![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rewriting civil rights and history
The ACLU has posted a section by section analysis of Patriot II. Just in case you find yourself wanting to know even more about the DOJ's latest nefarious plans for your personal surveillance life.
As for rewriting history, that would be the ultra-conservatives in the Minnesota Legislature, who are attempting to repeal the part of the state's Human Rights Act that applies to sexual orientation. Allegedly, requiring landlords, employers, and the like to not discriminate based on sexual orientation is actually discrimination against "Christians". (I put that in parentheses because these are the same whackos that don't seem to have anything in common with the concept of Christianity that I was taught in Sunday School.)
In fact, they even want to go so far as to change the definition of "Holocaust Survivor" to remove any reference to sexual orientation! (H.F No. 341, as introduced: 83rd Legislative Session (2003-2004); changing section 60A.053, subdivision 1(a), plus others)
They want to change it to:
Of course, that's the only part the wingnuts haven't publicized- probably because they'd have to know there'd be a backlash against at least that part of it.
That part confuses me anyway- are they trying to deny that Nazi's considered homosexuals to be "undesirables", and if so, doesn't that denial conflict with the wingnut's own insistence that homosexuals are undesirables now? Or is this their way of saying that the Nazi's were right to slaughter homosexuals, but not the other groups? If so, who's next on their list?
They claim that they want to remove "sexual orientation" because it's a "choice"; if they want to remove the "choices", they'd better get rid of creed and religion- oops, that would negate their claim that not being allowed to discriminate based on sexual orientation is discrimination against "Christians".... darn, this is getting really confusing.
I should know by now not to look for rationality or consistency - except for "we hate anyone who isn't exactly like us" - in anything espoused by the wingnuts. They do about as well with that as they do with upholding their own declared standards.
As for rewriting history, that would be the ultra-conservatives in the Minnesota Legislature, who are attempting to repeal the part of the state's Human Rights Act that applies to sexual orientation. Allegedly, requiring landlords, employers, and the like to not discriminate based on sexual orientation is actually discrimination against "Christians". (I put that in parentheses because these are the same whackos that don't seem to have anything in common with the concept of Christianity that I was taught in Sunday School.)
In fact, they even want to go so far as to change the definition of "Holocaust Survivor" to remove any reference to sexual orientation! (H.F No. 341, as introduced: 83rd Legislative Session (2003-2004); changing section 60A.053, subdivision 1(a), plus others)
They want to change it to:
(a) "Holocaust survivor" or "Holocaust victim" means any
person who was persecuted, imprisoned or liable to imprisonment,
or had property taken or confiscated during the period of 1933
to 1945, inclusive, by Nazi Germany, its allies, or sympathizers
based on that person's race, religion, ethnicity, physical or
mental disability,sexual orientation,or similar class or
group-based animus;
Of course, that's the only part the wingnuts haven't publicized- probably because they'd have to know there'd be a backlash against at least that part of it.
That part confuses me anyway- are they trying to deny that Nazi's considered homosexuals to be "undesirables", and if so, doesn't that denial conflict with the wingnut's own insistence that homosexuals are undesirables now? Or is this their way of saying that the Nazi's were right to slaughter homosexuals, but not the other groups? If so, who's next on their list?
They claim that they want to remove "sexual orientation" because it's a "choice"; if they want to remove the "choices", they'd better get rid of creed and religion- oops, that would negate their claim that not being allowed to discriminate based on sexual orientation is discrimination against "Christians".... darn, this is getting really confusing.
I should know by now not to look for rationality or consistency - except for "we hate anyone who isn't exactly like us" - in anything espoused by the wingnuts. They do about as well with that as they do with upholding their own declared standards.