Archive

Posts Tagged ‘murder’

Killing an Abortion Doctor: Maybe Not So Bad, Judge Rules

January 12th, 2010 1 comment

The judge in the George Tiller homicide case has ruled that, at least for now, the defense may present the jury with the lesser charge of voluntary manslaughter. If convicted on this lesser charge, Scott Roeder may end up spending only a few years in prison for what everyone agrees was a deliberate act: Roeder walked up to Tiller in church, put a gun to his head, and calmly pulled the trigger.

Why voluntary manslaughter? That’s the usual conviction where the defendant believes, unreasonably but sincerely, that he needs to take a life in self-defense, or in defense of a third party. Here, though, the claim is quite different. Roeder claims that he believed he was saving the life of unborn children from Tiller, who performed some late-term abortions.

The judge’s decision to allow this theory to proceed beggars belief. Whatever Roeder’s personal, philosophical or religious convictions, the plain fact is that Tiller was performing procedures that are legal and sanctioned by the state. Would the judge allow this lesser-crime argument to be made by a defendant who killed a flag-burner because he thought that was the only way to prevent terrorist attacks? The logic is a bit more attenuated, but the theory is the same: As long as you have a good-faith (if nutso) belief in what you’re doing, let the arguments for ¬†reduced culpability begin.

If this works, expect further violence against abortion providers. We’ve already got a good example of how this ruling will embolden other “baby-saving” killers: The “Rev.” Don Spitz, who runs this astonishing website calling for violence against doctors who perform abortions, pronounced himself “flabbergasted, but in a good way,” at the ruling. The site applauds Scott Roeder. Click over at your own risk.

Were I the prosecutor, I would immediately take whatever steps I could to get this insane decision reversed: stay, mandamus — whatever the local rules allow. This dangerous action can’t go unchallenged.

Boiled in Oil

November 29th, 2009 No comments

A few years ago, Martina Navratilova was asked about how her openness about being a lesbian had affected her tennis career. In characteristically honest and amusing fashion, she had this assessment (and here I paraphrase): Well, it wasn’t great. It cost me some fans, I took some heat for it, and I lost almost all of my endorsements. But it could have been worse. In the Middle Ages, I would have been boiled in oil.

A great line from a terrific and warm champion. (I had the pleasure of meeting her a few years ago at yet another event where she was being honored, and she was both humble and funny in accepting.) But, with all respect: Worse things are happening to gays today.

Jamaica’s horrendous treatment of gays — by both officials and the public — has been well-documented, and is (again) sometimes justified by religion. In addition to the legion of under-noticed stories on the brutal murders and beatings of gay men goings on there, there is this “gem” from Wayne Besen at Huff Post, which chillingly attests to the extent of the homophobia:

[T]he Jamaica Cancer Society has raised concerns that the fear of being labeled gay is causing some Jamaican men to avoid prostate examinations, causing one of the highest prostate cancer rates in the world.

This also means that doctors are complicit in some way, which is worse – but not surprising. Both straight and gay men who undergo a prostate exam in the U.S. often hear snarky comments about the exam from their docs, an artifact of the fear of gay sex.

In Iraq, an unintended consequence of our “liberation” the people has been the coordinated — and militia-supported — murder of many gay men. Things were better for gays under Saddam Hussein. Again, the fear of gay sex is the driver: The linked story relates stories of gay men having their anuses glued shut, and then force-fed laxatives; a painful death ensues.

These heartbreaking stories find expression in the U.S. as well, where a collision of religious belief and homophobia lead to actions that are equally repugnant, yet little noticed.

The creepy, secretive¬† cabal known as “The Family” is supporting the Ugandan government’s push to make homosexuality punishable by death. This story is a good primer on this corrupt, politically powerful, organization, which uses religious belief chiefly to gain tax advantages and to support the opulent lifestyles of its members. Jeff Sharlot’s exhaustive account of the group, The Family, would be expected to drive these nuts out of business — but this is a nation where torture is redefined and no one who authorized blatantly illegal practices gets prosecuted for it, so I’m not optimistic.

You’ll notice that the stories, and the actions of these anti-gay groups, focus on gay men, not lesbians. While there’s plenty of anti-lesbian sentiment to go around (and well-documented economic costs to being lesbian), sex between males remains particularly transgressive. A few years ago, a colleague introduced me to a list serve for Constitutional Law professors (after about two days of endless, theoretical postings, I got out of there), and I was astonished to see a comment from one anti-gay law professor joking that he, himself, didn’t understand male sex (the comment was much worse than that; I’m sanitizing for your protection).¬† And this is a supposedly respectable law professor.

Of course, Obama would never make such a comment. But he would — and has — ignored the 720 murders of gays in Iraq, despite clear and persuasive reporting on the topic. As far as I can tell, he’s said nothing about Jamaica, either (and has not responded to this suggestion, either).

I’m not naive enough to think that the Administration can get involved in every controversy, or that it should put issues of concern to the gay community ahead of other diplomatic goals. But we’re not talking about small stuff here. People are being killed, with something at least close to official approval, and…silence. With no other group would this be considered business as usual.

There’s something else. It’s hard to say much about what’s going on in other countries when your own domestic record is less than exemplary. Here’s where all of this ties back to marriage equality, if only in theoretical political terms. By not committing himself to that goal, Obama is stating, in effect, that he doesn’t favor full citizenship for gay and lesbians. So even though Obama is leagues away from dangerous right-wing nuts like the members of “The Family,” his credibility on gay issues is compromised. Perhaps that explains his otherwise puzzling silence.