowledgeable and lucky enough to understand her rights, only to be faced with a DA who thinks those rights don’t mean shit. It’s clear that Buck is not just talking about misogynistic jury attitudes here, which are a problem, but about his own view of the case — when asked whether inviting a man with whom she has had prior sexual relations up to her apartment is enough to indicate consent in spite of the admitted presence of a “no,” Buck responds “I’m telling you that’s what the circumstances suggest, to people, including myself, who have looked at it.” (emphasis mine) And even if it was jury attitudes that were the problem, it’s a prosecutor and judge’s job to educate juries about the law, and what exactly terms like “rape” and “consent” mean. There’s most certainly no guarantee of a jury responding to that education, but failing to try in light of this set of evidence is unconscionable.

Now, let’s be real: I oppose Ken Buck’s candidacy for the U.S. Senate because he’s a Republican, and I oppose virtually every single thing that is in the Republican Party platform. I wouldn’t want him to win even if he didn’t think that women should be forced against their will to give birth to children conceived through rape, and even if he didn’t think that a rape case in which the accused admits his victim said no and was unconscious looks like “buyer’s remorse.” I imagine that few reading here would feel any differently.

But the fact that these last two things are true is scary. Even more so than just standard Republican viewpoints on their own. These things show a straight up hatred for women — no matter what lessons he may have supposedly learned from this episode. Sure we want public servants to learn and improve, but figuring out that maybe women are people after you’ve already dramatically impacted and actively harmed women’s lives on the job just isn’t good enough. Especially when his current policy stances continue to show such little regard for women’s lives now.

Which is all to say that if you live in Colorado, now might be the time to get out there and start campaigning.

Earlier this week, the New York Times reported on plans in the Venice Beach section of Los Angeles to “crack down” on homeless people who live in R.V.s and vans, parking them either on the street or in beach lots at night.

Every day, Diane Butler and her husband park their two hand-painted R.V.’s in a lot at the edge of Venice Beach here, alongside dozens of other rickety, rusted campers from the 1970s and ’80s. During the day, she sells her artwork on the boardwalk. When the parking lot closes at sunset, she and the other R.V.-dwellers drive a quarter-mile inland to find somewhere on the street to park for the night.

Their nomadic existence might be ending, though. The Venice section of Los Angeles has become the latest California community to enact strict new regulations limiting street parking and banning R.V.’s from beach lots — regulations that could soon force Ms. Butler, 58, to leave the community where she has lived for four decades.

“They’re making it hard for people in vehicles to remain in Venice,” she said.

Southern California, with its forgiving weather, has long been a popular destination for those living in vehicles and other homeless people. And for decades, people living in R.V.’s, vans and cars have settled in Venice, the beachfront Los Angeles community once known as the “Slum by the Sea” and famous for its offbeat, artistic culture.

Yet even as the economic downturn has forced more people out of their homes and into their cars, vehicle-dwellers are facing fewer options, with more communities trying to push them out.

As nearby neighborhoods and municipalities passed laws restricting overnight parking in recent years, Venice became the center of vehicle dwelling in the region. More than 250 vehicles now serve as shelter on Venice streets, according to the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority.

“The only place between Santa Barbara and San Diego where campers can park seven blocks from the beach is this little piece of land,” said City Councilman Bill Rosendahl, whose district includes Venice. “Over the years, it’s only gotten worse, as every other community along the coast has adopted restrictions.”

And for all of the Venice Beach residents with homes’ allegations of “bad behavior” by those living in vehicles, the issue is really about gentrification and wealthier home owners wanting the neighborhoods they’ve moved into to stop welcoming those members of the community who have been there the longest.

In the past, bohemian Venice was tolerant of vehicle-dwellers, but, increasingly, the proliferation of R.V.’s in this gentrifying neighborhood has prompted efforts to remove them.

“The status quo is unacceptable,” said Mark Ryavec, president of the Venice Stakeholders Association, a group of residents devoted to removing R.V.’s from the area. “It’s time to give us some relief from R.V.’s parking on our doorsteps.”

It’s an issue that’s been going on for some time; the alt text on the header image will reveal that while I was unable to find a legally usable image that was taken for this most recent story, I could find one from a very similar report on Venice Beach in 2004. It’s also an issue that has played out over and over again across the U.S., if not in the form of battles over people living in vehicles, then in the form of battles over homeless people living in tents or using sleeping bags. Anything that makes homeless people more comfortable, safer, and less likely to be exposed to the elements, it seems, is up for scrutiny and fodder for potential legislation.

In response, abby jean writes:

because the best way to deal with homelessness is always to punish or make it more difficult for the actual people who are homeless. do we think if we make homelessness illegal it will cease to exist?

Time and time again, we see evidence of the fact that most people care more about how “unsightly” homeless people in their neighborhoods are than about the fact that said people don’t have homes. That they may be hungry, don’t have a warm, safe place to sleep, or lack access to health care. Those of us who are privileged enough to have homes tend to care more about maintaining the illusion that our cities are happy places that take care of their citizens than addressing the fact that an illusion is exactly what it is.

A big part of this reaction to homelessness is based in the Western, capitalist “bootstrap” myth, that those of us who have economic privilege got there purely through hard work with no luck or social privilege thrown in. The corollary to this belief is that people with homes deserve to have them — and those without homes must have done something to make them undeserving of such a basic right as housing. And when mental illness and addiction are so regularly falsely understood as personal failings, this view becomes all the more pervasive, powerful, and harmful.

Another part is plain old prejudice — the above mentioned biases against people with mental illnesses and/or addiction, for a start, as well as other forms of ableism, classism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, etc. Social oppression often plays a huge part in homelessness, whether we’re talking about queer and trans* youth being kicked out of their homes, someone being unable to find a job after an arrest for doing sex work, or a person with a disability being unable to access benefits and services needed to stay in their home. Stigma against marginalized group and their over-representation in homeless populations also plays a role in the revulsion that middle-class people tend to express towards them. People “like them” — whatever “like them” might mean in a certain context on a certain day — aren’t perceived as quite as human as the rest of us.

And another factor is that really addressing the issue of homelessness just straight up takes work. It means digging deep and making big changes. It means seeing homeless people as deserving of housing that is more than just temporary, not because they’ve done something to “earn” or “deserve” it, but because their being human is just enough. It means making access to health care a right and not a privilege, and that includes access to mental health care and substance abuse treatment programs. It means addressing the causes of domestic violence, the effect that war has on veterans, the impact that hatred has on LGBT people. It means, frankly, rethinking the exalted place that private ownership and property rights hold in our society, when those rights put other human beings out on the street. It means welfare that actually works and gives people enough to live on. It means addressing economic racism. It means talking about the lack of worker’s rights. It means a critical reconsideration and restructuring of how we live and how we treat others, including a lot more than I’ve listed here.

Facing up to the fact that we’ve built a society that actively harms people is a lot tougher than building a couple of shelters or writing up some tickets. Starting to think of human beings as people again after being so used to treating them like cockroaches (unless, of course, there’s a feel-good lesson involved) is a radical shift.

So instead, over and over again, we as a society just keep pushing the people we don’t see as human out. Do we think they’ll cease to exist? No, but if we don’t have to see them, we don’t have to think about them. And for too many people, that’s apparently close enough.

Trigger Warning for anti-immigrant hatred and discussion of border crossing deaths.

Found via Jill’s brief post on the issue, this story in the NY Times about people who leave water for undocumented immigrants crossing the U.S. border in the desert isn’t exactly news, but it is needed reporting on an ongoing issue. The water is left by activists because without it, immigrants become severely dehydrated over the long journey, resulting in serious illness and sometimes death. But the activists are being issued with tickets by federal Fish and Wildlife Officers, and strongly fought by those who oppose immigration and immigrants’ rights:

Two years ago, Daniel J. Millis was ticketed for littering after he was caught by a federal Fish and Wildlife officer placing gallon jugs of water for passing immigrants in the brush of this 118,000-acre preserve.

“I do extreme sports, and I know I couldn’t walk as far as they do,” said Mr. Millis, driving through the refuge recently. “It’s no surprise people are dying.”

Mr. Millis, 31, was not the only one to get a ticket. Fourteen other volunteers for Tucson-based organizations that provide aid to immigrants crossing from Mexico to the United States were similarly cited. Most of the cases were later dropped, but Mr. Millis and another volunteer for a religious group called No More Deaths were convicted of defacing the refuge with their water jug drops.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit weighed in on Mr. Millis’s appeal this month, ruling that it was “ambiguous as to whether purified water in a sealed bottle intended for human consumption meets the definition of ‘garbage.’ ” Voting 2-to-1, a three-judge panel overturned Mr. Millis’s conviction.

The issue remains far from settled, though. The court ruled that Mr. Millis probably could have been charged under a different statute, something other than littering. And the Fish and Wildlife Service continues to forbid anyone to leave gallon jugs of water in the refuge — a policy backed by this state’s immigration hardliners, who say comforting immigrants will only encourage them to cross.

From 2002 to 2009, 25 illegal immigrants died while passing through the refuge’s rolling hills, which are flanked by mountains and are home to pronghorns, coyotes, rattlesnakes and four different kinds of skunks. Throughout southern Arizona, the death toll totaled 1,715 from 2002 to 2009, with this year’s hot temperatures putting deaths at a record-breaking pace.

Again, water is being left for a reason. It is being left because without it, people die.

So look, I support environmental protection probably a lot more than your average person. But I don’t support acts of environmental protection when they trample on human rights. And I mean legitimate human rights — the right to movement, the right for indigenous people to live on their own land, and the right to live, not the “right” to own ipods and drill for oil and create massive amounts of garbage. Human life is not separate from the environment, and resources literally necessary to continued survival are not litter. Daniel Millis says it more effectively and concisely (trigger warning):

As for spoiling the environment, he said he collected as many jugs as he left behind. He also recounts how he found the dead body of a 14-year-old Salvadoran girl near the refuge days before he was ticketed.

“People are part of the environment,” he said.

Further, immigrants aren’t choosing to cross the border at a wildlife refuge because it’s convenient and they hate the environment. They’re crossing there because it’s virtually the least convenient location possible — and therefore, one of the few that the U.S. government hasn’t decided to block off with a giant fence. People are crossing here precisely because the U.S. government knows it’s deadly — because it assumes that people wouldn’t dare cross in a deadly location, and then cruelly ignores mountains of evidence to the contrary. People cross here because it’s just about the only place left. And it’s just about the only place left because it’s assumed in the U.S. that if you’re going to cross the border illegally, you deserve to die.

And when “immigration hardliners” say that giving people water so that they may go on living is providing “comfort” to those entering the country illegally, they deliberately attempt to cover up the fact that they are going to try to enter the country, anyway, “comfort” or not. What they’re stating is that it’s better for immigrants to die than to make it safely into the United States.

But opponents say the water drops are encouraging immigrants to continue to come across the border illegally. The critics say there ought to be Border Patrol agents stationed near the water stations to arrest those who are crossing illegally as soon as they finish drinking. So furious are some at the practice of aiding immigrants that they have slashed open the water jugs, crushed them with their vehicles or simply poured the water into the desert.

People are dying because they don’t have enough water during the long journey across the border, and some are responding by purposely destroying the water they could use to keep on living.

Again, the lesson is that if you come into the U.S. without papers, you deserve to die.

No matter who you are. The people risking death out in the desert aren’t walking miles and miles and miles to get to the U.S. because they want to “ruin our country.” For fuck’s sake, what kind of country is it, anyway, when we care more about enforcing the notion that this land is our property than we care about human life? How much more ruined could we get? Terrorists are the very least of our problems, when we’ve managed to sink so very low. But all that stories like these go to show yet again is that this isn’t about terrorists. It’s about making sure that nobody lacking a fancy, really expensive permission slip gets to come into the country without having to risk their lives. It’s about showing people how less than human we think they are because of the color of their skin and the language(s) they primarily speak and the country they were born in.

And if this doesn’t show how sub-human anti-immigrant crusaders think the people who they already refer to with the dehumanizing slur “illegals” to be, I don’t know what will. Because those we think of as human, we think of as having a right to life. Those we think of as human, we think of as deserving water.

But to many, if you want to come into the U.S. as an undocumented immigrant, you deserve to die.

I keep repeating it because it needs to be repeated. I keep repeating it because this hatred, this bile, this extraordinary racism and xenophobia and nativism needs to be confronted. Because it’s costing lives. People are dying. Look at the numbers above — 1,700 lives in eight years, all in a single state. And the government and people of the U.S. are letting them die. And those behind building fences where it’s safe to cross and crushing water jugs that could and do save lives want them to die. They’d rather have them dead than have them in our country.

The next time someone tells you that it’s no big deal to refer to people as “illegals,” to strip them of their humanity, this is where talking about and treating people as though they are not human beings gets us. Just as countless others have argued and warned. It gets us dead bodies and crushed water jugs and tickets for some of the only U.S. citizens who are willing to stand up to the atrocity. It gets us a failure to feel compassion for those willing to risk their lives to find work. It gets us a refusal to listen to their voices, and an inability to even find their voices in mainstream contexts because nobody cares and anyway they are too afraid to speak.  It gets us to a place where people in the United States think that being an undocumented immigrant is such a horrific crime, those who are undocumented immigrants deserve to die.

Trigger Warning for anti-trans violence, ungendering, victim-blaming, and police and media transphobia/transmisogyny.

Yesterday a man badly beat a woman who was riding in his car and then dumped her in front of an apartment complex before driving away, seemingly for no reason other than that she was trans. Though this is awful enough on its own, police and local media decided to add insult to that injury by fitting as many transphobic tropes as they possibly could into barely one hundred words. The KENS5 news story starts as follows:

A man was in for quite a surprise after learning the woman in his car was a transgender person.

Police say the suspect apparently snapped and beat the woman in the face repeatedly before dumping her off at an apartment complex in the 3200 block of Hillcrest.

The first sentence here is utterly despicable. Rather than identifying with the woman who was assaulted — who I imagine was in for quite a surprise when the man who she was in the car with started beating her in the face — the phrasing immediately and intentionally identifies with the man who assaulted her. Stating that he “was in for quite a surprise” suggests that any normal person — presumed to be cis, of course — would be “surprised” to learn that they were spending their time with a trans* person. And more than surprised, any such person would be rightly appalled. To say that trans* people are inherently “surprising” is to register them as inherently strange and abnormal, their very existence and identities as shocking and upsetting.

This sets the stage to suggest that the assailant had a good reason to assault his victim, just by virtue of who she was. And that’s exactly what the next paragraph goes on to do, even more explicitly.

KENS5 states that according to police, the unnamed assailant didn’t decide to beat his victim. He didn’t make a choice to enact transphobic violence, let alone a hate crime (more on that later). He just “snapped.” Snapping is something that anybody can do. Snapping is something over which we have limited control, which suggests that we are not acting like our usual selves. Snapping is something that is done under extreme stress, something that just sometimes happens, that may even be justified.

And what either police or KENS5 are suggesting here in this choice of words is that the mere presence of a trans* person is enough to make a cis person snap. That beating someone after learning they’re trans* isn’t desirable, but is understandable. That it’s an instinct. An impulsive reaction. Not something done out of hatred, or the desire to reinforce lines of privilege and oppression or to eliminate another human being. Just a natural response to exposure to too much transness.

Things stay just as bad in the next couple paragraphs:

Police are not sue (sic) where the victim was picked up, but they believe the victim had an arrangement with the male suspect.

Preliminarily, investigators think the man responsible for the beating thought he was about to have a good time with a biological woman. But, then he found things were not what they seemed. That discovery may have lead to the brutal beating.

The implication here is clearly not that the victim and assailant were two non-sex working people mutually looking for a casual sexual encounter, but rather a sex worker and a client.

It’s certainly possible that the victim is a sex worker — in which case her additional marginalization as such likely played into the perception by her assailant that she was less than human and deserved to be subjected to violence.

It’s also a simple fact that, due to false stereotypes about trans women and sex workers somehow both being inherently highly sexual, trans women are routinely portrayed as sex workers or automatically assumed to be sex workers even when they’re not. A result of misogynistic, racist, classist, etc. anti-sex worker stigma is that falsely calling someone a sex worker has become a means of attempting to insult and degrade them, and trans women are one of the groups that anti-sex worker slurs and bigotry have been most particularly weaponized against.

The implication, as with all of the “surprise”-related language above, also plays into the old, tired, hateful “trans panic” defense. The “trans panic” defense involves a scenario in which a trans woman “tricks” a cis man into a sexual encounter by not disclosing her trans status, and the man then “snaps” (seeing a trend here?) and assaults or kills her. The defense ignores that failing to disclose one’s trans* status is not in any way a “trick.” It ignores the false premise of the scenario, which is that most trans* folks do disclose their trans status out of concerns regarding potential attacks just like this. It ignores that in a vast majority of such cases, the assailant/murderer had an ongoing relationship with his victim, and knew that she was trans* all along. And it ignores that even if he did not, he still has absolutely no justification for assaulting her.

Which is all to say that even if all of the events occurred exactly as stated here, the framing is atrocious, irresponsible, needlessly salacious, victim-blaming, and transphobic. The tone of article has carried over into the comments — which I do not recommend, though it’s worth noting that clairelouise and zoebrain have started an attempt to educate the ignorant — where transphobia, transmisogyny, and victim-blaming abound. And if the events did not happen as stated, but were rather invented out of transphobic stereotypes, I would not be even remotely surprised.

One last issue I want to address is the police statement that, in spite their own claim that the assailant acted violently because of the woman’s gender identity, they will not be pursuing a hate crime charge. As John Wright states over at Dallas Voice:

Texas’ hate crimes law includes “sexual preference” but NOT gender identity. However, the new federal hate crimes law passed last year does protect transgender people and presumably could be used in this case. If the man beat the victim because she is transgender and not cisgender, then yeah, we’d say that’s a hate crime. Let’s get with it, San Antonio police.

The decision is appalling. Based on the police’s own description, this was absolutely a hate crime. The only possible way I see to interpret it as anything else is to come from the perspective that some hate-motivated crimes are justified, and don’t deserve to be punished — to believe that anti-trans hatred is just so natural that it doesn’t even really count as hate or a bias.

And that right there is fucked up. A woman was attacked. Police believe that she was attacked because she is trans. Hate crimes laws now protect on the basis of gender identity. It’s a hate crime. And calling it anything else is downright hateful in itself.