ACLU In The News

[Soldier4Christ]

Dangerous Bill Advancing in State Legislature
HB 1233 SD1 Would Legally Redefine "Sex" from its Traditional Meaning of "Male or Female" to Mean Whatever Any Individual Wants it to Mean
By Garret T. Hashimoto, 3/22/2006 1:11:09 AM

A very dangerous bill is advancing in the state Legislature and will become the law of the land unless Hawaii's citizens speak up right now. So far only one individual has made the effort to testify against this bill.

On the other hand, testifying in support of this bill have been the American Civil Liberties Union (A.C.L.U.); Lambda Aloha; The Center; Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgendered Caucus of the Democratic Party of Hawaii; Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (P.F.L.A.G.)˜Oahu; Civil Unions-Civil Rights Movement; Community Alliance on Prisons; Democratic Party of Kauai; Gay and Lesbian Education and Advocacy Foundation; and Ohana Metropolitan Community Church of Honolulu.

Sounds harmless enough? Read on.

House Bill 1233 Senate Draft 1 would legally redefine "sex" from its traditional meaning of "male or female" to mean whatever any individual wants it to mean "regardless of whether [it] is different from that traditionally associated with the person's sex at birth."

The bill purports to make it illegal to discriminate in places of public accommodation based on "sexual orientation" and/or "sex, including gender identity or expression." The phrase "sex, including gender identity or expression" would be a fundamental redefinition of law because it would mean the definition of "sex", i.e., male or female, would be expanded to include "gender identity or expression."

What is "gender identity or expression"? Here's how HB1233 SD1 defines that phrase: "Gender identity or expression‚ includes a person's actual or perceived gender, as well as a person's gender identity, gender-related self-image, gender-related appearance, or gender-related expression, regardless of whether that gender identity, gender-related self-image, gender-related appearance, or gender-related expression is different from that traditionally associated with the person‚s sex at birth."

This is not to be confused with "sexual orientation" which is already defined by law as "having a preference for heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality, having a history of any one or more of these preferences, or being identified with any one or more of these preferences."

One of the "pioneers" in extending legal protections based on "gender identity or expression" has been the City of San Francisco which "prohibits intentional and deliberate misuse of appropriate forms of address and/or pronouns, and/or denial of access to bathroom/restroom that is consistent with and appropriate to the customer‚s or client‚s gender identity."

Furthermore, San Francisco law explicitly deals with public accommodations with showers: "In sex-specific facilities, where nudity in the presence of other people is unavoidable, agencies, businesses, organizations, City contractors, and City departments shall make reasonable accommodations to allow an individual access and use of the facility that is consistent with that individual's gender identity which is publicly and exclusively asserted.

Taking into consideration Hawaii's definition of places of public accommodation, this would include such places as showers at public parks and campsites (Ala Moana, Waikiki, Malaekahana, etc.); shower facilities at public swimming pools; spas and health clubs in hotels, resorts, and in the community. In addition, restrooms in all public accommodations would no longer be "male" or "female" but would be open to anyone regardless of the sex they were born with because under the "gender identity or expression" law you can choose to be whatever you want, whenever you want.

In summary, if the practical application of the law is to be modeled on the San Francisco model - as appears to be the goal of at least some in Hawaii's LGBTIQ (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Intersex, Queer and Questioning) community - the State of Hawaii is destined for major upheaval.

If language stating that "sex" includes "gender identity or expression" becomes codified in law - and subsequently extended throughout Hawaii's statutes - the "unintended consequences" could be far-reaching.

[Soldier4Christ]

Ban on Viagra urged for predators
Lawmakers want to make gotcha143 drugs off-limits for sexual predators.
BY JENNIFER MOONEY PIEDRA
jmooney@MiamiHerald.com

TALLAHASSEE - Florida lawmakers want to ban the state's most egregious sexual predators from using gotcha143 drugs.

Under the proposal, sexual predators would face criminal charges if caught using or possessing drugs such as Viagra, Cialis and Levitra.

State Sen. Carey Baker, a Eustis Republican, said the ban would help deter crime and punish predators, just like existing Florida laws that restrict gun ownership and voting by felons after they serve their time.

''It's like giving alcohol to an alcoholic,'' said Baker, who filed the Senate version of the bill. ``If this helps reduce one crime, then it's worth it.''

The measure, which will be voted on today in Senate and House committees, was the brainchild of state Rep. Aaron Bean, a Fernandina Beach Republican who is sponsoring the House version.

It stems from a move by Florida lawmakers last year to ban Medicaid recipients from receiving state-paid Viagra, regardless of whether they are sexual offenders.

PHARMACISTS WORRIED

But the new push is causing concern among pharmacists, who don't want to be responsible for having to conduct sexual-predator checks on all customers seeking to fill prescriptions for gotcha143 drugs.

That task, they say, should be left to physicians who prescribe the medicine.

''If any checking needs to be done, it needs to be at the point the order is initiated -- not when the order is executed,'' said Michael Jackson, executive vice president of the Florida Pharmacy Association.

He said his agency is working with legislators to resolve some of its issues.

''We understand the needs and desires of this legislation and what it's trying to do,'' he said. ``But we're not so sure that placing pharmacists in control is something that will work.''

Baker said he understands the concerns of the pharmacists and will make sure they aren't burdened with any extra government mandates.

He said he eventually would like to see an easy-to-check database that would keep pharmacists alert to the status of a sexual predator.

If the proposal becomes law, convicted sexual predators found with the drugs will be charged with a second-degree misdemeanor -- punishable by a maximum 60-day jail term and a $500 fine.

Repeat offenders would be charged with a first-degree misdemeanor, which means as much as a year in jail and a fine up to $1,000.

ONLY PREDATORS

Baker said the bills would affect only sexual predators -- those who prey on children or commit violent sex acts -- and not the broader category of sexual offenders, which can include 18-year-olds who happened to get caught up in a relationship with under-age partners.

But critics say the measure will not prevent sexual predators from striking again.

''I don't think it will have any effect on protecting children,'' said Howard Simon, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida. ''It's sadly more about politics.''

[Soldier4Christ]

 State, ACLU settlement will cost $700,000


A settlement reached by the American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico and the state Children, Youth and Families Department over conditions within the juvenile justice system will cost the state more than $700,000.

The two sides signed an agreement last month that requires security improvements, increased mental health programs and rehabilitation services in juvenile detention facilities across the state, among other things.

Also under the agreement, the ACLU promised not to pursue litigation as long as CYFD makes a good faith effort to implement changes.

The money part of the settlement includes $220,000 for the six months that ACLU attorneys spent preparing their lawsuit and $400,000 for the attorneys to monitor CYFD's compliance over the next four years.

Another $85,000 was paid to six former residents of the New Mexico Boys School in Springer and one former female resident at an Albuquerque juvenile jail as compensation for physical injuries received from guards and other inmates and for insufficient medical and mental health care.

Attorney and former juvenile jail superintendent Justin Pennington said paying the ACLU to hold CYFD accountable is "nonsense" because the organization is not in a position to enforce the settlement agreement.

"The better course would have been to file the case and have it enforced by the court," he said.

Peter Simonson, the organization's executive director, said the ACLU is in a better position to monitor CYFD because of its expertise.

As for the teens who were compensated, ALCU attorney Peter Cubra said seven will receive about $12,000 each because of civil rights violations while in juvenile jails. One teen suffered a broken arm at the hands of a guard and another wasn't treated for hepatitis, Cubra said.

Outgoing CYFD Secretary Mary-Dale Bolson said the payments were not an admission that any harm was done but a response to "large-scale threatened litigation."

[Soldier4Christ]

State government bans disputed abstinence program
March 22,2006
PROVIDENCE, R.I. (AP) - The Rhode Island Department of Education has banned from public schools a privately run abstinence program that critics say violates students' constitutional rights.

Officials at the American Civil Liberties Union say Heritage of Rhode Island offered a curriculum that embraced sexist sterotypes, broke state privacy laws and showed students a videotape with religious references.

The nonprofit pro-abstinence group provides health education programs.

The A-C-L-U complained about the program to Education Commission Peter McWalters, who decided to ban the program last week.

The program's sponsor says it received federal funding, but its curriculum was not approved by the state.

State education officials say they will now review the H-I-V and AIDS curriclums of all
public schools.

[Soldier4Christ]

 Westmoreland faces civil action


By FRANK DELANO

A civil-liberties group and a state agency have raised possibilities of legal action against Westmoreland County for failing to provide handicapped access to public buildings.

In a letter sent Monday, an attorney for the Virginia Office for Protection and Advocacy charged that the county had not complied with all terms of a 2003 settlement agreement to provide handicapped access to the George D. English Sr. Memorial Office Building in Montross.

"It is my hope we can bring this matter to a swift conclusion without the need for litigation," wrote VOPA Managing Attorney Jonathan G. Martinis. "After three years, Westmoreland County owes its citizens with disabilities nothing less."

On Tuesday, the American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia notified the county that it intends to file a lawsuit under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act unless the county promptly provides handicapped access to the offices of the Circuit Court clerk.

"The Americans with Disabilities Act is 16 years old now, and we're still fighting for basic compliance," said Kent Willis, executive director of the ACLU.

He said the old courthouse containing the clerk's office is "no ordinary building, and this is not a symbolic act on our part."

"This is about access to the clerk of the court, a person who is visited by thousands of people each year who need to conduct business in Westmoreland County," he said.

County Administrator Norm Risavi said that a team composed of a professional engineer, a building inspector and the county's maintenance supervisor inspected all county buildings yesterday for ADA compliance.

Risavi said he hoped to have a plan and a budget for ADA projects ready for approval by the Board of Supervisors at its April 10 meeting. A supplemental appropriation by the supervisors may be necessary to fund the work, he said.

Risavi would not estimate when the various ramps, curb cuts, bathroom renovations and signage would be installed.

He said some of the work could be done by county staff, but other jobs would be put out for bids under the county Procurement and Contract Administration Policy.

But last year, Risavi waived bid requirements for renovating the old courthouse's second floor as an office for Circuit Court Judge George Mason III.

"I have determined that competitive sealed bidding would not be practicable or fiscally advantageous to the county," Risavi wrote in a finding on the judge's office. "Competitive negotiations would better serve the county."

Last year, the judge's office was expected to cost $100,000. Now, Risavi said it will cost $140,000.

A story in the March 15 Free Lance-Star attracted the attention of both the ACLU and VOPA, Willis and Martinis said. The story described Mason's expensive office and problems of handicapped accessibility at it and other county buildings

"This is almost hard to believe," said Willis.

"It's bad enough to flaunt the law by ignoring the rights of disabled persons, but it is an outright affront to human decency to spend more than $100,000 to renovate a building without adding something as simple and inexpensive as ramps that rise 3 feet."

In a March 17 letter to Gayle Harding, a wheelchair-bound resident of Coles Point, Martinis said he had sent a VOPA paralegal to survey the English Building and the old courthouse 200 yards away.

Harding complained to the county and VOPA in 2000 about accessibility problems at the English Building. In April 2003, the county finally agreed to fix them.

Martinis gave the county five days to notify VOPA "how Westmoreland County will rectify these violations of state and federal law."

Rebecca K. Glenberg, legal director of the Virginia ACLU, told the county to present its plan by March 28 to remedy the violations "or face legal action." She also requested copies of county records pertaining to both buildings and their accessibility.

Harding was injured in an automobile accident when she was 19.

Now 50, she has served as chairwoman of the Northern Neck Disability Services Board.

"I hope this goes somewhere," she said of the ACLU's and VOPA's prodding of the county.

"But it's not just Westmoreland County. It's not just those buildings. It's the mind-set of people that's got to change. People need to understand what it's like to roll a mile in my wheelchair."

[Soldier4Christ]

Report faults cops' undercover activity
DISPUTE OVER MONITORING `PEOPLE'S PARADE'
By Ken McLaughlin
Mercury News

Santa Cruz police ``more than likely'' violated the civil rights of organizers of a zany New Year's Eve parade by using undercover officers to monitor their planning meetings, the city's police auditor says.

The auditor, Palo Alto attorney Robert Aaronson, concludes in a 34-page report that police were too quick to send two undercover cops, posing as surfer dudes, to infiltrate three meetings over a two-month period in late 2005.

``Less intrusive alternatives were available, but none were tried,'' Aaronson wrote.

One such option suggested by Aaronson: telephoning parade planners to see what they were up to.

The controversy began after the city decided it could no longer afford to pay for First Night Santa Cruz, an alcohol-free New Year's Eve celebration that for years kept the downtown safe for families. So a small group of artists vowed to stage a ``do-it-yourself'' parade instead -- with no official organizers or parade permits.

The group billed the event as a ``people's parade,'' Santa Cruz-style. But police -- worried about other downtown events that had turned violent -- smelled anarchy.

Police brass have called the dust-up a tempest in a teapot, arguing that officers had a responsibility to investigate the group -- Last Night DIY -- to ensure its permitless parade came off peacefully.

But Santa Cruz activists, with support from the American Civil Liberties Union, have accused the department of needlessly spying on a community group. They have called it part of a chilling, post-Sept. 11 pattern.

Police Chief Howard Skerry said Wednesday that he respected Aaronson's role in the process.

``The public's trust is very important to me,'' he said. ``You have to respect individual rights. . . . I'm not sure where we go from here, but it's important for people to know that a decision was made early on to make this process as open as possible.''

Skerry said he was happy that Aaronson acknowledged that legal precedents outlining when it's OK to infiltrate community groups were not completely clear -- and that ``there were no credible allegations of misconduct by any city employee.''

When he became aware of the DIY group in late October, Deputy Police Chief Kevin Vogel said in his own report, he checked out its Web site (www.lastnight diy.org) and perceived a ``tone of defiance'' toward the city's requirement for obtaining a special-event permit. Vogel suggested the undercover operation, saying the department needed to come up with a plan for policing the parade.

When Vogel's report on the operation was released last month, Aaronson called it ``incomplete and flawed'' because Vogel was investigating an operation that he had himself authorized.

Wes Modes, one of the parade planners, said his group felt vindicated by Aaronson's report.

``It's what we've been saying all along,'' said Modes, an artist and a carpenter from Felton. ``He just shatters a lot of the arguments police have made.''

Mark Schlosberg, police practices policy director at the ACLU of Northern California, said Aaronson's report highlights the need for clearly written police policies on the monitoring of community groups.

``It's not just a problem in Santa Cruz,'' he said, noting that only San Francisco seems to have a clear policy.

[Soldier4Christ]

Abortion rules challenged
Teens who want to avoid telling their parents about an abortion would have new requirements to face under a House bill.


Accusing pregnant teens of ''judge-shopping'' when they go to court to avoid having to talk to their parents about an abortion, a House committee Wednesday passed a measure to tighten rules for girls who seek the court bypass.

The House Civil Justice Committee voted 4-3 to pass a proposal by Rep. John Stargel, a Lakeland Republican, that will change a law legislators enacted last year that set the rules for the parental-notification amendment passed by voters in 2004.

Under the current law, the parents of underage girls who seek an abortion must be notified, unless the girl petitions a court and receives a waiver to avoid the requirement. Judges are now given 48 hours to decide whether the teen is mature enough or has a valid reason to avoid telling her parents. Teens may go to any judge within one of the five district courts of appeal regions in the state.

Stargel's bill would lengthen the time a judge has to rule to five days, require teens to petition to courts closer to home, and add a requirement that doctors notify parents if a judge allows for an abortion because of a medical emergency.

The bill also requires judges to consider a host of additional factors before approving a waiver, such as the teen's ''emotional stability, credibility and demeanor as a witness,'' her ability to accept responsibility and whether she can ''explain the medical consequence of the abortion.'' The court would have to decide if ''there has been any undue influence'' by another person on the minor's decision.

''What's happening here is that certain groups know which judges are going to get the opinion in certain courts and they're getting a rubber stamp,'' Stargel said.

He said his information is based on anecdotal information and conversations with judges around the state.

There is no similar Senate proposal. Stargel's bill would have to be passed by both chambers to become law.

Lobbyists for the American Civil Liberties Union and the Florida chapter of Planned Parenthood warned that the additional restrictions would interfere with the waiver process required in the state Constitution and likely be thrown out by the courts.

Larry Spalding, legislative counsel for the ACLU, told the committee that his organization chose not to challenge the notification law passed last year because, even though it opposed it, members believed the law was ``well-crafted.''

''If this bill is enacted, I would have no hesitation to recommend a challenge,'' he said.

He said that since the goal of the 2004 amendment was ''to get minors to talk to parents'' the numbers show the effort ''has been successful.'' The numbers of teens seeking the judicial bypass, he said, are ``fairly small.''

Stephanie Grutman, director of Planned Parenthood of Florida, denied Stargel's claim that teens are judge-shopping.

She said that of the nearly 50,000 teenage abortions in Florida last year, only 201 underage girls sought out the courts to get an abortion without telling their parents, and only 184 were approved.

She said the courts that have had the greatest number of judicial waivers approved -- such as 30 in Miami-Dade County, 62 in Palm Beach County, 56 in Orange County -- were in areas nearest to abortion clinics.

No waivers have been granted in Monroe County and only 14 in Broward County, which has fewer clinics.

Three members of the committee also expressed concern about the direction of the bill and voted against it.

[Soldier4Christ]

Voter ID coalition will sue Brewer
Law's application too rigid for group


A coalition of advocacy groups plans to sue Secretary of State Jan Brewer over the state's new voter identification requirements, claiming her rigid application of the law could prevent some out-of-state Arizonans, such as military members or college students, from registering in their home state.

Brewer dismissed the legal threat Wednesday as little more than politics and vowed not to back down from the challenge.

The latest confrontation is part of the continuing legacy of Proposition 200, a ballot measure approved by Arizona voters in 2004. The measure imposed new proof-of-citizenship requirements on registrants and strict voter ID rules at the polls.
advertisement    


This dispute centers on whether Arizona voters who register using a nationwide federal voter registration form also must produce the proof of citizenship, such as a passport, birth certificate or valid Arizona driver's license, demanded by state law. Federal law requires registrants using the federal form only to sign the document after checking boxes attesting to their citizenship and age.

It is unclear how many Arizona voters actually register using the federal form. Brewer estimated that fewer than 5 percent do so. In Maricopa County, about 1 percent of voters in the past general election registered using the federal form.

The form is recognized nationwide. Residents who are out of state temporarily sometimes use it to register by mail. Local advocacy groups also hand out the form periodically in voter registration drives.

Deputy Secretary of State Kevin Tyne said the form generally is not used by military members overseas, who are provided registration and voting materials under a Department of Defense program. The department has agreed to follow Arizona's registration requirements for service members voting by mail in this state.

The dispute over how much proof of citizenship is required with the federal form prompted a recent exchange of testy letters between Brewer and the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, which oversees its use under the National Voter Registration Act of 1993. The commission told Brewer in a March 6 letter that it was against federal law for Brewer to require additional proof of citizenship from any registrant who properly filled out and signed the federal form.

Jonah Goldman, director of the National Campaign for Fair Elections, Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, said the intent of the so-called federal motor-voter law was to streamline the registration process and encourage participation.

"Motor-voter was really designed to make it as easy as possible for voters to get on the voter registration lists," he said.

Thomas R. Wilkey, the federal commission's executive director, wrote to Brewer that the state "may not refuse to register individuals to vote in a federal election for failing to provide supplemental proof of citizenship" if they have otherwise properly filled out the federal form.

In a reply last week, Brewer said that she intended to ignore Wilkey's opinion, calling it "incorrect" and noting that more than 1 million Arizona voters imposed the requirements for proof of citizenship.

"After consulting with the Arizona attorney general, I will instruct Arizona's county recorders to continue to administer and enforce the requirement that all voters provide evidence of citizenship when registering to vote," Brewer wrote.

On Wednesday, a coalition including the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona, the Arizona Advocacy Network, People for the American Way Foundation, the League of United Latin American Citizens and Goldman's group formally notified Brewer that it intends to sue in federal court.

The notice is required under the 1993 voting law and gives Brewer 90 days to relent. Brewer made it clear Wednesday that she would not back down. She noted that the Department of Justice approved the state's new registration requirements last year.

"The law is the law, and states have rights," she said, accusing the litigants of being Proposition 200 foes who "are doing everything they can to thwart the will of the people."

But Linda Brown, executive director of the Arizona Advocacy Network, said they are trying to prevent voters from being disenfranchised. She said Brewer's requirement would make it hard for out-of-state Arizonans to register because they often do not have access to a birth certificate, valid Arizona driver's license or other form of citizenship proof.

"Our preference is that she (Brewer) follow the spirit and intent of the National Voter Registration Act, which requires her to accept the federal form as is," Brown said.

[Soldier4Christ]

1999 letter talked of morality, not crowding, in Black Jack housing ordinance


Black gotcha30icials have insisted that its city ordinance defining what kind of family can live within its limits has nothing to do with morality, but a letter written by its mayor in a similar case years ago suggests otherwise.

Black Jack law forbids more than three people from living together unless they’re related by "blood, marriage or adoption."

On that basis, the city denied an occupancy permit to Olivia Shelltrack and her fiancé, Fondray Loving. In January, the couple moved into their five-bedroom home with their three children. But city officials have repeatedly ruled that the household fails to meet Black Jack’s definition of family.

Mayor Norman McCourt has insisted the city ordinance used to reject the couple’s permit request is intended to prevent overcrowding and has nothing to do with marital status.


But in a November 1999 letter he wrote regarding a similar but unrelated case involving the unwed parents of triplets, McCourt makes specific comments about the city’s "morals and standards."

"Most of the circumstances are of their own making," McCourt wrote of the couple, who had challenged the rejection of their occupancy permit. "The easiest resolution to cure the situation would be for them to be married. Our community believes that this is the appropriate way to raise a family."

The letter is addressed to the legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Eastern Missouri, which defended the couple in municipal court.

"While it would be naive to say that we don’t recognize that children are born (out) of wedlock frequently these days, we certainly don’t believe that is the type of environment within which children should be brought into this world," McCourt wrote. "I believe the City has acted appropriately in keeping with the law, consistent with our community’s morals and standards, and that we will continue to enforce our ordinances to protect the interests of our community."

When reached Wednesday, McCourt said he did not recall the letter, which he assumed was drafted by the city attorney. He said he needed to locate records related to the letter before he could comment on its specifics.

However, McCourt maintained that the city’s definition has nothing to do with morality. And he pointed out that many municipalities in the St. Louis area have similar, if not identical or more stringent, rules.

But numerous city planners and housing directors contacted by the Post-Dispatch have said those laws are intended keep fraternity houses or group homes out of residential neighborhoods.

McCourt said such selective enforcement is discriminatory.

"Why would you have something on the books that you don’t enforce? It’s like having a 30 mile an hour speed limit and everybody goes 45. You have to have a standard," he said.

Black Jack’s special counsel, Sheldon K. Stock, said the city’s law does not violate any state or federal legislation. He cited a 1977 U.S. Supreme Court decision involving East Cleveland, a suburb of Cleveland, that allows cities the right to sustain "traditional family values" by allowing that community to limit the number of unrelated people living in a dwelling.

Black Jack residents will get a chance to voice their opinion on the issue in a public hearing tentatively scheduled April 26.

Shelltrack, who has lived with Loving for more than 13 years, said she found McCourt’s letter offensive.

"It sounds like he’s aiming it at the children. He doesn’t want unwed children in his community? Are they that different? Are they bad kids just because their parents aren’t married. It’s clearly ridiculous," she said when contacted about the letter Wednesday.

Shelltrack said she and Fondray hope to eventually get married in a large, traditional ceremony. But for now, that isn’t a priority.

"Giving our kids a nice home is a priority. Putting them in a good school is a priority. Planning a wedding is not," she said.

"It shouldn’t be anybody’s business," she added. "As long as I’m paying taxes and I’m not breaking any laws and I’m not a criminal, and I mow my lawn, why would anyone care?"

[Soldier4Christ]

Vista deputies trying out a mobile hidden camera

Deputies in Vista are now testing a camera they say will allow them to secretly record illegal activities in public areas.

But while the aim is to catch criminals, anyone who walks in front of the camera is subject to being watched and recorded as they go about their daily business.

The camera, said to be the first of its kind in the county, will allow Vista deputies to secretly observe any public area, such as a park or alley, where criminal activity has been reported, said sheriff's Sgt. Marc Ramirez, of the community-oriented policing team.

Deputies are testing the mobile camera now and will begin using it in the next few weeks, he said.

Sheriffs officials would not permit the $20,000 wireless camera to be photographed. They said that if pictures were published, the camera might be recognized and damaged in the field. The camera was paid for with a grant from the city's Weed and Seed Program, in which the city works with law enforcement and private partners to reduce crime in the Townsite neighborhood.

"It looks like any standard utility equipment (like a phone or cable box)," Ramirez said of the camera.

The digital camera can be mounted just about anywhere and can transmit high-definition images to a deputy monitoring the encrypted images live at another location via a laptop computer, Ramirez said. The camera can also record images to be viewed later, Ramirez said.

Deputies cannot set the camera up arbitrarily to try to catch citizens committing crimes, officials said.

"There are established policies and procedures in the Sheriff's Department regarding electronic surveillance equipment and they are adhered to," Ramirez said. For example, the activity being recorded must be in plain sight and be able to be seen from the street.

Assistant City Manager Rick Dudley said the city supports using the camera, and added that the city has used concealed security cameras in the Creekwalk, near the Vista Village redevelopment area, for a few years and hasn't heard any complaints about privacy.

"If you're a car thief, or somebody who breaks into cars and steals stereos, maybe you should be up in arms about this," he said. "If you're a normal person who abides by the law, we're not interested in what you're doing."

Sheriff's Cpl. Steve Litwin said there should be no concern that deputies will be using the camera to look inside people's houses. The focus, he said, is on catching people making street drug deals and vandals.

Kevin Keenan, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of San Diego and Imperial Counties, said, "To be clear, I don't think there's a legal violation of a right to privacy, but this type of secret surveillance contributes to a total information surveillance society. It has the potential to chill legitimate, lawful, First Amendment activity."

"At a minimum, the public should demand effective, independent oversight in how these cameras are used, Keenan said. "Our sense is the public is fed up with all these cameras everywhere."

He said there is potential for abuse of the equipment by law enforcement. He also said that while the images are encrypted, there's almost no technology that hackers can't break.

Tom Fleming, president of the Vista Village Business Association, said Wednesday that he thought the camera was a great tool for law enforcement and would benefit business owners and law-abiding citizens. Fleming said the camera will only serve as a deterrent to criminals doing illegal things in public places.

"They're not going to be putting them in private areas," Fleming said. "I don't think it's an infringement."

Ramirez said the camera will be useful for long surveillance details and in cases where criminals might recognize a sheriff's vehicle.

"It's like having a deputy on surveillance for 24 hours and it doesn't need a break," Ramirez said.

Litwin said the camera may also be used by the sheriff's narcotics and gang units as well as the community-oriented policing team.

Ramirez said the camera is very sophisticated and can be programmed to zoom in on people's faces or license plates, then zoom back out, depending on how they are programmed. He said if a surveillance effort was next to a private home, the camera could even be programmed to black out a nearby window.

While the camera is mobile, deputies could opt to leave it mounted in one location and it can record up to a month's worth of activity, Litwin said.

The sergeant said digital camera recordings are acceptable as evidence because they are time- and date-stamped and are encrypted to a federal standard, so they can't be altered.

Litwin said so far they have only used the camera to test it out and that some deputies are still being trained in how to use the system.

[Soldier4Christ]

ACLU protests closed school meeting

The American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado has asked Denver Public Schools to turn over the minutes and an audio recording of a Feb. 16 executive session held shortly before the school board voted to close the Manual Educational Complex for a year of reforms and send its students elsewhere.

Many students, teachers and other members of the Manual community oppose the plan.

ACLU Legal Director Mark Silverstein said in a letter sent to school officials today that the executive session wasn't convened in accordance with the Colorado Open Meetings Law and the Colorado Open Records Act. That means whatever happened in the meeting is public information, Silverstein said.

He said the school board announced during the public portion of its Feb. 16 evening meeting that the purpose of the executive session was "legal advice," but did not provide the detail that the law requires. The board also failed to vote on whether to convene the executive session, he said.

The ACLU's letter said the school district staff publicly presented a plan for Manual High School before the executive session that would not have moved its students to other schools. After the executive session, the school board unexpectedly introduced, considered and passed the plan to close the school next year while the three small schools housed there are consolidated and other changes are put in place.

The ACLU said it is requesting the records of the executive session "on behalf of the Greater Metro Denver Ministerial Alliance, and the Rev. James D. Peters Jr.; as well as on behalf of Elleta Mesgun, and organizer for One Nation Enlightened." They are among opponents of the plan.

If the records aren't produced, the ACLU will seek a court order to obtain them, the letter said.

A response from Denver Public Schools was not immediately available.

[Soldier4Christ]

Florida high court allows same-sex ban ballot initiative, strikes down redistricting

The Florida Supreme Court on Thursday released an advisory opinion to the state Attorney General that permits the 2008 ballot to contain a citizen initiative banning gay marriages, even though the initiative failed to collect enough petition signatures to place the constitutional amendment on the 2006 ballot. According to the ACLU, which brought the initiative challenge on behalf of a labor union and six same-sex couples, the amendment would define marriage as "the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife," excluding official recognition of all other arrangements, including civil unions and corresponding domestic partner benefits. The ACLU challenged the initiative on the grounds that it violates the constitutional single-subject requirement of all Florida ballot initiatives, as it bans both gay marriages as well as all other legal protections for same-sex couples.

The Florida Supreme Court also released an advisory opinion on Thursday striking down another citizen ballot initiative that would create an "independent nonpartisan commission" to oversee congressional redistricting, as opposed to the current system run by the state legislature. The ruling found the initiative violated the single-subject requirement, as it required both single-member legislative districts as well as the establishment of the commission. Justices noted in both opinions that they were ruling not on the constitutional merits of the initiatives themselves, but only on whether they met constitutional requirements to appear on the ballots.

[Shammu]

Oklahoma House Approves Limiting Children's Access to Explicit Library Materials

by Allie Martin and Jenni Parker
March 23, 2006

(ChristiansUnite.com) - - Oklahoma lawmakers have approved legislation that would place books containing sexually explicit content in an adult-only section of public libraries across the state. House Bill 2158 would withhold public library funding if books containing graphic sexual references are not placed out of the reach of minors.

The House voted the bill in last week in a vote of 60-33 after more than two hours of questions and debate. During that discussion, opponents raised the issue of censorship and criticized the legislation as an unfunded mandate that would remove local control from library boards.

But the bill's author, Representative Sally Kern (R-Oklahoma City), argued that children deserve a time of "protected innocence" and sheltered from early exposure to the sort of sexually explicit and inappropriate material with which their culture is inundated. Associated Press quotes Kern as observing that contemporary advertisers apparently "can't sell toothpaste without sex," and that even the American Library Association is "out to sexualize our children."

Lynn Rahman with Oklahomans for School Accountability feels parents should decide whether their children can have access to the kind of material dealt with in HB 2158. She believes the bill is ultimately about affirming parents' exclusive right to make that final determination.

If the legislation passes, Rahman contends, "parents will have the last say. If they want to check these books out for their children, they can do so. It isn't a complete removal, but it's just a restoration of parental right."

However, the Oklahoma activist anticipates a tough battle in the Democrat-controlled Senate. She is encouraging parents and other concerned citizens to let their state legislators know how the pro-family public feels about the measure.

"I had been putting out newsletters when the bill made it to the House, and I think I'm going to do the same thing and urge people to contact their senators," Rahman notes. Emphasizing the reasonableness of HB 2158, she points out, "No books are to be removed according to this bill -- just relocated."

AP reports that prior to the House vote, Kern distributed to her fellow legislators several excerpts from books she said were found in local libraries. The excerpts were from books that contained homosexual or sexually explicit references, and the state representative remarked, "The average citizen does not have a clue what is in the library."

Last year, Kern asked the Oklahoma City Metropolitan Library Commission to place similar books, including a homosexually-themed children's storybook called King and King, in the adult section of the library. The lawmaker's request came after she received complaints from two of her constituents about children's easy access to the inappropriate library materials.

Oklahoma House Approves Limiting Children's Access to Explicit Library Materials

Additional information on ChristiansUnite.com is available on the Internet at http://www.christiansunite.com/
Copyright © 2003 ChristiansUnite.com. All rights reserved.

[Soldier4Christ]

 ACLU Lawsuits and National Security

 

The ACLU and several other organizations have brought two well publicized law suits against the Bush administration on the issue of “unauthorized” domestic spying.  Of course, none of the plaintiffs can demonstrate that they have been targeted by the surveillance program and the claim that this is domestic spying is not technically accurate since only those conversations with a suspected terrorists outside the United States are considered.

           

Plaintiffs include a gaggle of left wingers including the Council on American Islamic Relations, Greenpeace, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, a writer for the Nation among others.  Their argument is that the present administration is in contravention of the law since the president lost the authority to conduct warrantless surveillance domestically after the passage of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978.  The administration counters this claim with the argument that surveillance was authorized with the 2001 congressional resolution allowing for the use of force against al Qaeda.

 

Lost in the swelter of claims and counterclaims is the context for this litigation.  The war on terror has not ended and the threat posed by the terrorists remains real and frightening.

 

While the president insists all measures must be taken to assure American security, the plaintiffs seem to be asserting that the only threat is the abridgement of the law and the erosion of civil liberties.

 

On the day the lawsuit was filed, al Manar, Hezballah’s main vehicle for spreading anti-American propaganda asked, “What structure built of gray sandstone in 1792 became a source of all oppressive decisions the world over?  The answer:  “the White House.”

           

In May 2004 Sheik Nasrallah said he is prepared for martyrdom.  “Let Bush, Powell, Rumsfeld and all those tyrants in Washington hear… there will only be room for great sacrifice, for the call to martyrdom.”

 

The editor of Egyptian weekly Al Arabi is quoted in Memri as saying, “Anti-Americanism is like music” to his ears.  He calls America “a plague” and “an ongoing crime.”

           

The head of the Sunni religious courts in Lebanon, Sheik Muhammad Kar’an, called America “the garbage of all nations.”

           

A professor of political science at Notre Dame University in Lebanon, Dr. George ubgone86ar said, “America is the New Nazism.”  He added, “I hope that every patriotic and Islamic Arab will participate in this war, and will shift this war not only to America, but to all corners… wherever America may be.”

 

Anis al Naggash, who was involved in terrorist attacks in the ‘70’s and ‘80’s, appeared on Al Manar in August 2005.  He said, “The U.S. is the enemy of Arabs and Muslims… every person must resist it… if he can resist with weapons, it is his duty, mandated by the Koran.  Any cleric with knowledge of Islam must declare jihad against the U.S., England, and their allies.”

 

As late as this January three would be terrorists were arrested in Italy after vowing to launch an attack in the U.S. that would dwarf 9/11.  Curiously with the exception of the Philadelphia Inquirer this story was conspicuously ignored by the U.S. press corps.

 

Through conversations that were wiretapped, Italian officials heard Algerian terrorists plan to kill tens of thousands of Americans.  This story raises two interesting questions: Did the press ignore the story because the report would support President Bush’s use of domestic surveillance and doesn’t this story portend the very frightening scenario that must be thwarted?

 

There are those in our midst who prefer legal battles against the administration because they fear a loss of civil liberties, but they do not fear, or appear not to fear, radical Islamists intent on their destruction.

 

Can there be any doubt that if fanatics in various corners of the globe could get their hands on nuclear weapons, they would be used?

 

Can there be any doubt that radical Islam is intent on causing harm to the United States, its citizens and our allies?

 

And can there be any doubt that a toxic poison has been set loose worldwide that could have apocalyptic repercussions if we do nothing about it?

 

President Bush, in fact any future president, has an obligation to take those steps necessary to provide for national security.  It is not merely sad, but dangerous that many civil libertarians do not appreciate what is at stake in this global war.  If the plaintiffs’ efforts in the forthcoming lawsuits are successful, another weapon in the war against terror will have been rendered nugatory.  Is there any wonder about who benefits from such a decision?

[Soldier4Christ]

Christian group backs off case against blog parody


A Christian group that promotes heterosexuality Thursday quietly dropped its beef against a blogger who poked fun at it.

Exodus International initially claimed the altered image of one of its billboards by Justin Watt infringed its copyright. But Exodus is no longer pursuing the matter after Watt stopped using its "watermark" logo, Exodus President Alan Chambers said.

Watt, operator of the Justinsomnia blog, says he exercised free speech when he parodied the Exodus billboard, which says, "Gay? Unhappy? www.exodus.to." Wyatt re-created the billboard on his site so it read, "Straight? Unhappy? www.gay.com."

(Exodus uses ".to" as its domain suffix because ".com" was not available.)

Watt, 26, a Web developer in Northern California who enlisted the aid of the American Civil Liberties Union and high-powered law firm Fenwick & West, has posted his blog for four years. He posted the parody Sept. 19 because he found Exodus' message "offensive." A lawyer representing Exodus sent Watt a cease-and-desist letter on March 2.

The dust-up has made Watt a cause célèbre among bloggers. More than 40 other websites now carry the spoof.

Had the dispute escalated, it would have extended the debate over fair use of copyrighted material beyond print and electronic media and to blogs, says copyright attorney Tom Zellerbach.

Companies frequently ask websites to remove images and text out of concern they infringe copyrighted material. But high-profile cases involving bloggers have been rare, Zellerbach and other lawyers say.

The incident gained attention because Watt understood his rights and contacted an attorney, said ACLU lawyer Ann Brick, who represented him. "We don't know how often people get cease-and-desist letters and pull material without knowing their rights," she said.

"Just as the First Amendment allows Exodus to post its billboard, it gives Justin the right to post a parody," Brick said.