HRC spokesperson Trevor Thomas said the policy is not new.
“The statement is a reiteration of our current policy and should not be portrayed as new or a shift — this has always been our policy and is a clarification considering what happened in 2007,” Thomas said.
That’s not quite right. Back in 2007, HRC did the right thing in (tacitly) supporting an important piece of pro-gay legislation. At the time, HRC said it wasn’t supporting gay-only ENDA, it just was not opposing it. HRC was predictably slammed for its seemingly wishy-washy stance, but the reality, of course, is that this country has a long history of incremental civil rights gains and opposing a gay rights bill would have put HRC at odds with supportive lawmakers who were championing the bill.
[I]t’s important we not rewrite history. Thomas’ statement that opposing gay-only ENDA “has always been our policy” is disingenuous.
Why can’t you just call it what it is Kevin? A LIE!
Oh wait – its because your publication is, when all is said and done, a media outlet for the official ‘incrementalism is how it must be because all of the straight-acting white gays on the east coast say it must be’ narrative.
And your Izod-crocodile (even though you’re accurate about what the ’09 Scampaign is attempting to do) tears about the Scampaign re-writing history ? Your paper had no problem publishing a piece of garbage from a gay male law prof which attempted to re-write trans legal history – when said re-writing was pro-incrementalism propaganda.
No one wants to dredge up all that bad blood
Speak for yourself.
So far, the Rhode Island Avenue Cesspool has managed to get away with what they did in 2007. No civil or criminal fraud actions – even though, I assert, both would be proper given that the Scampaign expressly represented that it would only support a trans-inclusive ENDA and, after presumably getting at least some people to part with money based on that representation, supported a gives-gays-the-right-to-sdiscriminate-against-trans-people ENDA. No real apologies – and one token hire of a neo-activist trans woman whose qualifications to be an employee at any national organization under any circumstances are dubious (and, when contextualized against the qualifications of all of the trans women – and men – that the Scampaign has refused to hire or even interview, are non-existent.)
The sad thing is – even when Queer Channel Media acts like its doing the right thing by acting as if its calling the Scampaign on the carpet, its still the same old Queer Channel Media.
How long will it be before tha Shill Extraordinaire – The John – runs to the defense of the failed, fraudulent, exterminationist philosophy of incrementalism?