Non Discrimination Ordinances

The issue of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity/expression is a sore point in the social and political fabric of ultra conservative Idaho. For the past 15 or so years efforts to add the words "sexual orientation and gender identity" to the Idaho Human Rights Act have been unsuccessful. In response, local jurisdictions have taken it upon themselves to enact local ordinances to protect their LGBTQ+ residents.

Yesterday, there were 12 Idaho cities that had adopted ordinances that cover both sexual orientation and gender identity/expression. One city has an ordinance that covers only sexual orientation.

Today, there are 13 cities as Meridian ID passed it's comprehensive NDO last night. I was proud to be one of dozens of people testifying in support of passing the ordinance. After 3 hours of testimony, the council voted 4:2 in favor of passage. Meridian is the second largest city in the state, has the largest school district and is one of the fastest growing cities in the US, making passage of this ordinance an act of significant positive impact on its residents.

Even in deeply red states, progress is being made - baby steps maybe, but steps none the less.

Liz

Liz

You are one of the heroes because you step up when needed.

I still don't think that Ordinances or laws will solve a problem of ignorance, it is something I suppose, and true it will help with TERF's but not the best option imho.

Better would be to get what existing research their is, start new programs to add to that, and educate people, while their will be those who will refuse to learn, they are easily dealt with, one way is to simply point out.

here in Idaho for an eg.

A: LGBTQI people are allowed to be as armed as the rest of them are.
B: Attacking any Individual is Universally a crime.
C: LGBTQI people are well within their rights to use any necessary force to defend themselves from attacks.

and ultimately simply let that generation of idiots simply die off of old age if they refuse to learn.

Personally I don't want any special treatment, only for existing laws to be applied equally across the board.

regardless of any laws or ordinances passed LGBTQI people will still face the same problems (criminals are criminals, and don't let laws etc slow them down), only thing laws will to is make the bigots want to fight more.

You're a true hero, Liz! Of course, having an ordinance is completely different than enforcing that ordinance.

Lenneth wrote:Personally I don't want any special treatment, only for existing laws to be applied equally across the board.

I understand and appreciate what you have said, but...

Lynching was primarily a crime against 'the Negro' and as such was and still is considered a crime of hate against a race.

From 1882-1968, 4,743 lynchings occurred in the United States.  Of these people that were lynched 3,446 were black.  The blacks lynched accounted for 72.7% of the people lynched.  These numbers seem large, but it is known that not all of the lynchings were ever recorded.  Out of the 4,743 people lynched only 1,297 white people were lynched.  That is only 27.3%.  Many of the whites lynched were lynched for helping the black or being anti lynching and even for domestic crimes.
https://www.naacp.org/history-of-lynchings/

In 1933, two white men who had kidnapped and murdered the son of local San Jose, CA merchant were dragged from their jail cells and lynched in St. James Park. (My father-in-law was in the crowd that night and hated being there that day ever since).

Can I slice justice so thin that I would prosecute the lynching of any African-Americal as a hate crime and prosecute the lynching of the two kidnappers as a murder without extra findings - yes.

Would I find some of the lynchings of both white and black victims as murder versus hate crimes - yes. But it would take a very sharp razor to cut so thin as most lynchings were certainly aimed at blacks for simply being black, regardless of the crime they purportedly committed.

I believe that when a crime is directed towards any protected segment of society then it must be treated as a hate crime. Whether we are of color, or religion, of national origin or LGB...T we comprise a special segment of society that DOES require special protections, when we are singled out.

Miki wrote:I believe that when a crime is directed towards any protected segment of society then it must be treated as a hate crime. Whether we are of color, or religion, of national origin or LGB...T we comprise a special segment of society that DOES require special protections, when we are singled out.

Hi Miki, Liz, and Dawn!

l do think that the existing laws covering most hate crimes in most democratic countries are a good thing, there are some so-called democracies that have a long way to go, of course. The Idaho news is good.

It is always a fine balance with specific laws though and the scales are still uneven. And there are many examples of them being loaded heavily against us in many nations and states, of course.

The balance is off, pretty well everywhere. But the biggest hurdle for all is general acceptance of new laws or ordinances. Times change though, and I do believe the future is good.

There is an example of times changing for the better, apart from the obvious, that I have just this moment thought of. It was the 1970's act that allows men of the Sikh religion not to have to wear a safety helmet upon a motorcycle. Sikhs have always been respected for the most part in the UK, yet at the time there was quite a backlash against this sensible law. Sikhs cannot remove there turbans in public, for religious reasons. Many motorcyclists in the general population complained bitterly, some even wrapping material around their heads, mocking Sikhs, in protest whilst riding. This backlash was supported by folk that did not even ride motorcycles. But the point is, that it would, I am certain, not have happened, had the law been introduced in the last twenty years or so.

I agree with Miki and probably everyone here, new laws are required to protect transgender people and *perhaps also finally settle bathroom objections. But there are quite a few factors that are rarely considered to have such laws generally accepted. Some factors cannot be changed, for instance, the many sections of press, that are unable to resist the temptation to stir up trouble for us, at the slightest sniff of beneficial proposals for us, whatever they may be. It is almost like they can't help themselves hating us.

Bigotry can be easily encouraged by negative reporting, that's obvious. But also by ill thought introduction. For example, being entirely subject specific. That is laws proposed for a single section of society at one time to society as a whole. Any transgender protection law ideally should be introduced amidst a batch of new law.

Such law is common sense and contrary argument is, could, and will be easily shown to be pure bigotry. Sloppy introduction of proposals, feeding bigotry existing in certain elements of the press, to my mind, is not way to go. More change is certainly coming, and when it does, I believe it would be nice if it were made less counter-productive and not thrown out there with little forethought. We will get there.

Celia xx

The less educated, or maybe those with a specific agenda, come out against protective laws as laws granting special rights to a protected segment of society.

It is not a special right for a transperson to use the appropriate bathroom. It is not a special right for a government to prosecute a lynching as a hate crime.

Yes Miki,

I've added the words 'perhaps also' to my post, as the 'and' meant 'also' as a by the way, rather than the whole of transgender protection I was mainly referring to. I realise you probably realised that, but clarity.... I hope that makes sense, probably not!


Celia xx