Helena IR Commenters Reveal the Need for Anti-Discrimination Ordinance

I have to admit that I had little hope for the discussion section on today’s story in the Independent Record about the proposed anti-discrimination ordinance—and as is usually the case, the troglodytes raced right off to demonstrate just how hate-filled their cowardly, anonymous hearts can be.

Tiger Woops offered a slur and what seems to be a vague reference to Matthew Shepard in his comment:

tigerwoops

Michael S demonstrated his keen sense of tolerance and a disturbing predilection for bestiality:

michales

Steeline suggested that

steeline

These comments are precisely illustrative of why Helena needs an ordinance like the one Commissioner Haque-Hausrath and the Montana Human Rights Network are proposing. Despite real progress

And it usually comes from cowards who hide their hate behind masks or online pseudonyms.

A couple of quick notes about the Independent Record, on this issue, too. Given that their comments are moderated, should any of these comments have been allowed on the site? The IR policy states:

Name-calling, crude language and personal abuse are not welcome. Moderators will monitor comments with an eye toward maintaining a high level of civility in this forum.

I’d say hate speech falls somewhat short of a high level of civility.

22 comments
Men's Weight Loss
Men's Weight Loss

Hey there this is kind of of off topic but I was wanting to know if blogs use WYSIWYG editors or if you have to manually code with HTML. I'm starting a blog soon but have no coding expertise so I wanted to get guidance from someone with experience. Any help would be greatly appreciated!

D Gregory Smith
D Gregory Smith

Maybe Helena should also enact an ordinance banning bad spellers from the comment section of the IR. It seems that the haters are also bad spellers, grammarians and punctuators . But I forgot- no one's moderating or paying attention to those comments...

The Polish Wolf
The Polish Wolf

"Rob, that is not how the IR phrased it. The paper said: As a result, residents there who feel a public accommodation, home or job is unavailable to them because of their sexual orientation or gender identity have legal recourse. What precedent is there for mere “feeling” vs, as you say, “hate action.” One is subjective, the other objective. That’s why I was pressing on the wording of the ordinance" They have legal recourse - ie, their case will be considered. Like any other non-discrimination law (disability, gender, race, or age), a feeling alone is not going to equal a conviction, but obviously that's where the investigation must start. Perhaps the author ought to have written "if they believe". In that case, its no different than any other suit - I have to believe that my property has been stolen to bring a suit, after all.

Pogie
Pogie

I support the proposed Helena ordinance, not the strawperson argument you've constructed.

Craig Moore
Craig Moore

Don, the IR article doesn't link to the ordinance. Do you have such a link?

Craig Moore
Craig Moore

IT would be interesting for you to suggest a draft ordinance, along with definitions, of just what would be outlawed. Keep in mind that the 1st Amendment protected Nazis marching and screaming slurs in a Chicago suburb populated by Jewish Holocaust survivors. Of the comments you highlight above, which, if any, would violate your proposed ordinance?

Rob Kailey
Rob Kailey

Maybe you missed the link up there at the beginning, Craig, but the ramifications of an anti-discrimination ordinance are pretty well laid out in the article. You'll notice, should you read it, that there's nothing about what people can say or think or write. All Pogie called for was for the Helena IR, a non-governmental entity , to follow their own stated policy of moderation. Perhaps you were confused in thinking that the proposed Helena ordinance was to be the same as the IR policy?

Craig Moore
Craig Moore

Rob, I was responding to Don's suggestion: These comments are precisely illustrative of why Helena needs an ordinance like the one Commissioner Haque-Hausrath and the Montana Human Rights Network are proposing. I took it one step further to ask Don what would be his ordinance if he were the one drafting it keeping in mind the Chicago Nazi example and then ask him about "these comments" and which ones would be outlawed.

Craig Moore
Craig Moore

Rob, you are quite inventive to create a non-argument. I agree with you ... that GBLT people should not be discriminated against, in any legal way possible. They should have an established legal right to fair treatment. I disagree with you that subjective standards, in judging such treatment, are the way to go. I'm all for using objective factors as with any other legally proscribed behavior that addresses specific acts.

Rob Kailey
Rob Kailey

"Rob, ????? if you weren’t concerned what I think, then I am confused by your comment, “I may be reading you incorrectly, but you seem to think…”": Yeah, duh. I'm not thinking for you, Craig. I'm commenting about what you seem to think and write here that I comment on. Quit being obtuse. "Any law should be based on objective factors rather than subjective sensitivities." Righto. The objective factors, which you argue against, are that GBLT people should not be discriminated against, in any legal way possible. They should have an established legal right to fair treatment. Any white male twat-waffle does, so why shouldn't they? Why do you have a problem with that, Craig? I'm tired of your avoidance, waffling and I'm done arguing with you. Claim victory if you want. I only hope that Helena defies your bigotry.

Craig Moore
Craig Moore

Rob, ????? if you weren't concerned what I think, then I am confused by your comment, "I may be reading you incorrectly, but you seem to think..." Trying to project your thoughts into my head just won't work. Any law should be based on objective factors rather than subjective sensitivities.

Rob Kailey
Rob Kailey

I'm not concerned with what you "think", Craig. I have argued only against what you write here, and what that shows about what you 'think'.

Rob Kailey
Rob Kailey

Craig, I may be reading you incorrectly, but you seem to think that the law should not cover some people for what is clearly stated as law. "Feeling" has nothing to do with rights. What does is this: If you "feel" that you have been denied your rights then you have the option of legal recourse. Notice, please, that does not say that you're right or correct. It only establishes that you get to have your say represented in a court of law. As of this writing, GBLT people in Helena have no such 'right', or more appropriately, legal standing to bring such suit - just as black folk didn't under Jim Crow laws. The whole point of the Helena anti-discrimination statute proposed, just as in Missoula, is to give people the OBJECTIVE power to be who they are without being punished for it in substantive ways. Hate speech will always be protected, Craig. Hate action, I hope, not so much. Why is it so important to you that an obviously discriminated against group of people do not get the very rights you and I enjoy as a matter of course?

Craig Moore
Craig Moore

Rob, that is not how the IR phrased it. The paper said: As a result, residents there who feel a public accommodation, home or job is unavailable to them because of their sexual orientation or gender identity have legal recourse. What precedent is there for mere "feeling" vs, as you say, "hate action." One is subjective, the other objective. That's why I was pressing on the wording of the ordinance.

Rob Kailey
Rob Kailey

Craig, please don't play dumb. I'm asking sincerely here. Hate speech is what it is, and it requires no ordinance to banish it. Nor would such a thing stand to challenge. That also doesn't prohibit anyone from calling it what it is. It's hate speech. Get over it. But hate action has and will fall to Constitutional challenge. Truncating my quote doesn't help your cause. It read, exactly: "Such an ordinance would simply prohibit such obviously displayed bigotry from being used to deny others their universal civil rights." I question why it was so important to you to cut out the relevant parts.

Craig Moore
Craig Moore

Maybe I misunderstood as I thought Don was calling those comments "hate speech" necessitating some sort of ordinance. If, as you suggest, this ordinance would "simply prohibit such obviously displayed bigotry" how is that any different than a barking pack of Nazi's marching to scare Holocaust survivors? It was my opinion that discrimination was prohibited by Montana's constitution.

Rob Kailey
Rob Kailey

Yes, but Craig, in the true logical sense, that's a loaded question. Those comments can be indicative of why Helena needs an anti-discrimination ordinance without such statute 'outlawing' any comments made by the IR readership. Such an ordinance would simply prohibit such obviously displayed bigotry from being used to deny others their universal civil rights. Why then would you ask Pogie to draft an ordinance such that it would deny people free-speech, as if he had any inclination to do so? As Admiral Akbar would say ... It's A TRAP!

Craig Moore
Craig Moore

I screwed up formatting the quote. "I took it one step further to ask Don what would be his ordinance if he were the one drafting it keeping in mind the Chicago Nazi example and then ask him about “these comments” and which ones would be outlawed." should not have been included.

Jack ruby
Jack ruby

Im thinking there is a high probability that this may even flush Lady Knight of the Gun back into the open for another high profile and well organized run for office.

Trackbacks

  1. ares says:

    … [Trackback]…

    [...] Find More Informations here: intelligentdiscontent.com/2011/12/18/helena-ir-commenters-reveal-the-need-for-anti-discrimination-ordinance/ [...]…