Tuesday, June 30, 2009

Watching History Repeat Itself: AN UPDATE

I am posting an e-mail that I received from my friend, Rodolfo, in Dallas updating me on the police raid on the gay bar - Rainbow Lounge.  Mil Gracias Rodolfo,  SG
————————–
Howdy y’all –

I just witnessed history repeating itself, 21st century Texas style –and that’s not a good thing. Forgive me if the rest of this message rambles and such, but I wanted to get all this down while it was fresh. Here’s what I witnessed:
This weekend, as many of you know, marks the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall Riots in New York City, and the beginning of the modern Gay Liberation movement. Today was the “Million Gay March,” which was meant to be held, not just in Washington D.C., but also in every major U.S. city at the same time. The theme was not just to remember Stonewall, but to call out the President, for first going back on his promise to advance GLBT equality, then throwing us an insulting scrap from his table: An executive order that expires the second he leaves office and gives *some* equal recognition in *some* matters to federal employees. Um, thanks?
John and I intended to participate in the Dallas march, and John was going to speak at the rally after that, but from the moment people started to gather at the starting point for the march, the event was overshadowed by a rumor churning through the crowd: at the opposite end of the metroplex in Fort Worth, police had raided a Gay bar and hauled people away around 1 a.m.-ish this very morning. I know, how surreal. This being the iPhone/Blackberry era, many people were trying to get some actual facts. This also being the era of blogs, the local Gay newspaper started up a blog thread to collect relevant information. A flash-mob action was already in the works by the time our march in Dallas began and solidified by the time the rally started: Gather at the Fort Worth bar that had been raided, then get to the front steps of the main downtown courthouse, demanding answers from the mayor and chief of police.
Fast-forward to this evening, when I arrived at the Rainbow Lounge (gotta love that retro name) after following a map I’d made by googling what little I knew of the bar. A cowboy in a sleeveless western shirt with rainbow-flagged shoulders was addressing a growing crowd outside the front door while the local media filmed us. Then we moved out of the 100-degree day to hear from the bar owner and several patrons who where there last night / this morning. While the bar’s TV was playing police statements on the local news, the people who were there were correcting the official story. To whit:
1) The Fort Worth PD claimed that this started as a normal liquor-license violation check and that this was the first time they had ever been to the bar. Several patrons were able to confirm that the police arrived with a paddy wagon all ready, and had plenty of plastic handcuffs already on hand when they entered. In addition, one patron said that he had seen the police casing the bar from the parking lot the night before.
2) The FWPD claimed that they only arrested those who were staggering drunk, in violation of the local public intoxication laws –Say what? No getting drunk in a bar? Welcome to Texas. Anyway, one patron who was just out of custody said he had never moved from his seat until he was cuffed –no opportunity to stagger. About 15 people were arrested.
3) The FWPD claimed that one patron “groped” an officer. The consensus from all witnesses was “Eeew! I don’t think so.”
4) The FWPD claimed to have Rainbow Lounge employees in custody. The bar staff did a head count and all were accounted for. I know, minor stuff, but I hope this helps illustrate the gulf between what was being seen by the public at large on TV, and what had been witnessed by the people who were there.
5) Not mentioned, at least not in the news segment we saw, was the fact that one of the patrons was in a hospital in the ICU, in bad shape.
6) Not mentioned was the fact that the bar manager / DJ said that in all his years of working in Fort Worth bars, he had never seen the police behave in this way at any other bar, in any other “violation check.”
The contradictions continued, then JR (don’t snicker, that’s a mighty fine name down here) the bar owner told of how he was given grief at every turn when he first tried to get this bar started, from the construction to the liquor and dance licenses. The Rainbow Lounge had not been open one week before it was raided. He thanked everyone who had given phone calls of support, and had organized this impromptu action on behalf of the Fort Worth GLBT community. He also promised that they were still open for business, and asked everyone to come back tonight when their drag queen in residence was still hell-bent on putting on her show.
As statements of support and press releases from local Gay leaders were read off of iPhones, young kids had cleared the pool tables to make protest signs, someone walked in with a crate of bottled water, and everyone with reception was calling, blogging, texting, and twittering to get more people to meet us at the courthouse. The last press release someone read off some news site stated that the Fort Worth chief of police intended to make an appology of some sort –too little, too late. We left for downtown.
When the time came, I made my own way there, and showed up just before the local media left, which means they only counted those who had made it to the courthouse early, not the whole crowd that eventually filled the front steps. Queer Liberaction, with their enthusiasm and megaphone, MC’ed as different well-dressed, well-spoken people –Fort Worth Gay leaders, I assumed– talked in measured tones about how we needed to have an investigation into the whole matter, and that if a violation of police procedure had occurred, the officers should be punished and/or suspended. The first openly Gay elected official in the county spoke, then the FW “human rights officer” (?) spoke, then another bar patron. This gentleman tried to stay as calm and objective as possible as he tried to logically lay out why the police behavior betrayed a targeted, discriminatory attack on the community. Unfortunately, just as he was making his case, one of the Radical Faeries had had enough with all the politeness, and started yelling over him, insisting that the police shouldn’t be suspended, but prosecuted. Another person called for blood. Half the crowd turned ugly while the other half tried to “shush” them. Eventually, one of the Queer Liberation people offered the Radical Faerie a turn with the megaphone, and he and the crowd calmed down. Later, he changed his mind about addressing us. The penultimate speaker was the rainbow-shirted cowboy, who reported that the patron in ICU had regained consciousness long enough to hear about what was happening and thank everyone for their support, prior to taking a turn for the worse.
Queer Liberaction wrapped up by asking us to come back next week, same time, same place, with everyone we knew, to keep the pressure up on the mayor; another QL member suggested meeting at the convention center and filling the streets of downtown as we marched back to the courthouse. QL’s URL was given out were we could check the finalized details for next week, and the mayor’s phone number was given out. As people added the mayor’s number to their cell phones, people called out for his direct line, cell number, and MySpace account.
I called it a night. Curiously, during my entire time in Fort Worth, I hadn’t seen a single police officer, except for one bike-cop near the party district on my way out. He was taking a complaint from an older, white, well-to-do, apparently heterosexual couple who were complaining about all the Gay people at the courthouse. I resisted the urge to do something that would get me arrested.
So forty years to the day when police raided a Gay bar and lit the fire that started our modern movement, it’s hard not to feel like we’re back at square one. To be continued, I hope.
Peace. Out.
– Rodolfo
Posted by Santo Gay in 05:05:08 | Permalink | No Comments »

Monday, June 29, 2009

Police raid gay bar in Fort Worth Texas: 1 Week and Arrest Gays 40 Years to the Day After the Stonewall Revolt!

From DallasVoice.com

Texas
Gays, lesbians rally in Fort Worth over bar raid
By Tammye Nash Senior Editor
Jun 28, 2009 - 10:11:37 PM

Police say 7 arrested for public intoxication; one man remains hospitalized with brain injury incurred during incident

FORT WORTH — About 18 hours after officers with the Fort Worth Police Department and agents with the Texas Alcoholic Beverages Commission raided a Fort Worth gay bar, about 150 to 200 people gathered on the steps of the Tarrant County Courthouse in downtown Fort Worth Sunday night, June 28, to protest the raid.

Sources have said that seven people were arrested in the raid although witnesses at the scene said many more people were handcuffed with zip ties and taken out of the bar.
One man, identified by his sister as Chad Gibson, was in the intensive care unit at Fort Worth’s JPS Hospital with bleeding in his brain after officers threw him to the ground and used zip-ties to handcuff him.

The raid happened on the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall rebellion.

Joel Burns, Fort Worth’s first and only openly gay City Council member, was in Houston for the weekend, but came back to Fort Worth in time for the rally at the courthouse.

“We want all citizens of Texas and Fort Worth to know and be assured that the laws of ordinances of our great state and city will be applied fairly, equally and without malice or selective enforcement,” Burns said at the rally, reading from a prepared statement.

“We consider this to be part of ‘The Fort Worth Way’ here. As elected representatives of the city of Fort Worth, we are calling for an immediate and thorough investigation of the actions of the city of Fort Worth police and Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission in relation to the incident at the Rainbow Lounge earlier this morning,” Burns said.

In an e-mail communication before noon on Sunday, Burns said he had already talked with Fort Worth Police Chief Jeffrey Halstead who had promised an investigation into the matter. Burns also said at that time that Mayor Pro Tem Kathleen Hicks, who represents the district where the Rainbow Lounge is located, and City Manager Dale A. Fisseler were also already aware of the situation.

Noting that the rainbow Lounge raid came on the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall Rebellion, Burns said at the rally, “Unlike 40 years ago, though, the people of this community have elective representation that will make sure our government is accountable and that the rights of all its citizens are protected.”

Burns said he is working with Mayor Mike Moncrief, Halstead, the Fort Worth Human Relations Commission and “our state legislative colleagues” to get “a complete and accurate accounting of what occurred.”

Burns added, “Rest assured that neither the people of Fort Worth, nor the city government of Fort Worth, will tolerate discrimination against any of its citizens. And known that the GLBT community is an integral part of the economic and cultural life of Fort Worth.

“Every Fort Worth citizen deserves to have questions around this incident answered and we are all working aggressively toward that end,” Burns said.

Lisa Thomas, Burns’ appointee to the city’s Human Relations Commission, also spoke at the rally, as did Todd Camp and Chuck Potter, two men who were at the bar when the raid happened and who were the primary organizers of Sunday’s two rallies.

Camp, referring to eyewitness accounts of the raid and to photographs that Potter took as the raid was occurring, said at the rally that “evidence demonstrates that the Fort Worth Police Department and the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commissioner over-reacted and used excessive, perhaps brutal force … .”

“The circumstances of the police action strongly suggest that elements of the law enforcement community selectively targeted a recently opened gay and lesbian establishment for selective enforcement and harassment.”

Fort Worth police have not returned calls seeking comment placed by Dallas Voice beginning at 10 a.m. Sunday morning. However, Fort Worth police released a statement to several mainstream media outlets saying that Rainbow Lounge was one of three bars targted by six Fort Worth police officers and two TABC agents and a supervisor.

The statement said that nine people were arrested at the first two bars — the Rosedale Saloon and Cowboy Palace, both on Rosedale Avenue — and that another seven people were arrested at Rainbow Lounge.

The statement also said that “an extremely intoxicated patron made sexually explicit movements toward the police supervisor” and that person was arrested for public intoxication.

A second “intoxicated individual” was arrested for public intoxication after making “sexually explicit movements towards another officer,” and a third person assaulted a TABC agent by grabbing his groin. That man was escorted outside and arrested for public intoxication, but was released to paramedics because of his “extreme intoxication” and the fact that he was vomiting repeatedly.

The statement said that while some officers were outside dealing with the vomiting suspect, another officer inside requested assistance in handling an intoxicated patron who was resisting arrest, and that this person was “placed on the ground to control and apprehend him.”

This person was apparently Chad Gibson, who was knocked unconscious and is now hospitalized with a brain injury.

Eyewitnesses to that incident said Gibson, who is “maybe 160 pounds soaking wet,” did not resist arrest but that he did stumble after the first officer grabbed his arm.

Rainbow Lounge owner J.R. Schrock said claims that patrons made sexual advances to the officers and that one patron groped an officer were lies.

“The groping of the police officer — really? We’re gay, but we’re not dumb,” Schrock said to the crowd that gathered at the bar Sunday afternoon. “That is a lie, and I am appalled by it.

“They treat us like outcasts. But even outcasts have a time to shine, and this is it,” Schrock said, pledging that he would not be “scared away” or intimidated into closing his bar.

E-mail nash@dallasvoice.com

© Copyright by DallasVoice.com

Posted by Santo Gay in 14:15:41 | Permalink | No Comments »

Monday, June 22, 2009

Gay Pride Mexico City 2009: XXXI Marcha del Orgullo LGBTTTI - Unidad en la Diversidad

The parade was great lots of people showing their Pride.  BUT in the end, as always, it rains.

Click picture below to view a slide show of the Pride Marcha 2009:

And here is a short seven minute video too:

Posted by Santo Gay in 18:30:00 | Permalink | No Comments »

Monday, June 15, 2009

Mexico City: Discriminación y Diálogo ‘¿O se van a mover entonc es o cómo le vamos a hacer?’

ESTA SEMANA
Noticiero de © ENKIDU
(#017 - 2009)
14 de junio de 2009
http://www.enkidumagazine.com/

» SECCION DE COMUNIDAD

* [14.06.2009]: CIUDAD DE MEXICO: Discriminación y Diálogo ‘¿O se van a
mover entonces o cómo le vamos a hacer?’

El pasado domingo 7 de junio en Avenida Reforma, casi esquina con Ignacio
Ramírez, Rubén Durán y Gibran Gómez, una pareja de estudiantes
universitarios, conversaban abrazados al iniciar la noche en Ciudad de
México. Ellos estaban sentados en vía pública, sin meterse con nadie,
cuando “salió personal de seguridad del hotel y personal del restaurante,
de nombres Juan José y Gaspar, quienes nos dijeron que no podíamos estar
ahí. No pedían que nos retiráramos porque estábamos molestando a la gente
que estaba en el restaurante, a lo que respondimos que nosotros no
teníamos porqué retirarnos si finalmente estábamos en una banca en vía
pública,” relató Rubén…

  

CIUDAD DE MEXICO: Discriminación y Diálogo ‘¿O se van a mover entonces o cómo le vamos a hacer?’  

ShareThis

Ciudad de México, 14 de junio de 2009 (Texto & video: Agustin Villalpando / Enkidu Magazine; fotos: LIOWLB): Era el último fin de semana de junio de 1969 cuando agentes de la policía y de la Oficina de Control de Bebidas Alcohólicas [Alcoholic Beverage Control Board] entraron, como había ocurrido antes, a un bar gay, el Stonewall Inn, en la Calle Christopher, pues habían “violaciones en cuanto a la venta de bebidas. Al entrar, como siempre ocurría, hicieron comentarios homófobos, revisaron las identificaciones de todos y cada uno de los clientes, a quienes iban sacando del bar. Sin embargo, algo ocurrió que los parroquianos, en lugar de perderse en medio de la noche, como hasta entonces, se rebelaron. Alguien utilizó un parquímetro para asegurar la puerta y, de este modo, los agentes del orden quedaron encerrados. Estos pidieron refuerzos que dispersaron a la multitud. La noche siguiente se reunió más gente y la siguiente…

La Revuelta de Stonewall, origen del Movimiento de Liberación Homosexual, hoy Gay, Lésbico, Bisexual, Trans (GLBT) inició en un bar y fue producto del enfrentamiento directo entre trabajadores sexuales, drag-queens, estudiantes, dieron voz a lo que desde entonces se conoce, al menos en inglés de Estados Unidos como el Gay Power.

Esto viene a relación porque el pasado domingo 7 de junio en Avenida Reforma, casi esquina con Ignacio Ramírez, Rubén Durán y Gibran Gómez, una pareja de estudiantes universitarios, conversaban abrazados al iniciar la noche en Ciudad de México. Ellos estaban sentados en vía pública, sin meterse con nadie, cuando “salió personal de seguridad del hotel y personal del restaurante, de nombres Juan José y Gaspar, quienes nos dijeron que no podíamos estar ahí. No pedían que nos retiráramos porque estábamos molestando a la gente que estaba en el restaurante, a lo que respondimos que nosotros no teníamos porqué retirarnos si finalmente estábamos en una banca en vía pública,” relató Rubén.

“En ese momento, estos personajes empezaron a intimidarnos. Nos dijeron que iban a llamar patrullas e inclusive se sentaron a un lado de nosotros  para hacer como presión para irnos. Después, como no nos movimos, se pararon, se rieron, se burlaron de nosotros y nos dijeron de forma muy altanera: ‘¿O se van a mover entonces o cómo le vamos a hacer?’ Ante esta petición nos quedamos callados. Nos quedamos otra vez abrazados y vimos que llamaron a otra persona de seguridad que ya iba saliendo y en ese momento decidimos retirarnos,” concluye su relato Rubén.

Un incidente de discriminación porque la presencia de los jóvenes “incomoda” a los comensales del Restaurante Argentino Evita. Dos jóvenes que, por estar abrazados, conversando, deben enfrentar el acoso de quienes no desean reconocer las muestras de afecto entre seres humanos.

No obstante, los jóvenes acuden a sus amigos, se forma un contingente que decide hacer una intervención en el lugar de los hechos.

Sábado 13 de junio – A eso de las 18:10 horas, una docena de jóvenes universitarios hacen acto de presencia frente al Restaurante Argentino Evita. Llevan consignas y cantan al unísono: “Evita, la Evita, porque discrimina”, “Argentino tiene tino, para discriminar”, así como el tradicional “No hay libertad política, si no hay libertad sexual”.

Luego se dirigen al frente del Hotel Embassy Suites by Hilton, donde levantan la voz en los coros arriba mencionados. Luego se sientan todos. Luego se dan un beso. Para este momento ya ha llegado una patrulla de la policía (Patrulla de Policía DF A7-004).

En un movimiento esperado, uno de los oficiales de la ley se acerca y pregunta qué sucede. El clima es tenso pero impera la razón y la palabra se hace escuchar. Pregunta sobre las demandas de los manifestantes y desea el nombre de un responsable: Rubén, claman los estudiantes. El oficial de la ley afirma que va a entrar al hotel y ver qué se puede hacer, al tiempo que pide a los manifestantes que se coloquen en la banqueta porque la entrada del hotel es propiedad privada.

Luego de unos minutos sale con el policía un hombre de traje obscuro, quien se identifica como Víctor Jiménez, encargado de seguridad del hotel. El escucha lo ocurrido y pide una disculpa a nombre del hotel. Sin embargo, él no está en capacidad para sancionar a nadie y solicita que el responsable (una comisión de cuatro estudiantes) se comuniquen el lunes por la mañana para que él les canalice con la persona al mando.

Los estudiantes subrayan que en México la discriminación es un crimen. Jiménez aguanta y solicita, una vez más, una disculpa. Al final él les proporciona su teléfono directo y ellos deberán llamar este 15 de junio. Los estudiantes subrayan que esperan que todo llegue a buen puerto y subrayan que debe haber no sólo clientes sino empleados del hotel que son miembros de las comunidades de la diversidad sexo-genérica. También indican que la Marcha del Orgullo es pronto así que tienen que el hotel debe dar una respuesta expedita y contundente.

Al final, los estudiantes corean un Goya:

Rubén Durán (izquierda) y Gibran Gómez (derecha)

¿Un cuerpo de policía abiertamente gay-friendly? ¿Una ciudad civilizada donde la ley y las palabras imperan sobre el prejuicio?

Continuaremos informando…

Amig@ lector@ de Enkidu Magazine, puedes seguir algunos de los momentos más importantes de lo ocurrido filmados, en exclusiva, para tí:
 
 
 
 
 
 

Posted by Santo Gay in 04:48:02 | Permalink | No Comments »

Friday, June 12, 2009

Bill Proposes Immigration Rights for Gay Couples

WOW.  This is good news.  SG
——————————————–

Bill Proposes Immigration Rights for Gay Couples

Andrew Councill for The New York Times

Shirley Tan, with her 12-year-old twin sons, Jashley, left, and Joriene Mercado. Ms. Tan, a Filipino, has been unable to gain legal residence, while her partner, who is also a woman, has

By JULIA PRESTON
Published: June 2, 2009

Senator Patrick J. Leahy, the Democrat from Vermont who is the powerful chairman of the Judiciary Committee, is adding another controversial ingredient to the volatile mix of an immigration debate that President Obama has said he hopes to spur in Congress before the end of the year.

Mr. Leahy has offered a bill that would allow American citizens and legal immigrants to seek residency in the United States for their same-sex partners, just as spouses now petition for foreign-born husbands and wives.

The senator has said the bill should be part of any broad immigration legislation that Congress considers. To highlight his initiative, known as the Uniting American Families Act, Mr. Leahy is holding a hearing on Wednesday to discuss it in the full Judiciary Committee, bypassing the usual subcommittee hearings.

Also this week, immigrant advocacy groups and labor organizations are opening a nationwide campaign to hold President Obama to his recent pledge to initiate a Congressional debate on immigration legislation later this year.

Small-scale rallies took place on Monday in Los Angeles and some 40 other locations, and immigration groups are converging on Washington on Wednesday for three days of strategy meetings.

The Obama administration, juggling an array of huge and pressing issues on the economy and health care reform, has encouraged the mobilization of immigration advocates, especially Latino groups, while avoiding any legislative battles for now on the prickly topic of immigration. President Obama has invited a bipartisan group of lawmakers to the White House next Monday to “launch a policy conversation” about immigration, an administration official said.

The president wants to “identify areas of agreement, and areas where we still have work to do,” said the official, who would only speak on background because the final plans for the meeting were not settled.

The most contentious part of the immigration legislation that the administration supports, which is known as comprehensive immigration reform, is a program to give legal status to more than 11 million illegal immigrants living in the country. But current proposals also include a variety of measures intended, like Senator Leahy’s, to expand or streamline the legal immigration system.

Mr. Leahy’s proposal for same-sex immigration benefits was not included in the immigration legislation that the Bush administration brought forward in 2007, which failed after a firestorm of opposition, mainly from Republican voters.

Groups backing the overhaul this year have cobbled together a wide-ranging but fragile coalition that includes Latino and black groups, Roman Catholic and evangelical Christian churches, farm workers and commercial farmers, and some employer groups. In contrast to 2007, organized labor is united this time around in supporting the overhaul.

The political fault lines opened by Senator Leahy’s same-sex bill quickly became apparent this week. In a letter sent Tuesday, Bishop John C. Wester of Salt Lake City, the chairman of the Catholic bishops’ Committee on Migration, wrote that the Uniting American Families Act would “erode the institution of marriage and family,” by taking a position “that is contrary to the very nature of marriage which pre-dates the Church and the State.”

Bishop Wester addressed his letter to Representative Michael M. Honda, a California Democrat who has said he will introduce an immigration bill containing similar same-sex provisions in the House this week.

J. Kevin Appleby, the immigration policy director for the bishops’ conference, said, “The last thing the national immigration debate needs is another politically divisive issue added to the mix.”

But Senator Leahy said the bill would eliminate discrimination in immigration law against gay and lesbian couples.

Under family unification provisions in immigration law, American citizens and legal residents can petition for residency for their spouses. There is no numerical limit on permanent residence visas, known as green cards, for spouses of American citizens, and this is one of the main channels for legal immigration to the United States. Same-sex couples, though, cannot petition for partners, and many face the prospect of an immigrant partner’s deportation.

Senator Leahy’s bill would add the term “permanent partner” to sections of current immigration law that refer to married couples, and would provide a legal definition of those terms.

“I just think it’s a matter of fairness,” he said Tuesday in an interview, noting that a number of American allies, including Canada, France and Germany, recognize same-sex couples in immigration law.

The Judiciary Committee is to hear testimony on Wednesday from Shirley Tan, 43, the mother of twin 12-year-old boys who are United States citizens because they were born here. Ms. Tan has raised them with her partner of 20 years, Jay Mercado, who like Ms. Tan is from the Philippines. Although Ms. Mercado became a naturalized American citizen in 1998, she has not been able to gain legal immigration status for Ms. Tan.

Ms. Tan said she came to this country fleeing a cousin who was released from prison in the Philippines after he served 10 years for the murders of her mother and her sister. Ms. Tan said she had been severely injured in the 1979 attack by the cousin.

She applied for political asylum in the United States, she said, but did not receive notice when it was denied years later. She remained here with a provisional legal status until last Jan. 28, when federal immigration agents carrying a deportation order came to the home she shares with Ms. Mercado, 48, in Pacifica, Calif.

Since her arrest, Ms. Tan has been able to remain legally in the country because of a private bill introduced on her behalf by Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California.

Ms. Tan said she feared returning to live in the Philippines, in part because of concern that she and Ms. Mercado would face anti-gay discrimination there.

“People are cruel,” she said. “I don’t know if I can expose my boys to narrow-minded people.”

Opponents of the Leahy bill argue that it would foster immigration fraud because it would be difficult for immigration officers to determine whether same-sex couples had an established relationship.

Supporters said the bill would assist about 36,000 same-sex couples nationwide. Rachel B. Tiven, the executive director of Immigration Equality, a group that advocates for gay rights legislation, said the bill had improved chances this year because of recent same-sex marriage victories in Iowa, Maine and Vermont.

Posted by Santo Gay in 13:10:27 | Permalink | No Comments »

Monday, June 8, 2009

In macho culture, gays find acceptance in Mexico City district

Nice article, check it out, SG:

In macho culture, gays find acceptance in Mexico City district

By MAIRYS JOAQUIN
McClatchy Newspapers - Kansas City.com

Bright neon lights twinkle from bars and clubs on the otherwise dimly lit streets of the Mexican capital’s trendy Zona Rosa district. Same-sex couples embrace lovingly in public or hold hands without drawing so much as a raised eyebrow.

Only one word describes this place, 21-year-old Antonio Flores said: freedom.

“It’s really hard to be gay in the smaller, more conservative states within Mexico,” said Flores, an aspiring actor and model. “I moved to Zona Rosa not just for my career but also for a chance to finally try and be accepted within my community.”

For Flores and countless other gay people, the Zona Rosa’s urban, chic appeal - complete with fashionable restaurants, gay bars and swank boutiques - has become a haven in a country and a culture that long have rejected homosexuality and shunned homosexuals.

Gay activists say that even though laws are improving in relatively more liberal places such as Mexico City - where legislators passed a law two years ago recognizing same-sex marriages - many are still reluctant to acknowledge their sexual orientation publicly.

“Homophobia is engrained in all different parts of our culture,” said Manuel Herrera, a lesbian-gay-bisexual-transgender activist leader within Amnesty International.

Thus Mexico City’s Zona Rosa district has become for many what New York’s Greenwich Village was in the 1950s: a destination for gays attempting to escape parts of Mexico where anti-gay violence and discrimination are still common.

Flores came to the Zona Rosa three months ago from Hidalgo, a small state on Mexico’s east coast where he’d endured years of abuse in his native town, he said.

“For many years, I was afraid to come out of the closet, because this lifestyle is not condoned or accepted by any means,” he said.

Yet, Flores said, even in the Zona Rosa, things are far from perfect. Many still choose the “closeted gay life” and are “playing it both ways.”

“Right now, being gay is the hip thing to do, so a lot of people just dabble and try things out,” he said. “But when it comes down to being honest with themselves about their feelings or preferences, they take the easy route and claim to be straight.”

Herrera said that machismo and discrimination against homosexuals were difficult to escape in Mexican culture, even in areas such as La Zona.

“Yes, the laws have improved for Mexico City, but that doesn’t change people’s attitudes or dissolve the predominance of machismo within our culture,” Herrera said.

In November 2006, Mexico City legislators approved La Ley de Sociedad de Conveniencia, a law that recognized same-sex marriages within the federal district. In the United States, five states now recognize same-sex marriages: Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts and New Hampshire. It will become legal in Vermont on Sept. 1.

Despite the new law in Mexico City, however, many gays are still reluctant to acknowledge their homosexuality, and as a result, a subculture of “closeted gays” persists.

Daniel Lund of The Mund Group, a public-opinion polling firm, calls Mexico City an exception, “a bastion of social liberalism” in a society where the Roman Catholic Church still shapes views on social issues.

“You have a very secular modern society in Mexico City,” Lund said. “Full of Roman Catholics with fairly moderate ideas.”

Jonathan Perreda, a 20-year-old computer-software specialist, said that he’d been a devout Catholic his entire life. The church, he said, generally disapproves of homosexuality, but he said he’d been accepted because he’d maintained his gender identity.

“Just because I’m gay does not mean I have to act like woman,” Perreda said. “You were born a man, so you should act like one.”

Herrera said that machismo remained prevalent in Mexico, even within the gay community. He said there was a difference between being classified as “gay” and being “homosexual.”

“Being homosexual is just having the preference to be with the same sex,” he said, “but to be gay is to be involved in it politically, which most people don’t want to do.”

But, Herrera added, because of the stigmas attached to both, many avoid labels altogether. This causes concern about the spread of sexually transmitted diseases.

“They don’t consider themselves gay, but will have relations with the same sex one night and go back and have relations with someone of the opposite sex the next night,” Herrera said. “Many times, these individuals are not being safe, and they aid in the spread (of) HIV and AIDS.”

According to a study by The American Foundation for AIDS Research released last year at a global AIDS conference in Mexico City, gay and bisexual men in Latin America are 33 percent more likely to be infected with HIV than the general population is. In Mexico, 26 percent of men who’d had sex with men had HIV, the highest rate in Latin America.

Herrera said the root of closeted homosexuality in Mexico was the ideological dichotomy in the country.

“The truth is, despite advancements, homosexuals in Mexico are not yet free,” he said. “Those who maintain themselves in the same safe circle of friends may feel free, but the moment they begin to branch out, they’d begin to see the discrimination that still exists … even in Mexico City. … Not everyone wants to deal with that.”

(Joaquin is a student at Penn State University. This story was reported from Mexico City for a class in international journalism.)

Posted by Santo Gay in 17:29:29 | Permalink | No Comments »

Thursday, June 4, 2009

Gay Filipino gets asylum in historic US case

Global Networking
Gay Filipino gets asylum in historic US case
By Rodel Rodis
INQUIRER.net
First Posted 17:36:00 06/04/2009

Filed Under: Americas - United States, Migration, Justice & Rights, Gender Issues

CALIFORNIA, United States—A gay Filipino was granted political asylum in an historic US case.

Because Philip Belarmino, 43, was subjected to rapes and repeated sexual harassments as a boy and because Philippine police are “known to be corrupt” and the Philippine government is “unable to curtail their corruption,” a San Francisco immigration judge ruled on May 21, 2009 that Belarmino was entitled to political asylum in the US.

Belarmino, an English professor in the Philippines who entered the US on a visitor’s visa in 2005, had been placed in deportation proceedings for overstaying his visa. Through his immigration attorney, Ted Laguatan, he subsequently applied for political asylum by claiming that he would be subjected to persecution in the Philippines because of his sexual orientation.

At his individual merits hearing, Belarmino recounted that when he was as young as nine years old, he had been forced to engage in oral and anal sex by older bullies. He recalled that at age 16, he was repeatedly raped by a houseboy who threatened him with a knife. He said that he did not report the rapes to the police for fear that they vwould only extort money from him or even use him for “their sexual pleasures.”

Immigration Judge Loreto Geisse found Belarmino’s testimony to be credible and determined that he would suffer persecution on the basis of his “membership in a particular social group” which was being a homosexual in the Philippines and granted him asylum.

Just eight years before Belarmino’s case, a gay Mexican (Boer-Sedano), who similarly applied for political asylum, claimed at his San Francisco Immigration Court hearing on November 15, 2001 that he would suffer persecution in Mexico because of his gender. He testified that he was repeatedly raped by a “high ranking police officer” who pointed a gun to his head and told him that if he killed him, he was certain that would not be charged with murder but congratulated for “cleaning up society.”

On November 20, 2001, the immigration judge (IJ) denied Boer-Sedano’s application for asylum ruling that he had failed to establish past persecution “on account of a protected basis” and that he had failed to seek protection from the authorities. The IJ concluded that the sex acts that Boer-Sedano was forced to perform by the police officer were simply “a personal problem” he had with this officer.

The IJ further concluded that Boer-Sedano had not established a well-founded fear of persecution because “he was not subject to systematic persecution which prevented him from living his chosen life style” and because there was no evidence of systematic official persecution of homosexuals in Mexico.

Boer-Sedano appealed the IJ’s decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which subsequently affirmed the IJ’s ruling without opinion. He then appealed the BIA decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

To qualify for asylum, an alien applicant must show that he was a refugee or one “who is unable or unwilling to return to his native country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.”

The IJ had rejected Boer-Sedano’s argument that he was persecuted on account of his membership in the particular social group of male homosexuals in Mexico because she found that this did not constitute a particular social group for asylum purposes.

On August 12, 2005, the Ninth Circuit ruled that the IJ and the BIA erred because “alien homosexuals” constitute a particular social group. “Whether particular acts constitute persecution for asylum purposes is a legal question…We have held that sexual assault, including forced oral sex, may constitute persecution… Therefore, there can be no doubt that the nine sex acts that Boer-Sedano was forced to perform rise to the level of persecution.”

The Ninth Circuit further determined that Boer-Sedano’s failure to seek help from officials was understandable given the status of the officer who was victimizing him and the fear he had as a gay man living in a country where homosexuality, while not a crime, is socially unacceptable.

The difference in the immigration judges’ contrasting decision in the cases of Belarmino and Boer-Sedano also show that applying for political asylum is like playing Russian roulette—land the right judge and you win, land the wrong judge and you lose.

In the summer of 2001, two Egyptian male lovers came to the US for a vacation. After they overstayed their visas, they were placed in removal (deportation) proceedings. Because they did not apply within one year of their arrival, they could not apply for political asylum but they could apply for “withholding of removal,” which is a form of relief similar to asylum.

Married couples can usually appear before the same judge but because the Egyptians were not married to each other, they were assigned to different judges. The one assigned to an IJ who denied more than 90 percent of the asylum claims before him denied his withholding of removal application and ordered him deported back to Egypt. The other one who was assigned to a more liberal judge was granted his relief and subsequently received a green card.

Both had filed similar claims alleging past harassment, beatings, hospitalization, and lack of police response but received opposite results. Even though Boer-Sedano had a stronger argument for asylum in 2001 than Belarmino did in 2009, the immigration judges who heard their cases differed in their rulings.

Commenting on the historic significance of the Belarmino ruling, lawyer Ted Laguatan stated: “This decision by Judge Geisse gives a strong message to the world that gay people should not be persecuted for being gay. Persecuting gay people is no different from persecuting people simply because they are of a different color or nationality. This decision provides encouragement and hope to gay communities in their struggle to end discrimination and harassment against them.”

Send comments to Rodel50@aol.com or mail them to the Law Offices of Rodel Rodis at 2429 Ocean Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94127. For past columns, log on to Rodel50.blogspot.com.

Posted by Santo Gay in 14:31:41 | Permalink | No Comments »