August 31, 2019

The Rejection of Gay Asylum Seekers Claims Shows The Anti Gay Attitudes in England



                                       Image result for homophobic england



An immigration judge in the United Kingdom has caused a storm amongst LGBT rights activists after he rejected an asylum seeker’s claims that he was gay. Whilst full details of the case have not been revealed, the asylum seeker, according to reporting from the Guardian newspaper, claimed he was fleeing his country due to fears for his own safety. The judge denied the application for asylum in the first-tier immigration tribunal in London because the man did not have a gay “demeanor.” The claimant’s barrister compared the ruling to “something from the 16th century,” with LGBT activists voicing their disapproval. But what does this case tell us of the treatment of LGBT asylum seekers, and is it indicative of the Brexit-torn country’s future immigration stance?
The stereotyping of gay men during the 1980s and 1990s, fuelled by homophobic government legislation and media coverage, resulted in a societal fear of gay men and the broader LGBT community.

Hadley Stewart 
Writer, broadcaster, and journalist
Gay men face the death penalty in 14 countries across the world. The European Union is comparatively accepting of LGBT people on the global stage, yet lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans-Europeans continue to face other forms of prejudice and discrimination in their daily lives. According to the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association, the UK is ranked eighth in the EU in terms of LGBT rights. The country remains a popular place for LGBT people to settle from continental Europe and further afield. So it is perhaps unsurprising that such an outdated view of LGBT people being expressed in a court of law has caused a stir amongst activists and human rights defenders. 
The judge exemplified why he thought the claimant was lying about his sexuality. The claimant’s witness - also a gay man - wore lipstick to court. The judge commented on this, suggesting that claimant’s appearance did not mirror that of other gay men. Moreover, the judge said that the witness had an “effeminate way of looking around the room” and that he was able to demonstrate his sexuality by his membership of an LGBT organization.
It is baffling that a judge would make such comments, which are deep-rooted in stigma towards gay men. These comments have no place in a court of law, nor in our society, and suggesting that somebody should “prove” their sexuality is nonsensical. In fact, I would argue that it mirrors practices in countries where homosexuality is illegal. Only a few years have passed since the United Nations called on the government of Tunisia to ban doctors practicing forced anal examinations of men who were “suspected” of being gay; practices that were deemed by the intergovernmental organization as a human rights infringement. There is no medical evidence to support claims that such examinations enable authorities to determine somebody’s sexuality.
Whilst the judge’s comments do not equate to these kinds of barbaric practices in countries where it is illegal to be gay, they do set the UK down a slippery slope. The stereotyping of gay men during the 1980s and 1990s, fuelled by homophobic government legislation and media coverage, resulting in a societal fear of gay men and the broader LGBT community. The discourse surrounding the HIV crisis, and the insinuation from Margaret Thatcher that gay men threatened the values of her country, caused the isolation of this group within society. Poor mental health amongst LGBT people is often cited alongside discrimination and societal stigma, demonstrating the negative consequences such comments can have on those who hear them. These views belong in the past and have no place in today’s society.
What’s more, the judge’s comments also raise questions about the attitudes of authorities towards LGBT people. If a judge felt so at ease by making such offensive remarks, it begs the question of the extent to which homophobia can creep into immigration rulings and other Home Office matters. Arguably Prime Minster Johnson calling gay men “tank-topped bumboys” has the potential to give the green light to senior officials to make future comments of this nature, or use offensive views towards minorities to defend everything from court rulings to immigration policies.
The UK is currently going through a challenging time in its history as it attempts to divorce the EU. Whilst I am not suggesting that everybody who voted for Brexit is prejudiced, Brexit certainly caused a seismic shift of the political landscape, with offensive comments oozing through the fault lines. Racist and xenophobic comments seem to have found a rebirth amongst the general public, elected representatives and the media. Global politics, namely the throw-away comments made by President Donald Trump about immigrants, have further galvanized a once quiet minority within British society.
Such discriminatory views about immigration have also spilled across all aspects of society, perhaps in part demonstrated by the number of homophobic hate crimes doubling since 2014, with transphobic hate crimes trebling. This immigration case might be indicative of the need for reform, such as building bridges between courts and LGBT organizations, to ensure LGBT people are being treated fairly by the Home Office.
It is clear that the judge, in this case, lost all objectivity and prioritized his own archaic homophobic views when passing a judgment, which has the potential for devastating consequences for the claimant. Whilst the comments he made raises further questions about the influence of outmoded stigma creeping its way into future rulings, I would argue that they are symptomatic of broader societal unrest. At a time when the UK has never been more divided and lacking in empathy for minority groups, the country is in need of a unifying force to carry it through the next chapter of its history. I fear that the views expressed by the country’s current leadership are only validating such stigmatizing comments.
Hadley Stewart is a London-based writer, broadcaster and journalist.

Referee Halts Game Over Anti Gay Banners in France



                              
French referee Clement Turpin halted the match between Nice and Marseille because of anti-gay banners in the stands. Getty Images


  • ESPN, Reuters


The coaches of Nice and Marseille and France's equality minister have all praised the referee who interrupted the Ligue 1 match on Wednesday because of anti-gay banners in the home crowd.

France's equality minister Marlene Schiappa said the banners had sullied the stands while Nice coach Patrick Vieira said referee Clement Turpin had been left with "no choice." 

The play was stopped in the first half for around 10 minutes and players left the field over the banners displayed by Nice fans.

French media also reported anti-gay chanting during the match which Marseille won 2-1. 
"The referee was right to stop the match," Vieira, the former Arsenal, and France midfielder said.

"These things are unacceptable. The message was clear, and the referee didn't have a choice.

He could have maybe given us a bit more time to go and see the supporters and to ask them to remove the banner. But he explained things to me that I fully understand.

"I hope that this won't happen again, in Nice or in any stadium."

Vieira's opposite number Andre Villas-Boas agreed the referee made the "right decision."

Schiappa said in a Tweet that Nice fans had ignored "several requests" to withdraw the banners.

"Football is a passion, not hate," she said.

The French league has promised to crack down on anti-gay chanting this season which has already seen a second-tier match between Nancy and Le Mans interrupted.



August 30, 2019

Gay Gnome and The Gay Family and It Shows 'No Preference' but Orientation, Etc.


For the past two years after writing about the gay gene(no single gay gene but a part of the human >Gnome in which indicates the part that makes the last push to make a man, woman and the sexual orientation of both no matter what sexual tools nature supplied them with but was not able to find someone who can also write about this but with more equipment than mine not physically speaking but having the name to follow and have people stop and listen. Jeremy does it for me. You will be both educated and entertain on this subject even if you are a physician or scientist that already is educated on this new discovery. If you haven't followed, then is a time you start learning and stop saying sexual preference (OIC!!)
Adam Gonzalez


                          






This piece is part of the Legacies issue, a special Pride Month series from Outward, Slate’s home for coverage of LGBTQ life, thought, and culture. Read an introduction to the issue here.

More on Legacies
It’s Time for the LGBTQ Movement to Return to Its Democratic Socialist Roots

The Current Consent Discourse Might Seem New. But It Has Roots Much Deeper Than #MeToo.

Lots of Queers Used to Criticize Marriage. So Why Have So Many of Them Walked Down the Aisle?
Netflix’s Tales of the City Gives Me Hope for Queer Intergenerational Communication
Queer people have a complicated relationship with our genes. On the one hand, “born this way” is recognized as the argument that won same-sex relationships equal treatment under the law. On the other hand, actually thinking about what it means for same-sex orientation to have a genetic basis can get awkward, fast.

Long before I came out as gay and completed a Ph.D. in evolutionary biology, I was a closeted teenager with just enough understanding of natural selection to be a danger to myself. Homosexuality couldn’t be genetic, I reasoned (in the confines of my own head, and in cafeteria conversations after biology class, and once in a kitchen-counter exchange with my mother that is still seared into my memory), because gene variants that make people uninterested in the kind of sex that makes babies should be eliminated from the population in a generation. If homosexuality wasn’t genetic, whatever it was that I felt about other boys was only in my head, and therefore fully under my control.


I eventually learned better, in so many ways. Notably, a trait being genetic (or not) isn’t remotely the same as it is a fundamental part of a person’s being (or not). But also that there is good evidence for a genetic basis to same-sex attraction, and that this is far from anathema to natural selection.

Biologists have proposed a number of hypotheses for how “gay gene” variants might evolve and persist. They might reappear through mutation as quickly as selection eliminates them. They might boost reproductive output in small “doses”—if there are, say, 10 genes that affect an orientation, maybe someone carrying gay variants at five will still be straight but raise more children than someone carrying no gay variants. Or maybe variants that make men more likely to be the gay boost the fertility of straight women who carry them. Or it’s even possible that gay men and women contribute to the next generation indirectly by helping close relatives raise more children. I haven’t contributed directly to this line of scholarship, but I keep abreast of it for obvious reasons, and it’s tended to make me optimistic about the value of research into the genetics underlying my queer identity.


A world in which a genetic screen for queerness exists seems to me to be a world that’s less safe for queer people.

That optimism hasn’t been universally shared by other queer biologists, though. One of the most prominent is Douglas Futuyma, who wrote the very textbook from which I teach evolutionary biology and who was out as a gay man in the field since the 1980s. Futuyma’s research focuses on interactions between plants and insects, as does mine, so I’ve long seen him as something of a role model. (I was terrified to learn he was in the audience for my first-ever presentation at a scientific conference and grateful that he didn’t grill me too badly in the Q&A afterward.)

Thirty-five years ago, in the Journal of Homosexuality, Futuyma and his colleague Stephen Risch expressed strong skepticism in research seeking a genetic basis to same-sex attraction—both the prospects that it would succeed and its potential impacts on the queer community. “Most of the psychological and medical literature on homosexual behavior concerns ways to prevent or to ‘cure’ it,” Futuyma and Risch noted, and finding a genetic basis for orientation is the prerequisite for that “cure.” Even studies aiming to promote acceptance of queer identities were, they argued, fundamentally flawed.


Research continued all the same, and studies comparing the sexual orientation of identical twins (who share 100 percent of their genes) to fraternal twins (who share half their genes, like non-twinned siblings) established that genetics contribute to orientation, even though specific causal genes were elusive. Futuyma remained leery, though. In 2005, writing in the journal Evolution, he reiterated the unease that underlay his original objections: “There is only a short distance between understanding the genetic or environmental origins of sexual variation and the possibility of intervention—in medical terms, ‘cure.’ ”

When I read that article as a graduate student, this thought seemed pessimistic, verging on paranoid. The methods of evolutionary genetics that I was learning seemed only to open up exciting promises if we only knew the gene variants responsible for sexual orientation. We could use patterns in the frequency of such variants across human populations, and in the DNA sequences near them, to reconstruct the history of natural selection acting on them. This approach has revealed how humans evolved traits with known genetic bases, like the ability to digest milk as adults and tolerance of high-altitude conditions. A list of genes contributing to same-sex orientation could reveal how queer folks have lived over millennia of human history. 

It could also revise queer folks’ relationship to our ancestry. Like most gay men, I was born to straight parents, and (barring the sort of revelation that would upend a family reunion) my grandparents were just as straight. I can’t trace my queerness back along my family tree, in the same way, I can trace my blue eyes, my small but sturdy stature, or my ancestors’ immigration from the Low Countries to the colony of Pennsylvania to freely practice a fringe take on Protestantism. But the genes that help make me gay form another kind of family tree, intertwined with and beyond the one recorded in the family Bible. The branches of that tree are a biological link from me to my queer chosen family, and to queer historical figures who have shaped the world we live in today, from Harvey Milk to Sappho.


We may be closer than ever to tracing that tree. Last year, a team working with very large datasets from the U.K. Biobank and the “personal genomics” company 23andMe reported, at two different conferences, that they’ve identified about 40 genes at which different variants are associated with differences in orientation. Adding up the effects of many more genes into “polygenic scores” accounted for up to 20 percent of the variation in sexual orientation—not the full genetic effect seen in twin studies, but not nothing. The collaborators haven’t published a formal peer-reviewed article yet, but it looks likely that the final, fully reported project will be solid work.

So why, on the threshold of that revelation, do I find myself occupied with Futuyma’s worries about the search for gay genes?


Maybe it’s because I’ve seen how humanity is applying for the advances in genetics we’ve acquired just since I began my scientific career. Genome-scale descriptions of human diversity have been accompanied by a resurgence of “scientific” definitions of race, and law enforcement started mining genealogy databases to pinpoint suspects from their relatives’ DNA before anyone seems to have thought through the privacy implications. The former is a misunderstanding of genetic data while the latter is a misuse—but both are harmful in ways that geneticists had not fully anticipated before publishing. Last year saw the birth of children whose genomes had been edited—most geneticists agree this was beyond the pale, but that consensus didn’t have much preventative power, it turns out.

Closer to the issue at hand, polygenic scores like the one calculated for same-sex orientation in that soon-to-be-released study are already being used to screen embryos fertilized in vitro for risks of disease and mental disability, even though the effectiveness of such screening hasn’t been evaluated. (It may be quite low.) The co-founder of Genomic Prediction, the company offering that testing, has said he expects to eventually select embryos for higher intelligence and envisions offering that service in a country where such “soft eugenics” isn’t regulated. Genomic Prediction might balk at screening embryos for prospective sexual orientation, but none of the component parts of the procedure are out of reach for people with fewer qualms.


Such a technology would probably not, realistically, put homosexuality at risk of extinction. But a world in which even a genetic screen for queerness exists—whether it’s rarely used or ineffective—seems to me to be a world that’s less safe for queer people. For one thing: Imagine growing up gay, knowing that your parents could have paid to ensure you were straight before you were even in utero. Then, too, anti-gay governments from midcentury Canada to modern Tunisia have shown far too much interest in “objective” tests for homosexuality, regardless of how accurate those tests actually are. And all this is apart from the subtler issues arising from reducing sexual orientation to something you can diagnose with a genetic test.

I have no doubt the authors of the pending study of genes underlying sexual orientation are working with the best of intentions. From what I’ve seen, they’ve followed the ethical and methodological standards of our field to the letter, and then some. I expect they’re motivated by the discoveries the project may ultimately provide, just as I used to see research into the biology of sexuality as an unalloyed good. But given the world into which those discoveries will be released, I’ve come to think that uncovering queer folks’ shared genetic legacy comes with real risks for our future. Genetic studies can reveal the queer family tree reaching back through time—but making that tree visible also makes it vulnerable to those who would happily uproot it. 

 

Trump Shared "A Great American Campaign" Vid. With a Logo Idolizing Mussolini and White Ntionalists


                      Image result for trump white racist




President Donald Trump shared a “Keep America Great’ campaign video on Wednesday containing a logo of a lion that’s been used in the past by a fascistic vigilante group that idolizes Mussolini and a white nationalist website.
The logo, a picture of a lion painted in red, white, and blue, is closely associated with Lion Guard, a group of pro-Trump vigilantes who monitor anti-MAGA activity online, and VDARE, a white nationalist website that shared the image in April 2016 when Trump won the Republican primary.  
This isn’t the first time the administration has flirted with VDARE. Only last week, the Justice Department found itself in hot water when Buzzfeed reported that internal department newsletters occasionally included links to VDARE blog posts. The site was also recently booted off YouTube for violating the video-sharing platform’s policies against white nationalism. The 2016 Republican National Convention was also criticized for prominently displaying a tweet by VDARE during Trump’s acceptance of the party’s nomination.
The former managing editor from the fact-checking site Snopes first noticed the logo and researched its origins.
The Trump campaign dismissed the idea that the video was dog-whistling extremist ideologies. 
“The president shared an independently-produced video that highlighted the strengths of the economy his policies have created,” said Tim Murtaugh, communications director for the Trump 2020 campaign, told VICE News in an email. “Any conspiracy connected to white supremacy exists only in the fevered minds of reporters who will believe anything negative about the president.”
The video was created by a pro-Trump meme-maker “@some3thingwicked,” who explained on Twitter why they included the logo. 
The logo has been printed on t-shirts, phone cases, bumper-stickers and notebooks since 2016, when Lion Guard formed in response to protests at Trump campaign events. Much like “Bikers for Trump,” Lion Guard sees themselves as an “informal civilian group dedicated to the safety and security of #Trump supporters by exposing far-Left rioters,” according to their website. Their motto — “Better to be a lion for a day, than a lamb for eternity” — is a direct reference to a famous radio broadcast by Italian dictator Benito Mussolini. Trump, quoting a Twitter user called “ilduce2016,” also shared a similar version of that quote in Feb. 2016. 
“The dissemination of the Lion Guard logo, integrated at the end of the video Trump tweeted out, is disturbing but also indicative of the normalization of modern fascism in the United States,” said Jean Dean Valencia-García, assistant professor of digital history at Texas State University and an expert in modern neo-fascist movements.  
Online sleuths used Tin-Eye, a reverse image search engine, to figure out the first time that the image was shared on the internet. A similar VICE News search confirmed that the logo was first used by a Dutch white supremacist on twitter in March 2016. (The tweet has since been deleted.) Trump was widely criticized for retweeting that same Dutch white supremacist a year earlier, whose bio at that time read “#KekSec/Stop #WhiteGenocide/White Preservist/Programmer/Dutch Patriot/Race War when?”
Cover image: President Donald Trump listens to a question during a press conference on the third and final day of the G-7 summit in Biarritz, France Monday, Aug. 26, 2019. (AP Photo/Markus Schreiber)

Second Homicide At Virginia Veterans Hospital, Dying is One Thing But To be Murdered At Your Hospital?


"Even our Vet Hospitals are becoming Russia like"


                         Image result for veterans affairs hospital west Va


The widow of a veteran who died under suspicious circumstances at a West Virginia Veteran Affairs hospital last year told NPR an autopsy report found the 81-year-old died of unnecessary insulin injection. It is the second confirmed homicide in a string of deaths at the facility that is being investigated. 
The widow, Norma Shaw, referred further questions to her lawyer, David Glover. He said the body of George Nelson Shaw Sr. was exhumed in January. Shortly afterward, he said, the family received an autopsy from an Armed Forces medical examiner "that talked about a severe hypoglycemic event."
"It listed the cause of death as insulin administration," Glover said, adding that while Shaw had other ailments, he was not diabetic. 
Insulin can cause hypoglycemia, or low blood sugar, in non-diabetics and can be deadly. 
The Office of Inspector General for the Department of Veteran Affairs confirmed on Tuesday officials are investigating several suspicious deaths at Louis A. Johnson VA Medical Center in Clarksburg. 
In a statement, the Inspector General's office said it has been working with federal law enforcement partners "to investigate the allegations of potential wrongdoing resulting in inpatient deaths." It did not specify the number of deaths that are being reviewed nor the time frame of the fatalities.  
The announcement of the ongoing investigations comes after a wrongful death claim was filed with the VA last week, regarding the death of retired Army Sgt. Felix Kirk McDermott. An autopsy of the 82-year-old who died on April 2018 showed McDermott received "one massive insulin injection" that killed him within a matter of hours, the family's attorney Tony O'Dell told NPR. 
The complaint filed by O'Dell alleges the Inspector General's office is investigating up to 10 other cases in which veteran patients died of hypoglycemia caused by insulin injections. Over the past week, he said, he's been contacted by multiple families seeking answers to unexplained hypoglycemic deaths dating as far back as June of 2017. 
"Whenever there's an unexplained death or a suspicious death, the hospital has to report it and they go through a process looking for the root cause," O'Dell explained. "The fact that that did not happen here tells you that there was a complete system failure at this hospital," he said. 
Officials at the medical center said in an emailed statement that the allegations of potential misconduct do not involve "current" employees. 
The VA has yet to publicly identify any person of interest. 
Reports of the suspicious deaths have drawn ire from the public and politicians, including U.S. Sens. Joe Manchin and Shelley Moore Capito who were informed of the investigations several weeks ago. 
In a letter to VA Secretary Robert Wilkie and Inspector General Michael Missal on Tuesday, Manchin, who sits on the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, urged them to "quickly complete" the investigations into the potential homicides. 
"I also ask you to contact grieving family members and share as much information as you can with them." he wrote, adding that as of this morning he had heard from seven families seeking information into the deaths of their loved ones. 
Manchin also expressed frustration with the lack of communication and transparency from either office regarding the investigations. 
"Let us not forget that there are Veterans families who are in grief because of this terrible situation," he said. 
Emily Allen from West Virginia Public Broadcasting contributed to this story.

August 29, 2019

If You Are Straight be Careful!: The Cochabamba Conference About Climate Change Found Eating Chicken Turns Men Gay




                 



"I must say before I came out I used to eat a lot of chicken but still, I know that did not do it for me because I was never a chicken hawk. If they threw themselves on me, then what is a gay man on denial to do?"  (embarrass to give name) 


The Amazon is burning, and everybody is looking to Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro. They should be looking a little further south. In Bolivia, wildfires have been rampaging across the dry savannah of the country for weeks. On the southwest border with Paraguay and Brazil, at least 1 million hectares of farmland have been destroyed. In the northeast, the fires have spread to the Amazon.
Leaving aside the danger to indigenous tribes and the consequences of losing that much farmland, Bolivia’s fires have grave geopolitical implications. Bolivia’s president Evo Morales refused western aid for weeks until domestic and international pressure forced his hand on Sunday. But that initial refusal – from an inferior economic power, no less – both taunts and emboldens neighboring strongman Bolsonaro, who is also set to reject foreign aid for the emerging crisis, preferring to scrap with Macron about his wife.
Coica, the pan-Amazon organization, has accused both Morales and Boslonaro of environmental genocide – but it is Bolsonaro who is being targeted by the G7. While Sao Paulo was plunged into darkness from smoke last week, the world is in metaphorical darkness about the problem of Bolivia. 
South America’s poorest country is a landlocked place of primarily indigenous people and atrocious digital infrastructure. Very little internal news gets out to the West, sandwiched as it is between drama colossuses Argentina and Brazil. In the last two decades, the eyes of the world’s media have moved steadily northwards from Colombia to Venezuela, to Nicaragua and Mexico. Bolivia’s relative scarcity on the world stage might explain why nobody seems to know the name Evo Morales – or how unstable he really is.
The Aymara former coca leaf grower was elected in 2006 as the country’s first indigenous president, on a platform of environmental democracy and progressive rebellion. He’s been there ever since. But unlike his fellow leftist Latinos Fidel Castro and Hugo Chávez, Morales lacks a big international profile. 
At a Cochabamba conference on climate change in April 2010, the supposedly progressive socialist claimed that eating chicken turned Bolivian men gay. Apparently, it’s “loaded with female hormones”. When men eat it, he warned, they “experience deviations from their manhood.” (At the same conference, he also claimed that baldness in Europe was a disease, caused by their diet.)
Casual homophobia aside – and pseudoscientific fake news considering those producers in Europe and the US had stopped using hormones decades before – the proto-chlorine chicken kerfuffle was the beginning of the end for his environmentalist credentials.
In 2000, Bolivia shook when tens of thousands protested against the privatization of water – because many had no access to clean drinking water. In 2003, the US-backed former president Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada sparked riots later known as the Gas Wars with his plans to export Bolivia’s natural gas to the US - even though most of the poorest citizens had no access to fuel. It was in this context of ‘natural power to the people’ that Morales was elected in 2005. He, in turn, played up his indigenous roots with a pre-Incan priest tunic and an address from the temple of Tiwanaku and nationalized Bolivia’s oil and gas. The country became one of the fastest-growing Latin economies, avoiding the downturns in commodities-driven Venezuela and Brazil, but the rapid expansion of agribusiness angered his indigenous base. In 2011, he broke his promise to protect the TIPNIS national park and ancestral indigenous land, allowing it to be carved up by a highway and firing teargas on protesters in La Paz.  

Nice To Be A Royal and Better Yet Not To Be A Lier Andrews Accuser Tells Him To Tell The Truth



Image result for Jeffrey Epstein accuser Virginia Giuffre
 Andrew and his accuser Virginia Giuffre and Epstein and his right-hand recruiter of  his girls
         



I can't stand liers that get caught in public with their pants down and say they were just about to change underwear.

It makes me want to laugh or maybe cry when one of the well known super important dudes in the world lies and expect people to believe their stuff to be bought like it was our duty as a world citizen. Because of politics or because of a tittle,  they would calmly say "I didn't know." No such thing. For example, Prince Andrew which is as close to the royal family as you could be being the son of the 'Queen' and involved in all palace political functions and decisions. 

Andrew has more than just a footman to dress him up but he has political dept of people, one, 2 or five, I don't know the quantity but I know they exist. People to inform him of how things are before he visits any country and for any friend, just like the palace knew about Diana's friends which used to irritate her to no end, Prince Andrew knows like the Royal workers know which job is to tell Andrew the friend he is been jet setting around just got convicted of sexual abuse to little girls. 

For him to say he doesn't know about his buddy Einstein is a slap on the face of anyone that knows a little how the world goes around. If you believe Andrew you must be a Trumpie voter and believe what Trump says, he doesn't make money from being President. He doesn't make money from the Presidency when he mentions his properties over 70 times a year(MSNBC). Why dignitaries from different nations would stay at roach and bedbug-infested, overpriced hotel if it wasn't for the owner.
Adamfoxie Blog Int.



Jeffrey Epstein accuser Virginia Giuffre appeared Tuesday outside a federal courtroom in Manhattan to reiterate her allegation that the financier, who killed himself earlier this month, ordered her to have sex with Britain's Prince Andrew.
She called on him to "come clean" about it. Her remarks came after an extraordinary court hearing was called by the judge in the Epstein case as a way to give voice to alleged victims after the financier's death.
Last week, Buckingham Palace released a statement denying the allegations against Andrew after a London tabloid released a video purporting to show him in 2010 at Epstein's Upper East Side townhouse waving goodbye to an unidentified woman.
Giuffre, whose maiden name is Roberts, was one of nearly two dozen Epstein accusers who spoke out in the New York courtroom. She says that at age 15, while she was working at Mar-a-Lago — the club owned by future president Donald Trump — she was procured for sex by Ghislaine Maxwell on behalf of Epstein.
"I was recruited at a very young age from Mar-a-Lago and entrapped in a world that I didn't understand and I've been fighting that very world to this day and I won't stop fighting. I will never be silenced until these people are brought to justice," Giuffre, who is now married and living in Australia, said Tuesday.  
Giuffre has previously alleged that at age 17, she was forced to have sex with Andrew on multiple occasions at an "orgy" in London and on a private island in the Caribbean.
In an Aug. 18 statement, Buckingham Palace said that Andrew was "appalled by the recent reports of Jeffrey Epstein's alleged crimes" and that "His Royal Highness deplores the exploitation of any human being and the suggestion he would condone, participate in or encourage any such behavior is abhorrent."
On Saturday, Andrew released an even more direct statement, saying he did not "see, witness or suspect any behavior of that sort that subsequently led to [the] arrest and conviction" of Epstein.
Giuffre, asked by reporters Tuesday to comment on the statement, said: "He knows exactly what he's done and I hope he comes clean about it."
David Boies, a lawyer for Epstein's accusers, added: "Anybody can deny things in a printed statement. It's a different thing to come here and answer questions under oath and subject to cross-examinations. Those are the kinds of answers that we are eventually going to get."
The hearing on Tuesday was called by U.S. District Judge Richard Berman who said that although Epstein's death had dissolved the case, "I believe it is the court's responsibility, and manifestly within its purview, to ensure that the victims, in this case, are treated fairly and with dignity."
Andrew is one among several prominent men who have been caught up in the sex scandal centered on Epstein.
In 2008, Epstein pleaded guilty in Florida state court to soliciting a prostitute and procuring an underage girl for prostitution. He served less than 13 months.
In July, Epstein, 66, was arrested again on federal charges of trafficking of minors. He denied the allegations. He died by hanging in his jail cell on Aug. 10 was ruled a suicide





The LGBT Asylum Seekers in Ireland Face Surmountable Obstacles In Getting To Dream Land





By Cormac O'Brien
DUBLIN, Ireland, June 22 (Thomson Reuters Foundation) - When Afef arrived in Ireland from Tunisia in early 2015 she could not believe her luck at being able to go safely to gay bars and be open about her sexuality.
In her home country she had been forced to hide the fact that she was a lesbian from her family, her friends and, most importantly, from the authorities as same-sex relationships are illegal in Tunisia and punishable by three years imprisonment.
When her disapproving brother found out she was gay she was forced to flee.
"It's something prohibited, forbidden and unforgivable, and going back I can get attacked by my brother," Afef told the Thomson Reuters Foundation at a meeting for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) asylum seekers in Dublin.
"That's my past and it's not a good past. Here you have total freedom."
Afef, a slight woman aged in her mid-20s, is one of a rising number of LGBT people in Ireland seeking asylum due to fears of being persecuted for their sexuality in their home countries.
Ireland made history in 2015 as the first country to legalize gay marriage by a popular vote, with 62 percent voting in a referendum in favor of gay marriage in the Irish Republic that was once dominated by the Catholic Church.
Ireland this month formally elected its first openly gay prime minister, Leo Varadkar.
But the asylum seekers find their bids to build new lives in Ireland keep hitting obstacles, getting bogged down in a slow, laborious system that has been criticized both domestically and internationally with proposed changes slow to take effect. 
COMPLEX SYSTEM
Asylum seekers applying for refugee status in Ireland are provided with accommodation and food at hostels known as direct provision centers and given a weekly stipend of about 20 Euros ($22) but they are cannot work or access further education.
Afef, who did not want to use her full name for fear of reprisals, said this made it difficult to settle and become financially stable as the process could take years and the lack of transparency in the system was a massive frustration.
"If they say within two years, you get your answer and finish the whole process it's fine. But some people can spend 10 years and some people can spend one. Basically, you know nothing," she said at a meeting of the Identity LGBT Refugee Support group at the Irish Refugee Council.
Hailing from Zimbabwe, Venezuela, Gambia and Tunisia, all of the 35 regular members of the group are claiming asylum in Ireland based on their LGBT status.
They only get together about once a month as many live outside Dublin and struggle with the cost to travel to meetings but they do stay in touch on social networks and WhatsApp.
For while many of the group viewed Ireland as a safe haven, being LGBT in the asylum system has its own difficulties as many face threats and intimidation from other asylum seekers in the centers, said Brian Collins from the Irish Refugee Council.
Afef said one man in her center harassed her constantly.
"That's why we created the group. Some of us know about lawyer stuff. Some of us know about housing. Some of us know about the communities around," said another group member who requested anonymity.
"We need that so we can support each other."















Afef, an asylum seeker from Tunisia who wished to maintain anonymity,
during an interview with
the Thomson Reuters Foundation in Dublin, Ireland on April 28, 2017. 
Thomson Reuters Foundation/Cormac O'Brien
LGBT AND STUCK IN THE SYSTEM
There are no statistics on the number of LGBT people seeking asylum in Ireland but there are almost 5,000 in the system overall, housed in about 32 centers around Ireland, according to recent figures from the Reception and Integration Agency set up in 2001 to coordinate services to asylum seekers and refugees.
It's a system that has come under fire from human rights watchdogs in Ireland as well as internationally with reports of people languishing in a system for up to 15 years.
The Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission described the system as a "severe violation of human rights" in 2015 because of the time it took to process applications.
While Amnesty International has urged Ireland to expedite reforms of its direct provision accommodation, a system set up as a temporary emergency measure in 2000, as this was regarded as unsuitable for long-stay residence, especially for families children and victims of torture.
With calls for change mounting, Ireland's International Protections Office has committed to speeding up decisions for asylum seekers while the Irish Supreme Court in May 2017 ruled denying asylum seekers the right to work was unconstitutional.
Activists welcomed the proposed changes around employment.
But Katrin Hugendubel, advocacy director for the European unit of the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association (ILGA), cautioned fast-tracking applications could end up hurting the most vulnerable groups of asylum seekers – including LGBT individuals.
"If you look at the accelerated procedures, that leaves people with very little time to prove their sexual orientation," she said because LGBT asylum seekers need to provide evidence to back up their claim of LGBT persecution to get asylum. 
NEW FREEDOMS, NEW PROBLEMS
The Identity group, set up in 2016, is supported by an asylum seekers' theatre group, Change of Address, and the Irish Refugee Council. Theatre director and co-founder of Identity, Oonagh Murphy, said they used crowdfunding to bring a group of LGBT asylum seekers in Ireland to attend the Dublin Gay Pride March in 2015 and it grew from there into a support group.
"You come to Ireland, a tiny island at the edge of Europe, the last thing you expect is to be put back into close living arrangements from that culture," Murphy said.
Maverick from Zimbabwe arrived in Ireland in May 2015 and is awaiting a decision on his asylum application.
"I was a bit nervous before I met the LGBT group, but it's getting a little bit better now," said the 27-year-old motor mechanic who faced jail if found to be gay in Zimbabwe.
"Last year I really had fun. We danced on the street," he said. "Of course back home, you get killed for that."
($1 = 0.8951 euros)
(Reporting by Cormac O'Brien, Editing by Belinda Goldsmith @BeeGoldsmith; Please credit the Thomson Reuters Foundation, the charitable arm of Thomson Reuters, that covers humanitarian news, women's rights, trafficking, property rights, climate change, and resilience. Visit http://news.trust.org)

August 28, 2019

Hey! Do You Know The Supreme Court is About to Hear An Important LGBT Issue/Trump Asked to rule Against Gays









The Justice Department has submitted a brief to the Supreme Court arguing that federal civil rights laws do not protect workers against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.
This is not a surprise. The Department of Justice has taken this stance since 2017, when it formally ended its Obama-era position that federal law does, in fact, prohibit such discrimination. But the department's amicus brief, submitted on Friday, has produced a burst of news coverage for the issue.
The Supreme Court agreed in April to take up a trio of cases about workplace discrimination against gay and transgender employees. This flew under a lot of people's radar at the time, thanks perhaps to the complicated nature of the arguments. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of "sex." At the time of the law's passage, this was understood to mean discrimination on the basis of whether a person was a man or a woman. A subsequent Supreme Court ruling, 1989's Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, held that the law prohibited discrimination on the basis of whether a person stereotypically looks or behaves certain sex—in that case, a woman who was seen as not "feminine" enough.
In the years following that precedent, we've seen further legal analysis of what it means to discriminate on the basis of sex "stereotypes," and that has led to some conflicts of opinion on the federal level. Some courts have held that discriminating against a person for being transgender is the same as discriminating on the basis of stereotypes of how men and women are supposed to look and dress. Under President Barack Obama, the Justice Department agreed with this interpretation, leading to a guidance from his administration that public schools could not force transgender students to use the facilities that matched their birth sex.
Under President Donald Trump, this Justice Department quickly reversed this position, determining that the Civil Rights Act's definition of "sex" did not include sexual orientation or gender identity. Meanwhile, the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission still supports the Obama administration's reading. The nation's top court has resisted weighing in until this year, leaving conflicting rulings and positions in place.
The Department of Justice's argument is pretty easy to summarize: Sexual orientation and gender identity is not included in the Civil Rights Act; Congress has the power to add sexual orientation and gender identity to federal laws and has done so in the past; Congress has not added sexual orientation and gender identity to the Civil Rights Act despite political pushes to do so; therefore, these characteristics are not protected under federal law.
There's been some misleading coverage of what's happening here. One Buzzfeedheadline—"The Trump Administration Asked The Supreme Court To Legalize Firing Workers Simply Being Gay"—is particularly egregious. The Justice Department is not asking the Supreme Court for permission to fire people for being gay. It's arguing that the current federal law doesn't protect against anti-LGBT discrimination and that these firing decisions are already currently legal.
The article also suggests that a ruling in the Justice Department's favor would affect both federal and state-level discrimination laws against sex-based discrimination. This is simply not accurate. Many states have their own statutory or constitutional bans on gay and/or transgender discrimination. This ruling would not affect those. It only addresses the federal Civil Rights Act. Now, this could certainly have an impact in states that do not have their own anti-discrimination rules. The three lawsuits central to this case are from states that don't, on their own, protect against anti-LGBT workplace discrimination. But even if the Supreme Court sides with the Justice Department's interpretation, it won't affect LGBT workers in the 21 states that already prohibit this discrimination.
The case is fundamentally not about whether it should be legal to fire people for being gay or transgender; it's about how far a law's meaning can be stretched before it no longer represents what those who passed it intended. It's very clear that Congress did not intend to include gay and transgender people at the time. This was five years before the Stonewall Riots, at a time when the federal government was purging gay employeesand when most politicians believed that gays were mentally ill sexual predators.
Furthermore, as the Justice Department notes in its brief, lawmakers have been trying for years—all the way back to 1974—to add sexual orientation and gender identity to the Civil Rights Act. Congress started getting closer in 2013, when the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) made it through the Senate and died in the House. But then that morphed into a new bill called the Equality Act, which includes ENDA but also dramatically increases the definition of "public accommodation" in its regulations against customer discrimination to include just about every single consumer business.
That means the federal government would be able to take action against just about any business in the country accused of discrimination against customers, not just certain types of venues, such as hotels, restaurants, gas stations, and clubs. The expansion of ENDA into the Equality Act probably makes it radioactive for any number of conservatives who might have otherwise have come to support ENDA. (A cynic might wonder if that is the point.)
Some of the same folks who support the Equality Act also want the Supreme Court to find that the Civil Rights Act already protects against LGBT discrimination. The American Civil Liberties Union is assisting the plaintiff in one of the cases that the Court is considering, while at the same time lobbying for the passage of the Equality Act.
It's easy to understand the political logic here—you want to cover all your bases and not just pin your hopes on one path or the other. But it's still contradictory. If an ALCU lawyer is arguing before the court, you should expect justice to ask why the organization is arguing that the Civil Rights Act already protects against anti-LGBT discrimination while at the same time lobbying for reforms to the law so that it will protect against anti-LGBT discrimination.
Given the current makeup of the Supreme Court, I predict a ruling that sides with the Justice Department. Again, a cynic might wonder if that's partly the point. An adverse ruling here could serve as a helpful election-year rallying point, with the Democratic base coming out to push for a Democratic president and Senate able to pass the Equality Act and change the balance of the Court.
I've said my own piece about the Equality Act: I think the cultural shift toward LGBT acceptance makes additional federal regulations unnecessary because while discrimination still exists, it's not as widespread or as oppressive as it once was.
The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments on October 8.

Featured Posts

Even Inequality is Changed on The 21 Century, What was True Yesterday is Not So Today

JASON BEAUBIEN NPR  It used to be that the battle to overcome inequality was about money. It was abou...