During the first 10 years of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," 244 medical specialists were discharged from the armed forces. Former military health pro: "You don't just go out on the street tomorrow and pluck someone from the general population who has an Air Force education, someone trained as a physician, someone who bleeds Air Force blue, who is willing to serve and that you can send to Iraq tomorrow."
Playing to his base: New Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper chomping at the bit to re-open the issue of same-sex marriage, even though he knows the motion is likely to be rejected.
California passes legislation to limit use of "gay panic" defense, a defense method that should be limited elsewhere as well.
Posted Jan. 27,2006 at 10:32 AM EST by Andy Towle in Elsewhere | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c730253ef00d834a51bdd69e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference :
Yes Andy,
I told you this wd happen.
Prime Minister Harper will try the parliamentary free vote--and get nowhere fast.
Canadians are way too liberal. He was elected--not by me!--for a change in people not for a change in policy.
At the very least, there may be less animosity between a prime minister and a president, and LESS ANTI-AMERICANism as a result.
Posted by: Gilli | Jan 27, 2006 10:45:30 AM
Gilli,
Let's hope you are right. The current US administration was "elected" (I'm still stung from the voter fraud controversey) and I thought "we are New Yorkers - we are too liberal". Fast forward to war, wiretapping, lies, and corruption.
Posted by: DP | Jan 27, 2006 10:52:22 AM
harper's a cowboy, from canada's Bayern.
and he voted Iraq.
Posted by: A.J. | Jan 27, 2006 10:56:20 AM
There are actually two seperate defenses under criminal law related to homosexuality.
The first being provocation by homosexual advance under which a person claims they were provoked into killing the gay person because they made a sexual advanced at them, thus reducing a murder charge to manslaughter.
The second is the "gay panic" defense which is actually more similar to the insanity defense. In this defense, the attacker has some form of consenual sexual encounter with the victim and after the act is completed begins to panic after reflecting on his actions and thus kills the victim.
It seems like the CA law, without actually reading the law, is looking to control the second type of defense rather than the first.
Posted by: Matt | Jan 27, 2006 11:07:34 AM
Matt,
Here's a copy of the California "Gay Panic" Legislation:
BILL NUMBER: AB 1160 AMENDED
BILL TEXT
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY JANUARY 18, 2006
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY JANUARY 4, 2006
INTRODUCED BY Assembly Member Lieber
( Coauthors: Assembly Members
Jones, Koretz, and Torrico )
FEBRUARY 22, 2005
An act relating to crime.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL’S DIGEST
AB 1160, as amended, Lieber Crime.
Existing law provides that a person who commits a felony that is a
hate crime or attempts to commit a felony that is a hate crime, shall receive an additional term of one, 2, or 3 years in the state prison, as specified. Existing law, Judicial Council of California Criminal Jury Instruction No. 200, provides that is the duty of the trier of fact not to let “bias, sympathy, prejudice, or public opinion” influence its decision.
This bill would state legislative findings and declarations regarding the influence of a defendant’s bias against the victim upon the trier of fact in a criminal proceeding and defendants’ use of panic strategies based upon discovery or knowledge of an actual or perceived characteristic of their victim to decrease criminal culpability for crime.
This bill would also state legislative intent that Judicial Council of California Criminal Jury Instructions define “bias” to include bias based upon a victim’s actual or perceived disability, gender, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation, or association with a person or group with one or more of these characteristics.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: no.
State-mandated local program: no.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION. 1. The Legislature hereby finds and declares all of the following:
(a) California law defines a hate crime as a criminal act committed, in whole or in part, because of the actual or perceived disability, gender, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation of the victim, or his or her association with a person or group with one or more of these actual or perceived characteristics.
(b) It is the right of every person regardless of actual or perceived disability, gender, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation, or association with a person or group with these actual or perceived characteristics, to be secure and protected from fear, intimidation, and physical harm caused by the actions of violent groups and individuals.
(c) “Bias” includes bias based upon the victim’s actual or perceived disability, gender, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation, or his or the victim’s association with a person or group with one or more of these characteristics.
(d) It is against public policy for juries to render decisions tainted by bias based upon the victim’s actual or perceived disability, gender, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion , or sexual orientation, or his or her association with a person or group with one or more of these characteristics.
(e) “Panic strategies” are those strategies that try to explain a defendant’s actions or emotional reactions based upon the knowledge or discovery of the fact that the victim possesses one or more of the characteristics listed above or associates with a person or group with one or more of the those characteristics.
(f) The Legislature is concerned about the use of societal bias in criminal proceedings and the susceptibility of juries to such bias. The use of so-called “panic strategies” by defendants in criminal trials opens the door for bias against victims based on one or more of the characteristics listed above or an association with a person or group with one or more of those characteristics.
(g) It is against public policy for a defendant to be acquitted of a charged offense or convicted of a lesser included offense based upon an appeal to the societal bias that may be possessed by members of a jury.
SEC. 2. It is the intent of the Legislature that Judicial Council of California Criminal Jury Instructions No. 200 reflect the legislative policy stated in this act , by defining “bias” as provided in this act.
Posted by: Robert In WeHo | Jan 27, 2006 12:34:57 PM
Stephen Harper has done just what the Republicans in the United States have done: lied. He said that gay marriage would not be a priority of his government prior to the election. Now it is a top priority. What happened? He is appealing to his base and he will push legislation to ban gay marriage as payment for support from the conservative wing of his party -- his base. He wants to do this early before the opposition organizes and so that voters will forget before the next inevitable election. In my view, anyone who thinks differently is in denial. Canada will see an inflow of U.S. dollars to support the conservative cause so that U.S. conservatives can use it in the United States as amunition against gay rights there.
Conservatives have no integrity whether they live in Canada or in the United States or for that matter anywhere else.
Posted by: Bob Cassidy | Jan 27, 2006 1:55:27 PM
Just to be clear to all what Stephen Harper is almost certainly doing: he *knows* he won't be able to rescind the bill that was passed under Martin, so he can say he fulfilled hsi promise to his people, and yet the bill will still stand. The majority of the gov't is still Liberals + New Democrats + Bloc Quebecois--> who passed the vill in the first place. And they will vote against Harper, the issue will be gone, and he'll be able to tell his people he fought for it. end of story.
Posted by: gordon | Jan 27, 2006 4:19:22 PM
>>During the first 10 years of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," 244 medical specialists were discharged from the armed forces.
Parameters, US Army War College Quarterly, Summer 2003
Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell: Is the Gay Ban
Based on Military Necessity?
by Aaron Belkin
Currently, 24 nations allow gays and lesbians to serve in their armed forces, and only a few NATO members continue to fire homosexual soldiers. Despite the growing number of countries that have decided to allow gays and lesbians to serve in uniform, however, there has been little in-depth analysis of whether the lifting of a gay ban influences military performance.
The lack of in-depth analysis of foreign experiences in lifting bans on homosexual personnel prompted the Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military (CSSMM) to examine four cases in detail: Australia, Canada, Israel, and Britain. To prepare the case studies, every identifiable pro-gay and anti-gay expert on the policy change in each country was interviewed, including officers and enlisted personnel, ministry representatives, academics, veterans, politicians, and nongovernmental observers. During each interview, experts were asked to recommend additional contacts, all of whom were contacted. By the end of our research, 104 experts were interviewed and 622 documents and articles were examined. Although it is possible that additional data exist, CSSMM believes that the findings reflect a comprehensive appraisal of all relevant evidence.
Each of the four countries studied reversed its gay ban for different reasons. In Canada, federal courts forced the armed forces to lift the ban in October 1992, ruling that military policy violated Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In Australia, the liberal government of Prime Minister Paul Keating voted to lift the ban in November 1992 as the country was integrating a number of international human rights conventions into its domestic laws and codes. In Israel, the military lifted its ban in June 1993 after dramatic Knesset hearings prompted a public outcry against the armed forces’ exclusion of gay and lesbian soldiers. And in Britain, in September 1999, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that Britain’s gay ban violated the right to privacy guaranteed in the European Convention on Human Rights, and London reacted by lifting the ban in January 2000. Despite the different routes that led to the policy change in each country, the lessons drawn from each case were the same.
No Impact
Not a single one of the 104 experts interviewed believed that the Australian, Canadian, Israeli, or British decisions to lift their gay bans undermined military performance, readiness, or cohesion, led to increased difficulties in recruiting or retention, or increased the rate of HIV infection among the troops.
Posted by: Jay Croce | Jan 27, 2006 9:52:28 PM
To say nothing of the dozens of gay Arabic speaking translators dismissed prior to 9/11 though it was determined that the lack of Arabic translators lead to an inability to connect the dots.
Homophobia was a contributing factor to the failure of intelligence that lead to the 9/11 disaster.
Posted by: Chad Hanging | Jan 30, 2006 11:07:43 PM