May 14, 2003

By James Eugene*

DO THEY KNOW WHAT THEY ARE VOTING FOR?

One of the pet peeves I have about legislatures is that the members often don't actually know what they are doing. I don't mean that in the general sense (although some columnists would say that is true), but rather on specific votes on specific items.

This complaint is often heard about our legislators in Albany who must trust their leaders (Sheldon Silver and Joseph Bruno) to make the appropriate deals. Then they pass the legislation sometimes without even reading it (probably most often without even reading it), and many times, if it has been read, without understanding it.

But, let's examine one piece of legislation on the City level and see if we can conclude the council members knew what they were voting for (or against). Let's review the human rights bill that was passed last year by the City Council on April 24, 2002 and became Local Law 3 of 2002 after being signed by the Mayor, just four business days later. The bill prevents discrimination on the basis of "gender identity."

Let me preface my discussion by stating that I do not know if I myself, understanding the legislation as I do, would have voted or not voted for the legislation. I am fairly liberal on human rights. For example, I support the rights of gays to marry. Nor would it matter to me if a gay man or woman of any color taught my young child in school. So you are not looking at Attila the Hun here.

"Gender identity" is a vague term. By looking at it, you cannot simply guess whom it includes. Even the Council's committee report uses a phrase that is somewhat vague to me, but at least can be looked up in the dictionary, "transgendered individuals." "Transgendered" was not in my spell-check, but it is in the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (4th Edition). So, I will take the first definition from there: "Appearing as, wishing to be considered as, or having undergone surgery to become a member the opposite sex." Okay, so now I get it... we are talking about transvestites and transsexuals.

So the bill says that discrimination against transvestites and transsexuals is not allowed in housing or employment. Sounds good in theory... Let's go to the practice.

Your child is in first grade. She is taught by a Mr. Phillips. Mr. Phillips decides that he wants to start dressing as a woman and does so. Mr. Phillips cannot be fired, disciplined or even reassigned. To do so would violate the City Human Rights Law, since it would discriminate on the basis of gender identity. The same is true if Mr. Phillips decides that during the school year, he will start the process (and maybe complete it) of changing his sex to that of a female. So your child may have Mr. Phillips to start the year and Ms. Phillips to end the year.

Absurd you say. Come on folks, this is a City of 8 million people. At some point in the next ten years, this is going to happen.

Let's go for a more common scenario... housing. Let's choose a cooperative housing complex. Our friend, Mr. Phillips, has struck a deal to buy a cooperative apartment in Queens and his desired location happens to be next to a family with young children. Mr. Phillips and this family may even share a garden apartment complex - common in parts of the City - where the entry to the apartments is shared by two to four families. The cooperative is aware of the location of the apartment and the fact that it is next to this young family. However, the cooperative cannot reject Mr. Phillips' application because he is a transvestite or a transsexual. If it does so, it faces a lawsuit.

Now you would expect such a provision to result in a firestorm of debate. But the legislation was passed one day out of Committee (April 23rd) and passed the next day out of the Council (April 24th), and then signed by the Mayor (April 30th). The vote in the Council was 45 to 5 with one abstention. And there was little public debate.

Now let's say you disagree with this legislation and you approach your local Council Member who supported the bill. What would he or she say? He or she is most likely going to state that this was merely clarifying language. Indeed, if one reads the Council's Committee report on the legislation, one would be impressed by the unbelievable double-speak within the report (there is political cover for everyone here).

First, the report states that some advocates opposed the legislation since the protection was already included in 1991 legislation and since this was the case, this new law was not needed. Then, the report states that the committee disagrees with this position. However, it then goes on to state that it is clear that the 1991 Council wanted the phrase "actual or perceived gender" to be interpreted broadly, implying, but not explicitly stating, that transvestites and transsexuals were to be included. (Does anyone really think that Peter Vallone would have allowed a human rights bills for transvestites and transsexuals to pass?) Finally, it says the legislation is being passed so that the law is not misinterpreted due to changing judiciary or political structures. I must commend the Council lawyer for this report. Artfully done. Big Brother would be proud (assuming he agreed with the legislation).

The proof that this legislation is not mere "clarifying" language was the reaction of the bill's proponents, who celebrated the first bill in the nation designed to protect transvestites and transsexuals. Well, if that was the case, why did the Council say the 1991 bill protected these people? You can't have it both ways.

Now to those who are somewhat taken aback by my column, let me make one point of difference between transvestites and transsexuals and traditionally protected classifications, such as race, ethnicity, sex, and even sexual orientation. The traditional classifications exist because the persons who belong to them cannot choose the classification to which they exist. You are born black, you are born a woman, and (at least we think this is true) you are born gay. You are not born a transvestite and you are not born a transsexual. You may have those urges. But an urge is NOT something you are born into and it is something you can control. You may have an urge to be sexually aggressive, but if you act upon that urge, you may find yourself hit with a lawsuit or even wind up in jail.

While I would have not necessarily have voted against the bill, but I would liked to have known about the psychological impact of daily exposure of young children to transvestites and transsexuals. But I wonder if this question was even asked by the Council members.

That much said, the Council has a right to add any protected classification it so desires to the human rights list, and it has in the past (for example, lawful occupation is a protected classification, so that you cannot discriminate against doctors or lawyers). And the Council had the right to decide to protect transvestites and transsexuals. The question I am asking is did each member know the full implications of what he or she was doing?

WHISTLING DIXIE CHICKS.

Men have to love the cover of Entertainment Weekly (put your tongues back in your mouths guys. I am sure the photo was airbrushed). That much said, let's discuss for a moment some fuller freedom of speech implications of this little brou-ha-ha.

The Dixie Chicks have a right to oppose the war and even be obnoxious about it. No biggie there. People have a right not to buy their albums. Hey, it's their money. Disc jockeys on radio stations have a right to criticize these women as well. People have to realize that freedom of speech includes the freedom to reply (and the freedom to continue the conversation with further points on each side).

That much said there are a few disturbing things here. From what I understand, the decision not to play the music of the Dixie Chicks has to be a station policy (radio stations have play lists and the decision to drop one of the most popular country groups in the nation must be a station decision). If I remember correctly, all entities that use the airwaves do so under a federal license because the airwaves are a public benefit. Because the airwaves are a public benefit, radio stations (and television stations) operate with a higher obligation than to engage in crass political maneuvers. When a station uses its airwaves in a political gesture, such as the Dixie Chicks boycott, it is betraying a public trust, and while some of the Dixie Chicks fans may be upset by what they said, I am sure a large number could care less and want to hear their music. Moreover, by taking such a political action in a commercially harmful manner, the stations may run afoul of the law or their license agreement.

As you know, most radio and television stations allow for opposing views to be aired. In this instance, the stations took action not over something that the Dixie Chicks sang (boycotting a song because of offensive material is one thing), but because of something they said totally unrelated to their music. It's not like the station is playing a song about the glories of Saddam Hussein; the station is playing songs about a dying horse (or whatever these country music artists sing... as you can tell I dislike country music). So by playing the music, the station is not playing the offensive statement.

So to recap, vehement criticism of the Dixie Chicks for their remarks, fine. Boycott of Dixie Chicks songs by radio stations, wrong.

GOVERNOR PATACUOMO STRIKES AGAIN.

I must admit, local elected officials throughout the State have done an excellent job of placing the blame for local problems on Governor Patacuomo. His approval ratings are slipping because he is getting the blame throughout the State. The governor should thank Mayor Billionaire, because if it wasn't for the commuter tax proposal, which has suburban voters mad at Mayor Billionaire and happy with Governor Patacuomo's opposition, suburban voters would hate Patacuomo as much as the city and rural voters now hate him.

And this is becoming an intense dislike. The MTA fiasco with the shuffling budgets between fiscal years showed once again the slippery nature of our governor. He admitted he knew about the number games being played, but then, as if to escape blame, said the legislature knew it too. Legislative leaders than said they knew about the financial plans, but not the shuffling of funds between fiscal years.

Patacuomo is all about shifting blame, but that game is falling apart and creating many enemies and the public is seeing through the charade. Our governor is going the way of the Great Liberal Governor Cuomo in his third term, a slow and steady and persistent descent into negativity land in the minds of an angry public, a decline from which he will not be able to extricate himself.

Keep playing this game, Patacuomo, keep playing this game. It will only insure your downfall.

* James Eugene is the pseudonym of a veteran of NYC government affairs. Inside The Big Apple will appear exclusively on the Empire Page. If you want to send tips or column ideas to James Eugene, email them to jameseugene@empirepage.com.