Connect with us

News

Knives out for Buttigieg in debate as LGBTQ issues finally come up

Five takeaways on the Democratic candidates last 2019 foray

Published

on

Democratic debate, gay news, Washington Blade

Mayor Pete Buttigieg (D-South Bend, Ind.) speaks at a Democratic primary presidential debate on Dec. 19. (Photo courtesy of PBS News Hour/POLITICO)

Climate change, health care — and for the first time this year in a substantive way, LGBTQ issues — were major topics during the Democratic debate Thursday night, when seven candidates squared off on stage for the last time in 2019 and South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg found himself the target of criticism.

In no particular order, here’s five takeaways from the PBS/Politico debate, which took place in Los Angeles at Loyola Marymount University’s Gersten Pavilion.

The seven candidates on stage along with Buttigieg were entrepreneur Andrew Yang, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), former Vice President Joseph Biden, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) and businessperson Tom Steyer.

1. Lower-tier candidates had their moment

With the number of candidates on the debate stage winnowed down to seven, each of the contenders on stage had a greater opportunity for speaking time, giving those considered lower tier — like Yang, Klobuchar and Steyer — their time in the sun.

Klobuchar was both energetic, forceful and engaging as she made her case for the nomination. Keeping her reputation as queen of puns in the Democratic primary, Klobuchar in response to the first question quipped, “As a wise judge said, the president is not king in America, the law is king.”

The Minnesota Democrat’s use of imagery was particularly powerful when the issue of climate change came up and she talked about the way her home state has first-hand experience with the issue.

“What we are seeing there is unprecedented flooding, we’re seeing an increase of 50 percent in homeowners’ insurance over the last few years,” Klobuchar said. “And when we make these changes, we have to make clear to people that when we put a price on carbon, that that money is going to come to back to those areas where are going to be hurt, where jobs are going to change and to make them whole with their energy bills.”

Klobuchar was able to tie that in with electability, saying when you make that case “you bring in the Midwestern votes, you win big.”

“I think the best way to do it is by putting someone at the top of the ticket who’s from the Midwest,” Klobuchar concluded.

Steyer, who has been struggling to make his case for relevancy in the Democratic primary, certainly made up for that in his debate performance when he made his case for being the best candidate to take on Trump, who’s likely to run a strong economy.

“I built a business over 30 years from scratch,” Steyer said. “We’re going to have to take him on on the economy in terms of growth as well as economic justice. We’re going to have to be able to talk about growth, prosperity across the board for everyone in America. My experience, building a business, understanding how to make that happen, means I can go toe-to-toe with Mr. Trump and take him down on the economy and expose him as a fraud and a failure.”

Yang also had some good moments, especially in response to the first question on the topic of impeachment, when he seamlessly transitioned to a changing economy.

“If your turn on cable network news today, you would think he’s our president because of some combination of Russia, racism, Facebook, Hillary Clinton and emails all mixed together,” Yang said. “But Americans around the country know different. We blasted away 4 million manufacturing jobs that were primarily based in Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Missouri. I just left Iowa — we blasted 40,000 manufacturing jobs there.

“The more we act like Donald Trump is the cause of all our problems, the more Americans lose trust that we can actually see what’s going on in our communities and solve those problems,” Yang concluded.

But the extra time wasn’t always good for these candidates, especially Yang. Among other things, he made a bizarre comment his plan for a $1,000 universal monthly income would somehow have led to more candidates of color on the debate stage. Later on, he said American youth are addicted to both smartphones and drugs, drawing an odd comparison between the two.

Yang’s response to the final question, what he would give as a gift to the candidates, was a copy of his book. That ended up coming off as self-serving when other candidates offered more aspirational answers like beating President Trump in 2020 election.

2. The knives were out for Buttigieg

Buttigieg didn’t have his best night, and that’s putting it gently. He had a lot of canned answers and talking points that made him seem robotic. The only breakout moment for him was when the issue of China came up and he had a great line about the country using technology for “the perfection of dictatorship.”

On top of that, the knives were out across the stage for Buttigieg, whom many polls shows is the front-runner in the early primary states of Iowa and New Hampshire. In each instance, Buttigieg fought back aggressively, but his opponents — who are reportedly grumbling about his success given his lack of experience — knew how to draw out his weaknesses.

The first exchange took place between Buttigieg and Warren, when the Massachusetts Democrat took an oblique knock at him by saying she doesn’t raise money from wealthy donors who pay $5,000 for a selfie.

Buttigieg — who unlike Warren, is willing is hold fundraisers with major donors — picked up on that, rejecting the criticism.

“Donald Trump and his allies have it abundantly clear that they will stop at nothing, not even foreign interference to hold on to power,” Buttigieg said. “They’ve already put together more than $300 million. This is our chance. This is our only chance to defeat Donald Trump, and we shouldn’t try to do it with one-hand tied behind our back.”

But Warren twisted the knife in further, pointing out Buttigieg held a fundraiser in California in a “wine cave” full of crystals where alcohol was served for $900 a bottle.

“Think about who comes to that,” Warren said. “He had promised that every fundraiser that he would do would be open door, but this one was closed door. We made the decision many years ago that rich people in smoked-filled rooms would not pick the president of the United States. Billionaires in wine caves should not pick the next president of the United States.”

Buttigieg shoot back by saying he’s the only candidate on the stage who isn’t a millionaire or a billionaire, decrying such complaints as “purity tests” and saying if he swore off those donations he couldn’t be on the stage. Buttigieg also made it personal: “Senator, your net worth is 100 times mine.”

The exchange went on with Warren saying she doesn’t sell access to her time. Buttigieg went on to say her presidential campaign was funded in part by money she transferred after having raised money at big ticket events.

“Did it corrupt you, Senator?” Buttigieg said. “Of course not.”

Taking a different approach, Klobuchar said she was hurt by earlier comments Buttigieg made about his lack of experience being a lack of experience in Washington. To the contrary, Klobuchar said, many candidates on the debate stage accomplished a lot as representatives in the federal government.

“I have not denigrated your experience as a local official,” Klobuchar said. “I have been one. I just think you should respect our experience.”

Buttigieg responded Klobuchar had, in fact, denigrated his experience before a break in the debate by implying his relationship to the First Amendment was talking point, but he “was going to let it go because we have bigger fish to fry here.”

Klobuchar shot back, “I don’t think we have bigger fish to fry than picking a president of the United States.”

The Afghanistan war veteran wouldn’t stand for that.

“Let me tell you about my relationship to the First Amendment,” Buttigieg said. “It is part of the Constitution that I raised my right hand and swore to defend with my life. That is my experience, and it may not be the same as yours, but it counts, Senator. It counts.”

Klobuchar said she certainly respects Buttigieg’s military experience, but the election is about choosing a president.

“We should have someone heading up this ticket that has actually won and has been able to show that they can gather the support that you talk about from moderate Republicans and independents as well as a fired up Democratic base,” Klobuchar said. “And I have not just done it once, I have done it three.”

If there’s a such a thing as a gay card, Buttigieg played it.

“Do you want about the capacity to win?” Buttigieg said. “Try putting together a coalition to bring you back to office with 80 percent of the vote as a gay dude in Mike Pence’s Indiana.”

But Klobuchar pointed out Buttigieg tried before to win statewide in Indiana and couldn’t make it happen. South Bend, she said, was another matter.

“If had won in Indiana, that would be one thing,” Buttigieg said. “You tried and you lost by 20 points.”

Those weren’t the only times the debate was heated. On the issue of health care, Biden, who wants to build on Obamacare, and Sanders, who wants Medicare for All, got into a quarrel about affordability that got testy. Klobuchar came in to rescue to resolve it, saying her plan for a non-profit public option was both progressive and practical.

3. Biden showed off his foreign policy chops

In contrast to Buttigieg, Biden had inarguably his best debate performance over the course of the year. He was filled with a new energy he hadn’t exhibited before on stage and offered concrete plans for policy.

When the issue of age came up, Biden had the response he should have given in the first debate when Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) all but told him it was time to give up the torch: With experience comes wisdom.

“I’m running, because I’ve been around, on my experience,” Biden said. “With experience hopefully comes judgment and a little bit of wisdom.”

Amid media reports Biden has indicated he’d only serve one term as president, he somewhat blunted this response by refusing to commit one way or the way on stage about a second term, but it’s debatable whether that was much of a drawback.

But Biden shined the most during the debate when foreign policy came up, giving the former vice president a chance to show off his chops on his credentials on the issue.

Take for instance, the issue of China, when Biden condemns the nation for human rights abuses and offered a specific plan his audience could easily envision.

“We have to make clear is that we, in fact, are not going to abide by what they’ve done,” Biden said. “A million Uighurs, as you pointed out, are in concentration camps. That’s where they are right now. They’re being abused. They’re in concentration.”

Biden pledged to move 60 percent of U.S. seapower to the Pacific Ocean to “let, in fact, the Chinese understand that they’re not going to go any further, we are going to be other to protect other folks.”

The former vice president went on call for rebuilding alliances with South Korea, Australia and Indonesia and going to the United Nations to issue sanctions against China.

4. LGBTQ issues finally came up

After one question on LGBTQ issues had come up heretofore in only the Democratic debates this year (and one that didn’t really require candidates to give thoughtful answers on policy), a debate moderator finally posed a question on LGBTQ issues to the candidates.

PBS NewsHour White House correspondent Yamiche Alcindor asked the candidates about their support Equality Act, comprehensive legislation that would prohibit anti-LGBTQ discrimination, and what they would do to address anti-trans violence. In this year 2019 alone, 27 transgender people were counted as killed.

Sanders, who was the first candidate asked to respond, drew a contrast with the current anti-LGBTQ Trump administration and himself by saying leadership on LGBTQ issues is important.

“We need moral leadership in the White House,” Sanders said. “We need a president who will do everything humanly possible to end all forms of discrimination against the transgender community, against the African-American community, against the Latino community and against all minorities in this country.”

With transgender people calling for greater access health care, including transition-related care, Sanders said his Medicare for All plan would ensure all Americans would have access to health care “regardless of their sexual orientation or their needs…including certainly the transgender community.”

Warren took a slightly different route, committing herself to each year as president reading the names of the transgender people killed in the Rose Garden of the White House.

“I will make sure that we read their names so that as a nation, we are forced to address a particular vulnerability on homelessness,” Warren said.

Additionally, Warren pledged to reverse the Trump administration policy at the Bureau of Prisons that refuses to respect the gender identity of transgender inmates when placing them into federal detention.

Before the question was asked, Warren also name-checked the transgender community in reference to comments former President Obama made about needing new women leaders, saying she believes he was “talking about women and people of color and trans people and people whose voices just so often get shoved out.”

5. Impeachment was avoided like the plague

Impeachment only came up during the debate in the context of the first question, when moderator Jody Woodruff pointed out the U.S. House impeached Trump this week despite polls showing a majority of American public are opposed to impeachment.

That might have something to do with why the candidates wouldn’t touch it with a ten-foot-pole afterward.

Klobuchar used the opportunity to call for White House officials to serve as witnesses in the Senate trial, a sentiment echoed on stage. All the candidates responded by criticizing Trump, but clearly were eager to move to other subjects.

Just as Yang moved to the topic of the changing economy, Buttigieg shifted to corporate greed and being able to change things in the 2020 election.

“it’s up to us,” Buttigieg said. “No matter what happens in the Senate, it is up to us in 2020. This is our chance to refuse to be taken in by the helplessness, to refuse and reject the cynicism.”

Not one candidate brought it up afterwards. It was clear they wanted to have the job of ousting Trump from the White House themselves.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

News

Trump’s vow to invoke national emergency powers and use military force for mass deportations roils LA

Fearing loss of constitutional rights, executive overreach, and military involvement in civil law enforcement, immigration community scrambles

Published

on

Donald Trump has made clear his intention to begin mass deportations immediately upon taking office on January 20, 2025, a promise he made repeatedly during his 2024 presidential campaign.

“On Day 1, I will launch the largest deportation program in American history to get the criminals out,” he declared during a rally at Madison Square Garden in the final days of the presidential race. “I will rescue every city and town that has been invaded and conquered, and we will put these vicious and bloodthirsty criminals in jail, then kick them the hell out of our country as fast as possible.”

This week, for the first time, Trump vowed to invoke national emergency powers to execute this plan and, particularly troubling, will use the Armed Services to do so.

National emergency declarations have long been used by U.S. presidents to access extraordinary powers, often bypassing congressional oversight. The National Emergencies Act (NEA) of 1976 was designed to prevent unchecked executive authority, but its provisions have failed to effectively curb presidential overreach. While the act sets guidelines for declaring national emergencies, presidents have frequently invoked this power to justify wide-ranging actions, from military interventions (abroad) to surveillance programs (domestically and abroad).

For example, in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, President George W. Bush invoked national emergency powers to pass the Patriot Act, which allowed for sweeping surveillance and counterterrorism measures with minimal congressional oversight. This precedent establishes a concerning foundation for Trump’s proposed use of emergency powers in the realm of immigration enforcement.

Trump’s pledge to invoke emergency powers to detain, round up, and deport over 11 million undocumented immigrants would result in a domestic military operation of unprecedented scale.

He vows to build “vast holding facilities that would function as staging centers” for immigrants as their cases progressed and they waited to be flown to other countries. While large-scale deportation efforts have been attempted in the past—most recently President Eisenhower’s “Operation Wetback” in the 1950s, which deported 1.1 million people—today’s proposed numbers are far greater. Even the Obama administration, which deported 1.8 million people during its tenure, faced significant legal and logistical hurdles that made large-scale deportations difficult to carry out quickly and without consequence.

Many hurdles exist.

Legal challenges are almost certain to engulf Trump’s administration should it pursue such a plan. These challenges will include key issues such as whether the president can lawfully bypass Congress to enforce mass deportations. There will also be significant legal disputes surrounding the treatment of detained immigrants, particularly their Due Process rights under the U.S. Constitution. 

The 2018 Supreme Court case Jennings v Rodriguez, reaffirmed that due process protections apply to all individuals on U.S. soil, regardless of immigration status, guaranteeing them rights such as bond hearings and access to counsel. 

Any attempt to bypass these rights would invite immediate and substantial legal challenges, further complicating Trump’s efforts.

In addition to these legal complexities, the logistical challenges of executing such a massive operation would be immense. Deporting millions of individuals would require extensive resources for transportation, housing, medical care, and sustenance.  Some estimate the price tag could exceed $300 billion dollars.

The U.S. government would need to significantly expand detention facilities and infrastructure to accommodate such a large influx of detainees. 

Historical attempts to increase detention capacity, such as the family detention centers under Obama, faced severe criticism for overcrowding, inhumane conditions and the violation of human rights.

Legal objections are likely to arise concerning the use of armed military personnel in civilian spaces. Deploying military forces for domestic law enforcement operations could violate the Posse Comitatus Act, which restricts the use of military personnel in civilian law enforcement activities. Previous efforts to militarize U.S. immigration enforcement—such as the use of the National Guard at the U.S.-Mexico border—faced constitutional challenges and public backlash. 

If Trump proceeds with using the military for mass deportations, it would almost certainly prompt immediate legal challenges based on this law.

Trump has long expressed disdain for the traditional system of checks and balances, viewing even basic constitutional arguments as an obstacle to his leadership. 

He has shown that he will not hesitate to bypass Congress and other governmental processes for key appointments. For example, during his first term, Trump repeatedly sought to circumvent the Senate confirmation process, such as with his appointments to the Department of Justice and Health and Human Services, where he clashed with Senate Democrats over key nominations.

Trump is not shy about his broader desire to centralize power within the executive branch, diminishing the role of both the legislative and judicial branches. His antagonism toward agencies like the National Security Council and the Homeland Security Council—which he has accused of undermining his administration—further underscores his aim to weaken institutional checks on executive power. If unchecked, we could see a presidency where unilateral decisions by the executive become the norm, with minimal oversight from Congress or the courts.

Already, Trump has signaled his intent to appoint loyalists to key agencies, many of which he clashed with or feels have hindered his agenda. Examples include his controversial Pentagon appointments, as well as his selection of Director of National Intelligence and Health and Human Services leaders, who have been seen as part of his push to exert more control over agencies he perceives as obstructionist or hostile. He has already assigned a Border Czar, Tom Homan, who separated thousands of families at the border during Trump’s first term; that policy resulted in children never again being found.

Seizing emergency powers would allow Trump to bypass some, but not all, political and legal barriers to implementing his deportation plan. 

To make it more feasible, he would likely need to suspend aspects of Due Process protections, militarize public spaces and bypass rules surrounding the detention of individuals without adequate hearings or access to credible legal counsel. This would create a system where any individual could be detained, processed and deported with no actual regard for constitutional protections.

In short, a frustrated Trump—empowered by a Republican-majority Congress and a potentially willing DOJ and Supreme Court—might attempt to suspend the constitution.

This is not without precedent. 

Over 120,000 people of Japanese descent were interned in camps throught out the US during World War II, including 20,000 at Los Angeles County’s Santa Anita Assembly Center. (Photo: PBS)

In 1862, President Lincoln issued Presidential Proclamation 94 which suspended the writ of habeas corpus. (Photo from National Archives education division)

During the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus to suppress dissent, and during World War II, Franklin D. Roosevelt’s internment of Japanese Americans involved the suspension of their constitutional rights in the name of national security. 

While these actions were taken during times of war, they set dangerous precedents for the suspension of civil liberties in the face of perceived national crises. Trump has called the immigration an ‘invasion’ and has referred to migrants and their protectors as the ‘enemy within.’

Though few are publicly contemplating this possibility, we must acknowledge that we are on a trajectory toward some form of civil rights suspension, and certainly, we are witnessing a potential for widespread executive overreach.

At the local level, cities and states have vowed to resist Trump’s immigration plans. 

The Los Angeles City Council has declared itself a Sanctuary City, and Mayor Karen Bass has pledged that no city resources or personnel will support deportation efforts. 

Similarly, Governor Gavin Newsom of California has made declarations on behalf of the state. 

However, these measures do not prevent the federal government from taking action on the ground. 

In fact, Trump and Congress have the authority to terminate federal funding to uncooperative states and local governments. 

In 2021, for example, California received over $150 billion in federal funding, which could be withheld as political leverage at every turn to force compliance with federal immigration policies.

Most immigration rights advocates, attorneys and others want to point out that there is every reason to remain hopeful and that Due Process rights, good judges and justice minded citizens will work to protect most people from unjust treatment and deportation.

However, it’s not clear what Due Process or advocacy might look like if Trump militarizes the process and suspends the Constitution.

There are currently several immigration violations that could lead to the deportation of individuals attempting to remain in the U.S. and people who entered the country without authorization are often a focus of immigration enforcement, particularly under the Trump administration. 

However, the specifics of deportation policies can vary and it’s important to note that many individuals who entered the U.S. improperly have remained in the country for years, blending into communities. 

Some of these individuals have applied for asylum or are in the process of adjusting their status through other legal avenues, such as family-based petitions or employment-based green card applications. 

The process for detaining and deporting these individuals can depend on several factors, including whether they have a criminal record, whether they are in removal proceedings or their current legal status.

Ally Bolour, a well-known immigration attorney based in Los Angeles, says he has faith in Due Process but is “concerned that the process may become much more restrictive and that due process may be minimal and not applied fairly.”

Bolour has since 1996 worked with individuals facing deportation and specializes in cases involving people who have entered the U.S. without authorization and those seeking asylum.

“Sensitivity to the queer minority is going to be minimal,” under Trump’s immigration system, he says.. “They won’t care. It’s literally a fact that, if you are a gay person fleeing the Islamic Republic, you’re fleeing because they’re gonna hang you. Credible fear. But after January 20, as I see it,chances of a gay Iranian being able to and pass the credible fear becomes more difficult than it is today.” 

Los Angeles Blade spoke with Bolour about 23 year old Jesus, one of the more than 200,000 LGBTQ immigrants who have made their way to California in the past few years. 

His immigration situation as an asylum seeker today illustrates the impact a growing maze of intentional legal and bureaucratic hurdles has on immigrants’ ability to advance their cases.

Jesus made his way to the U.S. seeking refuge from the violence and instability that defined his life in Venezuela. 

Born in Caracas, Jesus’ childhood was marked by the unraveling of his family’s middle-class life as Venezuela descended into political and economic chaos. His father, once a government worker loyal to Hugo Chávez, witnessed the system’s collapse from within. He refused to comply with orders from high-ranking officials like Diosdado Cabello, resulting in the family’s swift downfall. 

Jesus’ early years were defined by loss, as their possessions and status vanished, leaving them targets of a ruthless government.

Venezuela’s economic collapse, particularly between 2013 and 2023, created unimaginable hardship. Hyperinflation and a crumbling economy made basic necessities unattainable, and survival became a daily struggle. But for Jesus, being gay in a country that became increasingly hostile to LGBTQ people added another layer of peril. 

“In Venezuela, being gay isn’t just a social challenge—it’s a potential death sentence,” he explains, recalling countless friends lost to violence or suicide. The societal rejection and threats, he says, were constant.

Faced with this brutal reality, Jesus made the decision to flee Venezuela. “It wasn’t impulsive; it was a matter of survival” he says. Part of a larger wave of over 7 million Venezuelans fleeing the country, Jesus traveled to Mexico City, then to Tijuana, before crossing the U.S. border on foot near San Diego. He chose to surrender to U.S. border authorities, a decision that led to his detention across various facilities in the Southwestern and Southeastern U.S.

During his six months in detention, Jesus faced COVID-19, potential deportation, and constant uncertainty. Yet, even in these grim circumstances, he found a sense of community among other LGBTQ detainees. “We watched out for each other,” he recalls. Eventually, a friend bailed him out.

Today, Jesus works and lives in California, grateful for his newfound safety but now facing the prospect of having his American journey crushed by Donald Trump.

Jesus mingles in the crowd at a recent Washington DC Pride celebration. (Photo by Los Angeles Blade)

Because he crossed the U.S. border illegally, his designation remains “Entered Without Inspection” (EWI)—a status that may pose a significant threat to his ability to remain in the country.

Trump’s immigration round up plan appears to target individuals with EWI status no matter how long they have been in the country or where they are in the process of becoming a visa holder (witness his determination to remove even American-born adult children of elderly immigrants in this status).

In an effort to strengthen Jesus’ case, his attorney has suggested a bold and complicated strategy: leave the U.S. and re-enter through legal channels. 

Attorney Bolour says he would advise against this strategy for someone like Jesus. 

“For those with pending asylum applications and an expired TPS, it is very difficult to obtain Advanced Parole,” he says. “There are significant risks involved.” He recommends that people in this situation “do not travel until they have some form of approved status, such as TPS.” 

Bolour notes that “every case is different” and it is imperative that people “consult with counsel before making any firm decisions.”

In the case of Jesus, if he was able to wipe the EWI status from his record, it might help him avoid the First Country Rule.

This rule mandates asylum seekers apply for asylum in the first country they reach after fleeing their home country, and for Jesus, that country was Mexico. If he were able to reset his immigration record, this rule might potentially no longer apply to him.

However, his ability to exit the US and reenter is made risky because his Temporary Protected Status , which had allowed him to stay in the U.S. without fear of deportation, expired in March 2024. Since then, he has been waiting for his renewal application to be processed. 

TPS was set for automatic renewal but the system has conveniently failed to renew status for thousands of people.

Without a valid TPS, Jesus cannot legally leave the U.S., as doing so would trigger an automatic ban on his re-entry.

To leave the country legally, he would need to apply for Advanced Parole, a document that permits individuals to travel abroad temporarily without risking their legal status. 

But obtaining Advanced Parole is no simple feat. The application process can take months and even if expedited, there is no guarantee of timely approval. It’s impossible, however, without an active TPS.

The intersection of expired TPS, bureaucratic delays and the looming threat of U.S. military lead deportation and harsh immigration policies leaves Jesus in a state of perpetual uncertainty.

Bolour says everyone “must be prepared for the worst possible outcome: a systematic erosion of civil rights, aggressive federal action, and a significant legal, human rights, and constitutional crisis.”

To that end, Bolour says the most important thing any person facing immigration challenges should have, is a plan:

  1. Remain Calm:
    • Stay calm and do not physically resist. Immigration agents have the authority to detain you, but resisting can lead to additional charges or complications.
    • NOTE:  If agents appear at your door with a warrant for your arrest, do not let them in unless the warrant has been signed by a judge.
  2. Know Your Rights:
    • You have the right to remain silent and not answer questions about your immigration status. You also have the right to ask for a lawyer. Remember, anything you say can be used against you in the future.
  3. Request to Contact an Attorney:
    • Ask to speak with an immigration attorney immediately. You have the right to legal counsel, and an attorney can guide you through the process and ensure your rights are protected.
  4. Do Not Sign Any Documents Without Legal Advice:
    • Do not sign anything without understanding what it means. Immigration officials may ask you to sign forms or waivers, which could impact your case. Consult with an attorney before signing any documents.
  5. Provide Only Basic Information:
    • Only provide your name, address, and date of birth. Avoid answering other questions or providing more personal information without a lawyer present.
  6. Limit Social Media posts:
    • Do not post private information or photos and restrict your interactions to known participants. If your page is public, set to friends only and do not share your location.
  7. Document the Detention:
    • If possible, have a trusted friend or family member document your detention, including the time, location, and agents involved. This information can be important for legal proceedings or for advocacy groups that may assist in your case.
  8. Exercise Your Right to Make a Phone Call:
    • You have the right to make a phone call to family, friends, or your attorney. Immigration authorities should allow you to call a lawyer, though this may vary by location.
  9. Request a Hearing:
    • You have the right to request a hearing in front of an immigration judge. Your attorney can help you with this process and inform you of any options for contesting your detention.
  10. Avoid Talking About Your Case:
    • Do not discuss your case with other detainees, as it may be used against you. Stick to speaking with your lawyer or trusted individuals.
  11. Stay in Contact with Support Networks:
    • Keep your family, friends, and advocacy organizations informed about your situation so they can assist with legal or practical needs during the detention process.
  12. Create an emergency notification group:
    • If you are detained or face any urgent situation, inform a trusted core group of family and friends who can collaborate to assist you.

By following such steps, Bolour says, you can help ensure that your legal rights are respected and that you have the best chance of navigating the immigration detention process effectively.

“It is affecting my health and I don’t know what my real options are,” says Jesus. “They keep adding rules and conditions and slowing my ability to keep the case up to date. It’s like a game of musical chairs where you run out of time to get to the right place before Trump stops the music.”

“But,” adds Jesus, “I am not going to give up. I can’t. Even though I don’t know what’s next.”

Continue Reading

National

Biden, other administration officials mark Transgender Day of Remembrance

‘Epidemic of violence towards transgender people’

Published

on

(Bigstock photo)

Democratic officials marked Transgender Day of Remembrance, which took place on Wednesday, honoring the lives lost to anti-trans violence and calling out rising anti-trans rhetoric and discrimination.

President Joe Biden in a statement said “we mourn the transgender Americans whose lives were taken this year in horrific acts of violence.”

“There should be no place for hate in America — and yet too many transgender Americans, including young people, are cruelly targeted and face harassment simply for being themselves. It’s wrong,” he said. “Every American deserves to be treated with dignity and respect, and to live free from discrimination. Today, we recommit ourselves to building a country where everyone is afforded that promise.”

U.S. Reps. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), Sara Jacobs (D-Calif.), and Mark Pocan (D-Wisc.), as well as U.S. Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), all members of the Congressional Equality Caucus, introduced a bicameral resolution commemorating the Transgender Day of Remembrance and “recognizing the epidemic of violence toward transgender people and memorializing the lives lost this year.” 

“As anti-transgender rhetoric and legislation has increased in the United States over recent years, unfortunately so has anti-transgender violence,” Jayapal said in a statement announcing the resolution. “On Transgender Day of Remembrance, this resolution stands as a symbol of the strength and resilience of the trans community and honors the lives of the trans people we have lost to horrific violence.”

Jacobs also addressed President-elect Donald Trump’s anti-trans rhetoric. 

“Donald Trump’s anti-LGBTQ+ and anti-trans agenda will likely fuel this anxiety and violence against queer communities,” Jacobs said. “That makes this year’s Transgender Day of Remembrance even more important. Our bicameral resolution is a powerful reminder that anti-trans rhetoric can cost lives.”

A report by the Human Rights Campaign documenting anti-trans violence found at least 36 trans and gender-expansive people in the U.S. lost their lives to violence since last year.

Transgender Day of Remembrance was founded in 1999 by trans activist Gwendolyn Ann Smith to commemorate the one year anniversary of the murder of Rita Hester, a trans woman who was killed in Boston. The day has since grown into a national and international event.

Secretary of State Antony Blinken in a statement honored Transgender Day of Remembrance. 

“Transgender individuals exist in every country, every culture, and every faith tradition,” he said. “ The United States recognizes Transgender Day of Remembrance to affirm the dignity and human rights of transgender persons globally.” 

In a post on X, U.S. Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.) wrote, “On this Transgender Day of Remembrance, we honor the trans and nonbinary lives lost to violence simply for being who they are. Every American deserves to live their truth and feel safe doing so. Hate has no place here.”

U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Linda Thomas-Greenfield noted the Biden-Harris administration’s advocacy for the trans community, which has included issuing a policy that prohibits discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation under the Title IX federal civil rights law this year. 

“On Transgender Day of Remembrance, we reaffirm there is no place for hate in America. The Biden-Harris Administration is proud to advocate for the safety of transgender and all LGBTQI+ Americans, including at the UN,” she said in a post on X. 

Victor Madrigal-Borloz, a former independent UN expert on LGBTQ+ and intersex rights, also on X, said trans people’s human rights are questioned “for reasons that have nothing to do with them and a lot with bigotry.”

“Support them actively,” he urged.

Xavier Becerra, the secretary of health and human services, seemingly mixed up the day that was being observed, releasing a statement mistakenly commemorating Transgender Day of Visibility, which takes place on March 31. 

“We fight so that trans Americans can go to the doctor and receive the same treatment as any other patient … so that they feel welcomed at school and in their community for who they are,” Becerra said. 

Maryland Gov. Wes Moore, a Democrat, issued a proclamation recognizing Transgender Day of Remembrance, continuing the precedent he set last year as the first Maryland governor to issue such a proclamation. 

Moore in May signed into law a bill that added gender-affirming care to Maryland’s definition of legally protected health care, affirming its status as a sanctuary state for trans people and their healthcare providers. 

Continue Reading

LGBTQ Non-Profit Organizations

Quinceañera fashion show raises record-breaking funds

The Trans Latin@ Coalition raised approximately $300,000 to continue funding vital programs

Published

on

Maria Roman-Taylorson, Zaya Wade, TS Madison, Bamby Salcedo pose on the red carpet at GARRAS 2024. (Photo credit Niko Storment)

The Trans Latin@ Coalition raised a record-breaking amount of money at their quinceañera, celebrating fifteen years of helping the Trans, Latin American communities of West Hollywood and Los Angeles. The event took place at the Pacific Design Center in West Hollywood, starting with a VIP reception and red carpet, followed by a fashion show featuring 14 designers. The 15th anniversary successfully highlighted the intersection of cultura, fashion and activism with a mariachi and fashion lines full of vibrant Latin American colors, patterns and embroidery. 

The quinceanera’s fashion show is called GARRAS, which stands for Groundbreaking Activism Redirecting and Reforming All Systems. GARRAS is more than just a fashion show, it is also a movement to transform the Trans, Gender nonconforming and Intersex community–as well as their allies–into high-fashion icons. 

GARRAS raises funds for the Trans Latin@ Coalition and uses these events to give TGI people a platform to showcase their talents, leadership and activism. The quinceañera-themed fashion show 

Bamby Salcedo, CEO of Trans Latin@ Coalition spoke during the event to address not only the need for continued funding, but also to point out how much more unity the TGI and Latin American communities must demonstrate in light of the incoming Trump administration. 

“I want to thank each and every one of you for supporting our work, for believing in our work and for participating in the change we are all working to create,” said Salcedo to the audience. “We’re here to raise funds to continue to do the work that needs to happen, especially because of what just happened [with the election]. And you know what? [The government] is trying to scare us and diminish who we are, and I say to all those mother f*ckers ‘F*ck you!”

The fashion show and reception brought in celebrity guests, models, influencers and many other queer Los Angeles socialites. Zaya Wade, Gia Gunn from Ru Paul’s Drag Race: Season 6, Mayhem Miller from Ru Paul’s Drag Race: Season 10, Heidi N Closet from Ru Paul’s Drag Race: Season 12 and many influencers and personalities. 

The TGI designers who showcased their latest creations were: Leandrag, Enrique Montes, Semi Creations, Natalia Acosta, Royal Rubbish, ArmaniDae, Nuwa1997, Bad Burro, Life on Mars, HIM NYC, 10 eleven, Rag to Fab, Christiana Gallardo and Jesse Alvarado.

Continue Reading

Nigeria

Four men accused of homosexuality beaten, chased out of Nigerian city

Incident took place in Benin City on Nov. 17

Published

on

(Bigstock photo)

Four young men have been beaten and chased out of a Nigerian city after they were found engaging in consensual same-sex sexual activity.

An angry mob paraded the four men, who were only wearing boxing shorts, down Nomayo Street in Benin City, the capital of Edo state, on Nov. 17. One of them had a visible deep cut on his forehead as a result of the beating.

The mob threatened to kill them if they were to return to the city. It also questioned why they were “into” homosexuality when there were many women in the area.

Samson Mikel, a Nigerian LGBTQ+ activist, said the attack was misdirected anger.

“Benin City is one of the backward places in Nigeria and a dorm for scammers and other crimes, the people are proud of their roughness, they are never concerned about these other crimes or how the government is impoverishing them, but will light gay men on fire the moment they think,” said Mikel. “All they want is to live and experience love. They are not the cause of the economic meltdown in the country, neither are they the reason why there are no jobs in the streets of Nigeria.”

Attacks like the one that happened in Benin City have been happening across Nigeria — the latest took place in Port Harcourt in Rivers state last month.

Section 214 of the Criminal Code Act on Unnatural Offenses says any person who has “carnal knowledge of any person against the order of nature, or has carnal knowledge of an animal, or permits a male person to have carnal knowledge of him or her against the order of nature, is guilty of a felony” and could face up to 14 years in prison.

Several LGBTQ+ people and activists have been arrested under Section 214.

In some cases they are murdered with law enforcement officials showing little to no interest in investigating, such as the case of Area Mama, a popular cross-dresser whose body was found along the Katampe-Mabushi Expressway in Abuja, the Nigerian capital, in August.

The Initiative for Equal Rights, a Nigerian advocacy group, said the federal government should take concrete steps to protect the rights of all Nigerians.

“For many, especially LGBTQIA+ individuals, women, and those within the Sexual Orientation Gender Identity, Expression and Sexual Characteristics (SOGIESC), community, freedom remains a distant goal. Discrimination, violence and human rights violations are daily realities,” said TIERs Nigeria. “Despite the progress we have made, the journey towards justice is long, but our voices remain unwavering.”

TIERs Nigeria also called upon the federal government to repeal the Same Sex Marriage (Prohibition) Act 2014, to respond to the African Commission’s recommendation to review laws that criminalize rights of assembly and association, and to enact laws and policies that discourage hate speech and other actions that incite discrimination against LGBTQ+ people.

Many Nigerians vehemently oppose public discussions about LGBTQ+-specific issues because of religious and cultural beliefs.

A number of local and international human rights organizations have advised the federal government to prioritize the rights of everyone in Nigeria, including those who identify as LGBTQ+. There is, however, little hope that Nigerian officials will do this anytime soon.

Consensual same-sex sexual relations remain punishable by death in states with Sharia law. Those who advocate for LGBTQ+ rights in these areas could also face a similar fate.

Continue Reading

Kenya

Kenyan advocacy group uses social initiatives to fight homophobia

INEND made donations to sports teams, launched comic book

Published

on

The Initiative for Equality and Non-Discrimination has created a comic strip, "Davii and Oti," to help fight anti-queer discrimination in Kenya. (Screenshot from the Initiative for Equality and Non-Discrimination's website)

A Kenyan queer rights organization has launched a social support initiative to fight endemic homophobic stigma and discrimination in the country.

The Initiative for Equality and Non-Discrimination, which has been training judicial officers on LGBTQ+ rights, is using sports and other social activities to educate the public against anti-queer discrimination.

The Mombasa-based INEND, through its “Advocacy Mtaani” or “Advocacy at the Grassroots” campaign, last month donated soccer jerseys, balls, goalpost nets, and other sporting items to local teams. It also used the platform to educate beneficiaries and the community-at-large on queer rights issues.

The donations followed another one to “boda boda” or “public motorbike riders” on Oct. 29. The Mombasa group received umbrellas to shield drivers and passengers alike from the sun and rain.

“We distributed umbrellas in various ‘boda boda’ stages to equip not only the operators but also to spread the message of inclusion and violence prevention in our endeavor to have the operators become human rights champions in the society,” INEND, headed by Executive Director Essy Adhiambo, stated.     

INEND has also launched a comic strip, “Davii and Oti,” which tells a story about Pride and allyship.

The comic strip series has heterosexual, nonbinary, gay, and lesbian characters to help explore myriad socio-cultural and economic problems that include discrimination and violence that queer people experience in their families, workplaces, social gatherings, and other settings.

“This awesome queer comic focuses on what is often misused as an argument against the LGBTQ+ community in Kenya; family values, African culture, and traditions,” INEND stated.   

The comic strip, which advocates for inclusivity and nondiscrimination based on one’s sex orientation and gender identity, also educates queer people about self-acceptance, resilience, and thriving through economic empowerment.  

INEND has also come up with regional human rights advocacy trainings that focus on misinformation, disinformation, and digital rights. These workshops target women, queer people, and other marginalized groups.

The organization, for example, last month trained groups of women leaders and queer people in the coastal counties of Mombasa and Kilifi. Another one took place in the western county of Busia, which borders Uganda.

“These trainings come in a critical moment when we have witnessed an uptick in online gender-based violence especially towards LGBTQ+ folks,” INEND noted. 

The trainings aimed at creating safe digital spaces for “structurally silenced women and queer persons” are conducted through a partnership between INEND and two global organizations: Access Now, which defends the digital rights of people and communities at risk, and the Association for Progressive Communications, which supports the use of internet and information and communication technology for social justice and sustainable development.   

INEND, after unveiling a judicial guidebook last October to help judges better protect queer people’s rights, has intensified regional training for judicial officers across the country. The organization this month, through its “Access to Justice” initiative, trained judicial officers in Kisumu, Kenya’s third largest city, and in the North Rift region and Kilifi. 

The two-day training that began on Nov. 5 focused on making judicial officers more sensitive to queer people and showing empathy towards sexual and gender minority groups in order to realize a “fairer and more inclusive legal system” that upholds the dignity of all. 

The training followed INEND’s launch of a new report in July titled “Transforming Perceptions” that accesses the impact of their sensitization engagements with 53 judges and magistrates in 2022 on queer rights protection. 

“The results offered a glimpse of hope for a more inclusive justice system,” the report states. “Over 70 percent of judicial officers surveyed after the training acknowledged that existing laws, like Sections 162, 163, and 165 of the penal code which criminalize consensual same-sex intimacy negatively influence societal views of LGBTQ+ Individuals.” 

The report also notes that 80 percent of the judicial officers trained on queer rights issues indicated they would either be comfortable or indifferent living next to a queer person

Pema Kenya is another local advocacy group that is working to make judicial officers more sensitive to queer people when they handle their cases.

The group in September held a two-day training on gender and sexuality issues for members of the Judicial Service Commission, a top governing body of Kenya’s judiciary.

“This initiative aims to equip key stakeholders within the judicial framework with vital knowledge and skills to handle cases related to gender and sexuality with empathy, understanding, and professionalism,” Pema Kenya stated

Continue Reading

Politics

GOP resolution targets Sarah McBride, the first trans member of Congress

Published

on

Delaware state Sen. Sarah McBride (Washington Blade photo by Daniel Truitt)

U.S. Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) on Monday proposed a resolution that would prohibit House members and staffers from “using single-sex facilities other than those corresponding to their biological sex.”

The bill, which comes just two weeks after Sarah McBride was elected to become the first transgender member of Congress, would block her from accessing women’s bathrooms in the U.S. Capitol and House office buildings.

Republican leadership including House Speaker Mike Johnson (La.) have indicated they will seriously consider the proposal, while House Democrats denounced the effort as a cruel attempt to bully an incoming freshman colleague.

Congress

GOP resolution targets Sarah McBride, the first trans member of Congress

Bill by Rep. Mace would prohibit her from using women’s restrooms

Published 2 hours ago 

on November 19, 2024

By Christopher Kane

Delaware state Sen. Sarah McBride (Washington Blade photo by Daniel Truitt)

  • Share
  • Tweet

U.S. Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) on Monday proposed a resolution that would prohibit House members and staffers from “using single-sex facilities other than those corresponding to their biological sex.”

The bill, which comes just two weeks after Sarah McBride was elected to become the first transgender member of Congress, would block her from accessing women’s bathrooms in the U.S. Capitol and House office buildings.

Republican leadership including House Speaker Mike Johnson (La.) have indicated they will seriously consider the proposal, while House Democrats denounced the effort as a cruel attempt to bully an incoming freshman colleague.

“Every day Americans go to work with people who have life journeys different than their own and engage with them respectfully, I hope members of Congress can muster that same kindness,” McBride said in a post on X.

“This is a blatant attempt from far right-wing extremists to distract from the fact that they have no real solutions to what Americans are facing,” she said. “We should be focused on bringing down the cost of housing, health care, and child care, not manufacturing culture wars.”

“Delawareans sent me here to make the American dream more affordable and accessible and that’s what I’m focused on,” McBride added.

In her successful bid for Delaware’s at-large congressional seat, McBride’s campaign did not center the historic nature of her candidacy but rather her record of delivering results for her constituents like paid family and medical leave.

She did, however, talk about how everyone deserves a representative in Congress who respects them and their families.

Mace used transphobic language attacking McBride when speaking with reporters about her bill on Monday. “Sarah McBride doesn’t get a say. I mean, this is a biological man,” she said, adding that the lawmaker “does not belong in women’s spaces, women’s bathrooms, locker rooms, changing rooms, period, full stop” and instead should “use the men’s restroom.”

“I’m going to be standing in the brink, standing in his or her way, putting a stop to this insanity and this nonsense,” the South Carolina congresswoman said. She did not directly address a question about what “mechanism” might be used for “checking who’s qualified to use the ladies’ room,” but her bill specifies that the House sergeant-at-arms would be responsible for enforcement.

Asked whether she introduced the bill “specifically because Sarah McBride is coming to Congress,” Mace said “that, and more.”

Fielding questions from reporters on the steps of the Capitol Monday, far-right U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (Ga.) endorsed her colleague’s proposal while using anti-trans language and deliberately misgendering the incoming congresswoman from Delaware.

“He is a man. He is a biological male,” she said. “He has plenty of places he can go.”

LGBTQ House members rally behind soon-to-be colleague

Gay U.S. Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.), who chairs the Congressional Equality Caucus, shared a statement with the Washington Blade on Tuesday.

“It’s been a while since Nancy Mace has had her 15 minutes of fame,” he said. “Republicans keep desperately lashing out against trans people to try and distract from the fact that this Congress has been one of the least productive in history—they can’t even pass a Farm Bill or pass major appropriations bills, so they turn to using these cruel attacks to distract from their inability to govern and failure to deliver for the American people.”

“Nancy Mace’s resolution is a pathetic, attention-seeking attempt to grab Trump’s eye and the media spotlight—and trans people, including trans employees, are paying the price,” Pocan added.

Several of the eight other LGBTQ House members, all serving as co-chairs of the caucus, had spoken out against the bill as of Tuesday morning.

“The cruelty is the point,” U.S. Rep. Becca Balint (D-Vt.) said. “Is that what we want the sergeant-at-arms to be doing when we had an attack on the freaking Capitol?”

“Let’s call this what it is: bullying,” Equality PAC Co-Chairs Ranking Member Mark Takano (D-Calif.) and Congressman Ritchie Torres (D-N.Y.) said in a joint statement. “Instead of working to lower daily household costs for families and provide real relief for those struggling across our country, House Republicans have decided to single out one newly elected Member of Congress and make her life more difficult for absolutely no reason at all.”

“This is nothing more than a pathetic attempt from a member who has repeatedly shown no interest in governing simply to make headlines and get attention,” they said. “Congress has a responsibility to focus on the issues that matter to all Americans, not to police who uses which bathroom.”

The congressmen added, “Equality PAC stands proudly with Sarah as we fight back against this baseless attack on her and the trans community. And we will always stand up to bullies – especially those we serve alongside in the US. Capitol Building.”

HRC condemns Mace’s resolution

Human Rights Campaign spokesperson Laurel Powell released the following statement on Tuesday:

“Let’s call this what it is: Rather than focusing on issues that matter to Americans, Rep. Mace is seeking a spotlight by cruelly discriminating against her incoming colleague, the first openly transgender person to be elected to Congress.

“Her resolution would also target trans people who have worked and served in the Capitol long before this month’s elections–more proof this is merely a political charade by a grown-up bully.

“It is another warning sign that the incoming anti-equality House majority will continue to focus on targeting LGBTQ+ people rather than the cost of living, price gouging or any of the problems the American people elected them to solve.”

Continue Reading

National

Reports of hate-filled messages under investigation

Racist, homophobic, messages reported across the U.S. following presidential election

Published

on

Canva graphic by Gisselle Palomera

On Friday, the Federal Bureau of Investigation stated they are now investigating a series of racist and offensive messages sent to LGBTQ+ communities and communities of color around the country. At first, text messages were targeted at Black Americans and African Americans, then the wave of hateful digital rhetoric spread to target the LGBTQ+ and Latin American communities. 

Earlier this month, the initial text messages were sent out to Black American and African American people regarding a fake work assignment that suggested they were going to be working as slaves in a plantation. College students, high school students, professionals and even children, reported receiving the mass texts from unrecognized phone numbers following the presidential election. 

Since then, at least 30 states throughout the nation have reported cases of similar messages containing hate-filled speech, according to CNN. 

According to the report issued by the FBI, the texts and emails that target the LGBTQ+ and Latin American communities stated that the receivers of these messages were selected for deportation or to report to re-education camps. 

The Federal Communications Commission’s enforcement bureau is investigating the text messages. Chair Jessica Rosenworcel issued a statement regarding the texts. 

“These messages are unacceptable,” said Rosenworcel. “That’s why our Enforcement Bureau is already investigating and looking into them alongside federal and state law enforcement. We take this type of targeting very seriously.”

The FBI reports that though they have not received reports of violence related to the messages, they are working with the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division, to evaluate all reported incidents across the U.S. 

Last year, the Leadership Conference Education Fund launched a report stating that hate crimes increase during elections, pointing to white supremacists being particularly active during the past four presidential election cycles.

A portion of the report reads: “The Trump candidacy empowered white nationalists and provided them with a platform — one they had been seeking with renewed intensity since the historic election of America’s first Black president in 2008. Since 2015, communities across the country have experienced some of the most violent and deadliest years for hate in modern history.”

If you have received a similar text or email, you can report it here.

Continue Reading

India

Kamala Harris’s loss prompts mixed reaction in India

Vice president’s mother was born in Chennai

Published

on

Vice President Kamala Harris speaks at Howard University in D.C. on Nov. 6, 2024, after she conceded to President-elect Donald Trump. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

Vice President Kamala Harris’s loss in the U.S. presidential election has elicited mixed reactions among LGBTQ+ activists in India.

A notable portion of Indians expressed support for now President-elect Donald Trump over Harris, even though her maternal lineage traces back to India. Her mother, Shyamala Gopalan, was born into a Brahmin family in Chennai in 1938, and her grandfather, PV Gopalan, hailed from the village of Thulasendrapuram in Tamil Nadu.

Harris’s loss prompted mixed reactions within the LGBTQ+ community.

While some individuals expressed disappointment, others backed Trump.

The Washington Blade in August reported that Harris’s grandfather moved to New Delhi to serve as a civil servant in British-ruled India. This move eventually facilitated Gopalan’s journey to the U.S., where she pursued biomedical science at the University of California, Berkeley a step that played a foundational role in shaping Harris’s future political aspirations.

The Washington Blade since Election Day has spoken with several LGBTQ+ activists and influencers in India.

Harish Iyer, a plaintiff in one of India’s marriage equality cases, in response to Trump’s election said the “path for queer liberation has never been straight.”

“The presidential election was filled with rhetoric from the Republican side against transgender persons,” said Iyer. “There has been a complete denial of the existence of transgender people and also widespread ignominy and ostracism. This, adding to the overturn of Roe vs. Wade, has aggravated tensions for everyone from gender variant persons to birthing parents of all genders.”

He further noted there is a strong change of more transphobic legislation and rhetoric in the U.S. with Trump in the White House, Republicans in control of the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives, and a conservative majority on the U.S. Supreme Court.

“In a largely connected world, where many Indians and India-born people are in America, the effect of this will be palpable in India too,” said Iyer.

Indrani Chakraborty is a prominent social activist and advocate for transgender rights, particularly in northeast India. She has been outspoken about the challenges faced by her trans daughter.

Chakraborty said the effects will be felt around the world if Trump continues his transphobic rhetoric and the U.S. government does not support the LGBTQ+ community. Anwesh Kumar Sahoo, an Indian artist, writer, model, and the youngest winner of Mr. Gay World 2016, told the Blade that Trump’s policies are a setback in the ongoing fight for LGBTQ+ rights and visibility.

“It’s a strong reminder of how interconnected our struggles are globally,” said Sahoo. “It highlights the importance of standing up for equality everywhere.”

Abhijit Iyer Mitra, an LGBTQ+ activist and senior fellow at the Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies, in response to Harris’s loss said her Indian roots “really do not matter.”

“America expects assimilation and not just integration,” said Mitra. “She has no real connect to India in any sense or knowledge of India in any sense. So, being from here absolutely means nothing. She is American through and through, she has demonstrated no knowledge of India, no nothing, so it is what it is.”

“I am not really worried, certainly not from an Indian point of view because her particular political supporters are all viciously anti-India, but not Biden,” added Mitra. “Biden is pro-India. But Kamala, especially her supporters, belongs to the same woke circuit which would be… ‘Oh India … genocide happening’ etc. So just being Indian means nothing.”

While responding to the Trump campaign’s rhetoric on trans issues, Mitra said “the issue is not the transgender community, but the forcing of gender ideology on everyone, where you put kids on puberty blockers and have irreversible surgery done, and kids taken away from their parents.”

“I thought I was a girl when I was a kid,” said Mitra. “When I grew up, I realized that I was a man. I am very comfortable being who I am and thank God none of this happened. Had this happened now, I would have been taken away from my parents, asked to undergo surgery, and would not have been able to lead the life I am leading.”

“What is being propagated as this ‘trans ideology’ or ‘gender ideology’ is essentially homophobia, where you are told a man cannot be attracted to a man. A woman cannot be attracted to a woman. They are instead pushed to undergo irreversible sex changes and become something else,” added Mitra. “This is exactly what Iran does — they punish homosexuality with death, but if you have a sex change, it is considered acceptable.”

“There is nothing pro-LGBTQ about the Democrats — far from it. It is an LGBTQ genocide. It is erasing the viability of the LGBTQ community. It is a huge disservice to gender dysmorphic individuals, who are the ones who might genuinely need surgery. But why do they need surgery? It is because they are shunned by society and forced to undergo something that no one should have to endure,” said Mitra. “They need to be accepted and loved for who they are, not turned into something society demands them to be.”

Sarah McBride, a Democrat from Delaware, on Election Day became the first openly trans person elected to Congress. Biden, former President Barack Obama, California Gov. Gavin Newsom, and Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker are among those who specifically mentioned marriage equality and other LGBTQ+ rights during the 2024 Democratic National Convention in Chicago.

“Kamala’s defeat is a huge setback for our friends from the LGBTQ community in the U.S.,” Kalki Subramaniam, an activist, queer artist, and actor who is a member of India’s National Transgender Council, told the Blade.

“As a Tamil woman from Kamala’s mother’s state, I am disappointed that Kamala was not elected,” added Subramaniam. “As Kamala said, never give up and burn bright. For all my LGBTQ families around the world, let us support more leaders like Kamala Harris and strengthen them. Let us step forward and take leadership to win back all our rights.”

Continue Reading

World

Out in the World: LGBTQ+ news from Europe, Asia, and Oceania

European Court of Human Rights rules Switzerland cannot deport gay Iranian refugee

Published

on

(Los Angeles Blade graphic)

SWITZERLAND

The European Court of Human Rights has ruled that Switzerland cannot deport a gay Iranian refugee claimant, finding that the state’s argument that he’d be safe as long as he’s discreet is not reasonable. 

The decision, which was delivered Nov. 12, applies to all 46 members of the European Convention on Human Rights. 

The Swiss government acknowledged that the refugee claimant, known in the case as M.I., was a gay man and that gay men face persecution from state and non-state actors in his country of origin, Iran. But Switzerland had denied M.I.’s asylum claim, arguing that he could avoid persecution by using discretion and restraint in expressing his sexuality and that it was unlikely his sexual orientation would become known to Iranian authorities otherwise.

The court found this reasoning wrong, noting that M.I.’s sexual orientation could be discovered if he were deported to Iran, and the state had not addressed whether Iranian authorities would provide him with protection against ill-treatment. The court ordered Switzerland to reconsider M.I.’s claim in light of the lack of this protection. 

Homosexuality is illegal in Iran, with penalties including beatings and death. The court ruling notes that given criminalization of homosexuality, it is unreasonable to assume that an LGBTQ+ person can seek protection from authorities in Iran. 

Jacqueline McKenzie, a lawyer who represented Stonewall UK and African Rainbow Family in their intervention in the case, calls the decision a “watershed” that would help ensure protection for LGBTQ+ asylum seekers across Europe.

“I am delighted for not just my clients, Stonewall and African Rainbow Family, but for all gay people who continue to face the threat of removal to several countries where gay sex is prohibited by law and penal codes, and where in some instances, punishable by death, on the basis that they can be discreet about their sexuality,” McKenzie says in a statement.

“This is a watershed ruling that puts an end to the reasoning that it is safe to return gay men who are discreet about their sexuality to countries where they would be in danger if their sexuality were to be discovered.” 

ROMANIA

An LGBTQ+ activist is making history as the first openly queer person to run for parliament in upcoming elections set for Dec. 1.

Florin Buhuceanu is running for the liberal Renewing Romania’s European Project Party (REPER), a minor party that splintered from the Save Romania Union two years ago and currently holds 10 seats in the 330-seat lower house.

He says he’s running to advance LGBTQ+ rights, including the recognition of same-sex unions, which all political parties in Romania have refused to do so far.

Buhuceanu has a history of advocacy on same-sex couples’ rights. In 2019, he and his partner of 10 years joined 20 other couples in suing the government at the European Court of Human Rights over Romania’s refusal to recognize same-sex couples. Last year, they won their case, and Romania was ordered to recognize same-sex couples in a decision that set an important precedent continent-wide. 

But more than a year later, nothing has changed in Romania, because politicians have lacked the will to implement civil unions in the deeply conservative country. Buhuceanu says the lack of progress threatens democracy and rule of law.

“It’s sad that Romanian politicians are so lacking in courage to look around them and open up their eyes to the realities that are under their nose,” Buhuceanu told the news outlet Context. “This issue cannot be separated from what’s going on with the democracy status of Romania. It’s inconceivable to have final judgments that are not respected immediately.”

Buhuceanu also helped organize Romania’s first gay pride festival and led Accept, the country’s leading LGBTQ+ advocacy group. Buhuceanu and his partner also curate an LGBTQ+ history museum in their home in Bucharest, which is open to the public on weekends.

He says he’s running for parliament to drive change for the LGBTQ+ community.

“It’s the only community I’m aware of with zero political representation and this has to change,” Buhuceanu says. “We cannot wait, we should mobilize our people to occupy as many positions as possible. Otherwise, the anti-gender movement, these extreme political parties, will try to occupy the vacuum we have produced.”

JAPAN

A man is suing the Japanese government after a judge barred him from wearing rainbow-colored socks to a court hearing on same-sex marriage last year.

Ken Suzuki was wearing the rainbow-patterned socks when he attempted to observe the same-sex marriage trial in Fukuoka District Court in June 2023. He says he was told by court officials to hide the rainbow pattern ahead of the trial, and was only admitted after he folded the pattern inward, obscuring it.

He’s now joined two other individuals who were ordered to change or hide clothing with various expressions before attending other unrelated cases in a case before the Tokyo District Court seeking 3.3 million yen (approximately $21,000) in damages. 

Suzuki claims that the court overstepped its authority to maintain order by requiring that he remove the socks, as they did not disrupt the court proceedings. He also says the order was inconsistent, as he was able to wear the socks without issue while attending a different same-sex marriage trial at the Tokyo District Court. 

Several courts across Japan are weighing the rights of same-sex couples. Five of six lower courts that have heard same-sex marriage cases have ruled that the ban on same-sex marriage violates the constitution, as have two superior courts that have heard challenges. Further court hearings are expected in superior courts, and eventually at the Supreme Court. 

VANUATU

Vanuatu’s parliament has amended its marriage laws to explicitly ban same-sex marriage, amid a new crackdown on LGBTQ+ people in the South Pacific island nation. 

Prior to passage of the marriage law amendment, Vanuatu’s Marriage Act neither explicitly forbade nor permitted same-sex marriage. The new law now states that same-sex marriages may not be registered in Vanuatu.

Interior Minister Andrew Napuat told Radio New Zealand the law expresses the government’s opposition to LGBTQ+ couples. He also threatened anyone who attempts to conduct a same-sex marriage with revocation of their license.

“When the law was passed (Nov. 14), it made clear the government’s full intention, along with our leaders, that every pastor who performs marriage ceremonies must understand that they cannot conduct a ceremony that is against the law and expect it to be registered,” Napuat says.

“If anyone conducts a marriage that does not follow the spirit of the law passed today and seeks our registration, his or her license will be revoked to prevent further marriages. This applies to religious, civil, or traditional ceremonies.” 

Earlier this month, the Justice and Community Services Ministry announced it was forming a committee to draft a national policy banning LGBTQ+ advocacy in Vanuatu. 

The proposed crackdown comes after the president of Vanuatu’s Council of Traditional Chiefs said the activities of the country’s LGBTQ+ advocacy group VPride threaten traditional values and Christian beliefs.

While Vanuatu is a deeply conservative country, same-sex activity has never been illegal since independence from Britain and France in 1980.

Continue Reading

California Politics

What does Measure G mean for Los Angeles County?

L.A. County makes historic strides toward achieving more government accountability and representation

Published

on

Canva Graphic by Gisselle Palomera

Measure G campaign declares victory, making way for pivotal and significant reform in Los Angeles County and ushering in a new era of accountability. Voters in favor of the measure hope to see a transformation of the bureaucratic system and more valid representation from the additional board supervisor seats. 

“With the passage of Measure G, we are advancing a vision of Los Angeles County that prioritizes transparency, accountability and equitable representation. This measure gives a voice to communities that have often been overlooked, creating a governance structure that truly reflects our diverse County,” said Nichelle Henderson, president of the Los Angeles Community College District.

This measure made history, declaring victory after gaining majority approval from voters. This measure makes history after various attempts to expand the LA County Board of Supervisors failed in 1962, 1976, 1992 and again in 2000. 

The measure will now require County departments and agencies to present their budgets to the Board in open, public meetings, prior to adoption of annual budgets, effective immediately. 

The “revolving door,” policy prohibiting former County officials from lobbying the County for a minimum of two years after leaving office, will now be strengthened, effective immediately. 

Elected officials who are criminally convicted of a crime will be suspended without pay, also effective immediately. 

The measure will establish and create an independent Ethics Commission, as well as an Office of Ethics Compliance, led by an Ethics Compliance Officer by 2026. 

Under the measure, a County Executive will be elected in 2028 and the Board of Supervisors will nearly double in size by 2032, following the 2030 independent redistricting process. 

The motion was originally co-authored by LA County Board Chair Lindsey Horvath and Supervisor Janice Hahn, with the support of Supervisor Hilda L. Solis. Horvath and Solis argued that five people could not effectively represent such a large and diverse population, while Supervisors Holly Mitchell and Kathryn Barger panned the move as rushed and ill-conceived.

LA County residents have affirmed that the way forward lies in a complete transformation of the County’s governance. Now that it’s been approved, the measure will add true checks and balances through a more representative legislative branch and executive branch with direct accountability to voters. 

“We will now have the ability to fix what is broken and deliver the results our communities are counting on, especially in the face of threats to our most vulnerable residents from the next federal administration,” said Horvath.

“Through this historic change, we will address the most pressing issues facing Angelenos with greater urgency and accountability, and create a more ethical and representative government fit for the 21st century.”

The approval of this measure made history because previous attempts to change the county’s charter failed, while Measure G was approved through broad-based support from nurses, small businesses, civil rights groups and state–as well as–federal leaders from throughout the county. 

The academic community responded to the approval of the measure, which is set to be enshrined into the L.A. County Charter shortly after it is certified by the L.A. County Registrar-Recorder on December 3, 2024. 

“This historic victory gives voice to communities who have long been marginalized in the decision-making process,” said Sara Sadhwani, Ph.D., professor of politics at Pomona College. “With a more transparent and responsive governance structure, we’re creating a County government that truly reflects the diversity and needs of its people. This is a win for democracy and for all Angelenos.”

Continue Reading

Popular