Saturday, June 27, 2020


Attorney General Barr forms panel on 'anti-government extremism'


Simon Lewis

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Attorney General William Barr on Friday ordered the establishment of a task force to counter what he called “anti-government extremists” committing violence as protests against police brutality convulse the United States.

In a memo to law enforcement and prosecutors released by the Department of Justice, Barr said alleged extremists had “engaged in indefensible acts of violence designed to undermine public order,” including attacking police officers, damaging property and threatening innocent people.

Protests have spread nationwide over George Floyd’s death in police custody last month and the deaths of other African Americans at the hands of police.

FALSE EQUIVALENCIES 

Although largely peaceful, some demonstrators have turned violent, which President Donald Trump and his allies have blamed on left-wing extremists among the protesters.

Barr said the extremists “profess a variety of ideologies.”

“Some pretend to profess a message of freedom and progress, but they are in fact forces of anarchy, destruction, and coercion,” Barr said.

Barr named the militant anti-government movement known as the “boogaloo,” as well as the left-wing Antifa as among those posing “continuing threats of lawlessness”.

Antifa is an amorphous movement whose adherents use confrontational tactics to oppose people or groups they consider authoritarian or racist.

ANTIFASCISTS DEFEND PEACEFUL PROTESTERS FROM ASSAULTS BY FASCISTS

“Boogaloo” members believe the United States will enter into a second civil war, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks hate groups. While the ideology itself is not white supremacist, some white supremacist groups have embraced it, the Anti-Defamation League has found.

Federal prosecutors filed charges early this month against three alleged members of the movement accused of plotting to cause violence and destruction at a Las Vegas protest.


The new task force would be headed by two U.S. attorneys, from Texas and New Jersey, Barr said.

It would include members from different law enforcement agencies, but would “particularly draw on the capabilities of the FBI,” he said.
Facebook will label newsworthy posts that break rules as ad boycott widens


Elizabeth Culliford, Sheila Dang

(Reuters) - Facebook Inc said on Friday it will start labeling newsworthy content that violates the social media company’s policies, and label all posts and ads about voting with links to authoritative information, including those from politicians.

A Facebook spokeswoman confirmed its new policy would have meant attaching a link on voting information to U.S. President Donald Trump’s post last month about mail-in ballots. Rival Twitter had affixed a fact-checking label to that post.

Facebook has drawn heat from employees and lawmakers in recent weeks over its decisions not to act on inflammatory posts by the president.

“There are no exceptions for politicians in any of the policies I’m announcing here today,” Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg said in a Facebook post.

Zuckerberg also said Facebook would ban ads that claim people from groups based on race, religion, sexual orientation or immigration status are a threat to physical safety or health.

The policy changes come during a growing ad boycott campaign, called “Stop Hate for Profit,” that was started by several U.S. civil rights groups after the death of George Floyd, to pressure the company to act on hate speech and misinformation.

Zuckerberg’s address fell short, said Rashad Robinson, president of civil rights group Color Of Change, which is one of the groups behind the boycott campaign.

“What we’ve seen in today’s address from Mark Zuckerberg is a failure to wrestle with the harms FB has caused on our democracy & civil rights,” Robinson tweeted. “If this is the response he’s giving to major advertisers withdrawing millions of dollars from the company, we can’t trust his leadership.”

Shares of Facebook closed down more than 8% and Twitter ended 7% lower on Friday after Unilever PLC said it would stop its U.S. ads on Facebook, Instagram and Twitter for the rest of the year, citing “divisiveness and hate speech during this polarized election period in the U.S.”

More than 90 advertisers including Japanese carmaker Honda Motor Co Ltd’s U.S. subsidiary, Unilever’s Ben & Jerry’s, Verizon Communications Inc and The North Face, a unit of VF Corp, have joined the campaign, according to a list by ad activism group Sleeping Giants

Hours after Facebook's announcement, Coca-Cola Co said starting from July 1, it would pause paid advertising on all social media platforms globally for at least 30 days. bit.ly/3geAHpF
One of Facebook’s top spenders, consumer goods giant Procter & Gamble Co, on Wednesday pledged to conduct a review of ad platforms and stop spending where it found hateful content. P&G declined to say if it had reached a decision on Facebook.

The campaign specifically asks businesses not to advertise on Facebook’s platforms in July, though Twitter has also long been urged to clean up alleged abuses and misinformation on its platform.

“We have developed policies and platform capabilities designed to protect and serve the public conversation, and as always, are committed to amplifying voices from under-represented communities and marginalized groups,” said Sarah Personette, vice president for Twitter’s Global Client Solutions.
]
“We are respectful of our partners’ decisions and will continue to work and communicate closely with them during this time.”

In a statement, a Facebook spokeswoman pointed to its civil rights audit and investments in Artificial Intelligence that allow it to find and take action on hate speech.

“We know we have more work to do,” she said, noting that Facebook will continue working with civil rights groups, the Global Alliance for Responsible Media, and other experts to develop more tools, technology and policies to “continue this fight.”


Reporting by Sheila Dang and Elizabeth Culliford; Additional reporting by Katie Paul and Rama Venkat, Editing by Dan Grebler, Jonathan Oatis and Richard Chang

Trump's spending for border wall rejected by U.S. appeals court
Jonathan Stempel

(Reuters) - A federal appeals court on Friday said U.S. President Donald Trump was wrong to divert $2.5 billion meant for the Pentagon to build part of his long-sought wall along the U.S.-Mexico border.



FILE PHOTO - U.S. President Donald Trump tours a section of recently constructed U.S.-Mexico border wall in San Luis, Arizona, U.S., June 23, 2020. REUTERS/Carlos Barria

In a pair of 2-1 decisions, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the White House lacked constitutional authority for the transfer, noting that Congress had denied the funding and finding no “unforeseen military requirement” to justify it.

The court also said California and New Mexico, which share a border with Mexico and were among 20 states suing the government, had legal standing to sue.

Chief Judge Sidney Thomas said “the Executive Branch’s failure to show, in concrete terms, that the public interest favors a border wall is particularly significant given that Congress determined fencing to be a lower budgetary priority and the Department of Justice’s own data points to a contrary conclusion.”

Trump had declared a national emergency at the border in February 2019 to access the funds.


A Justice Department spokeswoman declined to comment.

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra praised the San Francisco-based court for halting Trump’s “unlawful money grab,” saying taxpayers deserve to know their money goes where Congress intends.

U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called the decisions “a great victory for the rule of law,” saying Trump undermined military readiness to fulfill his “outrageous campaign promise” to build a wall.

The appeals court also ruled that the Sierra Club and Southern Border Communities Coalition could sue over the diversion and deserved an injunction.

That ruling may be symbolic because the U.S. Supreme Court said last July the nonprofits likely had no legal right to sue.


The Supreme Court also let the $2.5 billion be spent while litigation continued, blunting the likely impact of Friday’s decisions.

President Bill Clinton appointed both judges in Friday’s majority. Trump appointed the dissenting judge. Friday’s decisions totaled 184 pages and upheld lower court rulings.

The cases are California et al v Trump et al, 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 19-16299 and 19-16336; and Sierra Club et al v Trump et al in the same court, Nos. 19-16102 and 19-16300.


Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York; editing by Jonathan Oatis and Sonya Hepinstall
SPANISH FLU 2.0
Coronavirus traces found in March 2019 sewage sample, Spanish study shows

Nathan Allen, Inti Landauro

MADRID (Reuters) - Spanish virologists have found traces of the novel coronavirus in a sample of Barcelona waste water collected in March 2019, nine months before the COVID-19 disease was identified in China, the University of Barcelona said on Friday.


FILE PHOTO: The ultrastructural morphology exhibited by the 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV), which was identified as the cause of an outbreak of respiratory illness first detected in Wuhan, China, is seen in an illustration released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in Atlanta, Georgia, U.S. January 29, 2020. Alissa Eckert, MS; Dan Higgins, MAM/CDC/Handout via REUTERS.

The discovery of virus genome presence so early in Spain, if confirmed, would imply the disease may have appeared much earlier than the scientific community thought.

The University of Barcelona team, who had been testing waste water since mid-April this year to identify potential new outbreaks, decided to also run tests on older samples.

They first found the virus was present in Barcelona on Jan. 15, 2020, 41 days before the first case was officially reported there.

Then they ran tests on samples taken between January 2018 and December 2019 and found the presence of the virus genome in one of them, collected on March 12, 2019.

“The levels of SARS-CoV-2 were low but were positive,” research leader Albert Bosch was quoted as saying by the university.


The research has been submitted for a peer review.

Dr Joan Ramon Villalbi of the Spanish Society for Public Health and Sanitary Administration told Reuters it was still early to draw definitive conclusions.

“When it’s just one result, you always want more data, more studies, more samples to confirm it and rule out a laboratory error or a methodological problem,” he said.

There was the potential for a false positive due to the virus’ similarities with other respiratory infections.

“But it’s definitely interesting, it’s suggestive,” Villalbi said.

Bosch, who is president of the Spanish Society of Virologists, said that an early detection even in January could have improved the response to the pandemic. Instead, patients were probably misdiagnosed with common flu, contributing to community transmission before measures were taken.


Prof. Gertjan Medema of the KWR Water Research Institute in the Netherlands, whose team began using a coronavirus test on waste water in February, suggested the Barcelona group needs to repeat the tests to confirm it is really the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

Spain has recorded more than 28,000 confirmed deaths and nearly 250,000 cases of the virus so far.


Reporting by Emma Pinedo, Nathan Allen and Inti Landauro, writing by Inti Landauro and Andrei Khalip, Editing by Angus MacSwan

Friday, June 26, 2020


Delta will warn pilots about possible furloughs, offers early retirement

Maria Ponnezhath

(Reuters) - Delta Air Lines (DAL.N) said late on Friday it will soon send warning notices to about 2,500 pilots regarding possible furloughs at the airline, as the industry takes a huge blow after the coronavirus pandemic slashed air travel demand.

“In an effort to best prepare our pilots should furloughs be needed, Delta will send required notices to approximately 2,500 pilots,” a Delta spokesperson said in a statement, adding that the so-called ‘WARN’ notices will be sent next week.


Delta also reached a tentative agreement with the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) labor union on a pilot-specific voluntary early retirement option.

The early-out plan is a meaningful step as the carrier is working to manage the impact of the pandemic and align staffing with expected flying demand, the statement said.

ALPA did not immediately respond a request for comment after office hours.

A day ago, Delta Chief Executive Ed Bastian had informed employees in an internal memo that the company is planning to add about 1,000 flights in August but not many more for the remainder of 2020.

“While it’s encouraging to see flights returning ... we likely remain at least two years away from a return to normal,” Bastian said in the memo.


Reporting by Maria Ponnezhath in Bengaluru; editing by Richard Pullin

Former Trump 2016 Republican rival Fiorina to back Biden


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Carly Fiorina, a formal rival of Donald Trump for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination, plans to cast her vote for Democrat Joe Biden in November.

“I’ve been very clear that I can’t support Donald Trump,” Fiorina told The Atlantic magazine in an interview published on Thursday.

Fiorina, the former Hewlett-Packard Co chief executive, fell in line behind Trump like many Republicans in his 2016 race against Democrat Hillary Clinton. Since then, she has become increasingly critical and last year called for his impeachment.

“I am encouraged that Joe Biden is a person of humility and empathy and character. I think he’s demonstrated that through his life,” Fiorina told The Atlantic. “And I think we need humility and empathy everywhere in public life right now. And I think character counts.”


While Trump insulted a number of his 16 Republican rivals in the 2016 presidential campaign, Fiorina was the target of what was arguably one of the nastiest swipes.

“Look at that face. Would anyone vote for that?” Trump said, according to Rolling Stone magazine, of the only woman candidate in the Republican field.

Trump dismissed the news of Fiorina’s backing Biden, calling her on Twitter a “failed presidential candidate” who “lost so badly to me.”

Fiorina is the latest Republican to publicly split with the party’s president as the country faces widespread protests over police brutality against Black Americans, the coronavirus pandemic and a sharp economic downturn.


Former Secretary of State Colin Powell, a Republican who served under Republican Presidents George W. Bush and George H.W. Bush, has endorsed Biden. Trump’s former defense secretary, retired General Jim Mattis, denounced what he called Trump’s “deliberate” efforts to divide the country. [nL1N2DK04N]

Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski has said she was “struggling” with whether to support Trump’s re-election, while Republican Senator Mitt Romney praised Mattis’ words.


Reporting by Doina Chiacu; Editing by Leslie Adler
Trump Rambles Unintelligibly About Plan for Second Term
By Adam K. Raymond 
VISION 2020 JUNE 26, 2020

President Donald Trump thinks. Photo: Erin Schaff/The New York Times/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Sean Hannity would never intentionally ask President Trump a difficult question. But he would ask Trump an easy question that Trump found difficult to answer. It happened Thursday during a Wisconsin town hall when the Fox News host teed Trump up to rattle off a list of all the marginalized people he plans to harm in a potential second term. Instead, Trump garbled out an unintelligible answer that a very charitable interpreter would explain as: “I have experience now, so I would know better than to do things like hire John Bolton, who sucks.”

Charitable or not, no one would be able to find a second-term priority in this answer:

Trump’s words are even more striking in written form.

"Well, one of the things that will be really great, you know the word experience is still good. I always say talent is more important than experience. I’ve always said that. But the word experience is a very important word. It’s an — a very important meaning

I never did this before. I never slept over in Washington. I was in Washington, I think, 17 times. All of a sudden, I’m president of the United States. You know the story. I’m riding down Pennsylvania Avenue with our First Lady and I say, ‘This is great. But I didn’t know very many people in Washington. It wasn’t my thing. I was from Manhattan, from New York. Now I know everybody, and I have great people in the administration.”


You make some mistakes. Like, you know, an idiot like Bolton. All he wanted to do was drop bombs on everybody. You don’t have to drop bombs on everybody. You don’t have to kill people."


At another point in the sit-down with Hannity, Trump said Joe Biden “can’t speak.”

Trump Just Admitted to a Crime Against Humanity. No, He Wasn’t Joking.

The president said he tried to slow down COVID-19 testing to cover up America’s high rate of infection.





Trump’s rally in Tulsa last night was a disaster on so many levels it’s difficult to count them. From the bad optics and public health risks of holding a rally in the first place, to the mistake of originally setting it on Juneteenth in the location of the Tulsa race massacre, to the bizarre game of overinflated expectations the campaign made in promoting a million sign-ups for the rally that were largely generated by trolling Zoomers on Tiktok, to the desultory 6,200 person turnout forcing the overflow stage to speak to an empty parking lot, to the campaign placing the blame for the low turnout not on the responsible behavior of even hardcore Trump supporters during the pandemic (a good and encouraging development!) but on fear of “antifa protesters,” thereby not only lying but making his own supporters appear weak and intimidated in the bargain–all of it was a disaster of enormous proportions. And that’s before we even talk about what came out of Trump’s mouth during the event.


Because among the bizarre statements and absurdist pieces of performance art Trump displayed onstage (including a 10-minute riff on his own ability to walk down a gentle ramp, and a strange demonstration that he can actually drink a glass of water–if only slowly and carefully) came one of the most shocking admissions by a president in all modern history. Trump boasted that he had asked his officials to slow down COVID-19 testing because the rising number of cases was making him look bad.


“Here’s the bad part: when you do testing to that extent, you’re going to find more people, you’re going to find more cases. So I said to my people, slow the testing down please.”


He then emphasized the point by implying that many of the positive test results didn’t really matter if they were among young people likely to recover. He spoke dismissively of a “young man, 10 years old” who “got the sniffles–he’s gonna recover in about 15 minutes.” And then he waited for applause. Of course, some young people do die of COVID-19, and many more may have lifelong health complications that we are only just now beginning to understand. Most importantly, even that healthy 10-year-old can then become a vector to transmit the disease to an aging or more vulnerable person with potentially fatal consequences. So of course it matters if he tests positive, and Trump’s dismissal of the importance of testing him speaks volumes about his lack of understanding of the pandemic and of his callousness in placing his own political interest ahead of public health.


But let’s come back to the main shocking statement: “I said to my people, slow the testing down please.” It is hard to overstate the sheer evil of it. The only way to stop a widespread pandemic is through mass, universal testing, aggressive contact tracing and isolation measures. To slow down testing for any reason virtually guarantees the deaths of thousands, to say nothing of broader damage to the social fabric and to the economy. To slow down testing for political reasons is particularly abominable.


It constitutes a criminal, negligent abuse of power so unspeakable and so unthinkable that there isn’t even a law, federal or international, to adequately cover the case. It is the sort of high crime that impeachment was explicitly designed for, because the potential for abuses of power by a chief executive potentate is so vast and variegated that it would be impossible to write laws for all the potential scenarios. But to explicitly slow walk testing in a once-in-a-century pandemic, just to reduce the number of publicized cases for purely political purposes, allowing the virus to spread unchecked just to keep the economy humming along a little longer and to make his own response appear somewhat less incompetent, is the essence of a high crime. Because the consequences are so deadly–potentially killing literally hundreds of thousands of his own fellow citizens and endangering the entire interconnected world–it constitutes nothing less than a national and global crime against humanity.


Of course, the Trump campaign and administration (is there even a difference at this point?) knew they would have to perform damage control. White House trade advisor Peter Navarro claimed that Trump was only “joking” in a “light moment.” But listen to the audio again. It is very clear that Trump wasn’t joking, and that the moment was anything but light. Trump was blithe, sarcastic and dismissive, but that’s very different from engaging in pretense. Trump clearly meant every word he said at that moment.


It’s also not the first time Trump has intimated as much. At the very beginning of the pandemic Trump insisted that the virus would not spread and did not need to be taken too seriously, saying “You have 15 people, and the 15 within a couple of days is going to be down to close to zero.” Throughout the course of the pandemic he pooh-poohed the need for mass testing because the virus was either “under control” or would “disappear like a miracle.” The United States did not seek help from the World Health Organization to acquire tests (the WHO does tend to assist developing countries), but then the CDC bungled the creation and implementation of domestic tests while Trump dithered. He repeatedly lied about the U.S. having the most stringent testing regimen in the world, while also saying that tests weren’t that helpful, and while not taking the necessary steps to ramp up testing. And Trump has repeatedly claimed that “testing is overrated” because “it makes us look bad.”


In other words, the president’s admission at his fizzled campaign rally last night that he asked his administration to slow down the testing because healthy 10-year-olds testing positive was made him look bad unfairly wasn’t a joke. It was merely the most direct confirmation of what was already obvious and what he had obliquely already mentioned before.


And yes: it is a crime against humanity. It is no joke. The resulting death toll could number in the hundreds of thousands domestically alone. And it constitutes one of the greatest criminal abuses of power in all of American history by a sitting president.
David Atkins is a writer, activist and research professional living in Santa Barbara. He is a contributor to the Washington Monthly's Political Animal and president of The Pollux Group, a qualitative research firm.

No One Is Attempting to Silence White Men

But plenty of them are freaking out as old power structures are starting to get ripped apart.






Andrew Sullivan characterizes the movement in journalism away from objectivity (read: bothsiderism) as a threat to civil discourse. In reference to an article about how revolts are erupting in American newsrooms, Sullivan also takes issue with the foundational beliefs being put forward as media organizations grapple with police brutality.
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/06/andrew-sullivan-you-say-you-want-a-revolution.html
And what is the foundational belief of such moral clarity? That America is systemically racist, and a white-supremacist project from the start, that, as Lowery put it in The Atlantic,“the justice system — in fact, the entire American experiment — was from its inception designed to perpetuate racial inequality.”
For Sullivan, all of this is an attempt to silence the voices of dissent.
Question any significant part of this, and your moral integrity as a human being is called into question. There is little or no liberal space in this revolutionary movement for genuine, respectful disagreement, regardless of one’s identity, or even open-minded exploration. In fact, there is an increasingly ferocious campaign to quell dissent, to chill debate, to purge those who ask questions, and to ruin people for their refusal to swallow this reductionist ideology whole.
Similarly, in 2007, Glenn Greenwald suggested that there were speech rules that silenced discussions about race.
It is always preferable to have views and sentiments — even ugly ones — aired out in the open rather than forcing them into hiding through suppression. And part of the reason people intently run away from discussions of race…is because it is too easy to unwittingly run afoul of various unwritten speech rules, thereby triggering accusations of bigotry. That practice has the effect of keeping people silent, which in turn has the effect of reinforcing the appearance that nobody thinks about race (which is why nobody discusses it), which in turn prevents a constructive discussion of hidden and unwarranted premises.
Writing at the Unapologetic Mexican, Nezua didn’t attempt to spare his feelings in calling that out.
In this analysis (or this part of his post at least) the problem is the various unwritten speech rules. But guess what? There really aren’t any. There are just poor attitudes we keep about people who look different. Or who we’ve been taught to think of differently. And there is a “White” attitude of deciding for everyone else how they should live, be, self-identify, and do many other things. There are old slurs and old tropes that hurt people. These are the things that are flushed out when people speak: attitudes, thoughts, beliefs, manners of speaking that hint at lurking attitudes.
People avoid talking about race because they are scared of exposing their thoughts and views on race…They are not afraid of “unwritten speech rules.” They are afraid that what they really think and feel will cause them to be ridiculed or ostracized in public, or that they may see a part of themselves they have to feel bad about. So they keep the potential to themselves.
Our country is going through a fundamental transformation—especially when it comes to both patriarchy and white supremacy. In referring to presidential politics, here is how Rebecca Traister put it.
The public spectacle of this presidential election, and the two that have preceded it, are inextricably linked to the racialized and gendered anger and violence we see around us…
Whatever their flaws, their political shortcomings, their progressive dings and dents, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton mean a lot. They represent an altered power structure and changed calculations about who in this country may lead.
The first time this country grappled with these questions it resulted in a civil war that ended slavery. In the 1960s a civil rights movement rose up to challenge Jim Crow laws, resulting in laws that both prohibited discrimination and guaranteed the right to vote. As Reverend William Barber has suggested, we are now facing the possibility of a Third Reconstruction. While laws such as those designed to rein in police brutality and hold officers accountable are currently on the table, activists like those involved in the 1619 Project at the New York Times are going deeper, attempting to expose the ways that racism and misogyny have been built into our systems and culture.
That isn’t sitting very well with a lot of folks. As the saying goes, “When you’re accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression.” So Andrew Sullivan isn’t the only white man who feels silenced. The editors at the Washington Examiner expressed similar thoughts.
A republic in which people are not tolerant of those who disagree, in which the mob aims to erase parts of culture that are uncomfortable, is not one that can long endure.
No one is silencing Sullivan or the editors at the Washington Examiner, as the publication of these articles proves. What has changed is that their views have to compete with others in a culture in which the power structure is being altered.
As these movements begin to delve more deeply into the systemic nature of racism and sexism in our culture, foundational beliefs are being challenged. We can see that in the way that the dominance model of organizing human relations is being challenged due to its overt embrace by both Trump and law enforcement. Here is how Riane Eisler explained the issue in her book Chalice and the Blade.
The underlying problem is not men as a sex. The root of the problem lies in a social system in which the power of the blade is idealized – in which both men and women are taught to equate true masculinity with violence and dominance and to see men who do not conform to this ideal as too soft or effeminate.
These days, even the idea of wearing a mask during a pandemic is being challenged as weak and unmanly. So we’re having these conversations that are making a lot of people uncomfortable. That does not mean that there are speech rules or that anyone is being silenced.
What activists are attempting to do is to get at some of the ways that patriarchy and racism have been cooked into the culture that aren’t as obvious as calling someone the “n” word. As the power dynamics shift, that kind of conversation is going to be inevitable and terribly threatening to those who are intent on clinging to the past.
None of this is to suggest that we all need to simply embrace the views of feminists or those involved in the Black Lives Matter movement. Here’s where I actually agree with Sullivan.
Liberalism is not just a set of rules. There’s a spirit to it. A spirit that believes that there are whole spheres of human life that lie beyond ideology — friendship, art, love, sex, scholarship, family. A spirit that seeks not to impose orthodoxy but to open up the possibilities of the human mind and soul. A spirit that seeks moral clarity but understands that this is very hard, that life and history are complex, and it is this complexity that a truly liberal society seeks to understand if it wants to advance.
The issue is that our culture is evolving to a place where patriarchy and white supremacy aren’t merely differences that need to be tolerated, but represent moral challenges that need to be exposed and eliminated. That process will require listening and being able to tell the difference between the truth and something that simply makes us uncomfortable.
Nancy LeTourneau is a contributing writer for the Washington Monthly. Follow her on Twitter @Smartypants60

Can the Black Lives Matter Movement Inspire a More Inclusive Pride Month?

It’s time for an overdue conversation about how anti-Blackness has often manifested within queer spaces.


Pride Month was always going to look different this year—at least, once the pandemic hit.
When the novel coronavirus arrived to America earlier this year, states and municipalities implemented physical-distancing measures to mitigate its spread; universities sent college students home; and businesses were forced to furlough or fire millions of employees due to the economic fallout. Naturally, more than 500 parades and festivals scheduled for June’s Pride Month were cancelled in major cities across the world, from New York City and Washington, D.C., to London and Paris.
Then, on May 25, police officer Derek Chauvin killed George Floyd, sparking mass protests and riots. Countless Americans decided to get out of their homes and onto the streets—furious over police brutality and widespread racial injustices.
Quickly, it became apparent that LGBTQ people were playing an outsize role at the protests, where pride flags have been common fixtures. This makes sense: Gay, lesbian, and transgender individuals have also been victims of systemic oppression. In the 1960s, for instance, it was common practice for cops to threaten and harass gay bars.  
No doubt, that was part of what compelled so many in the community to speak out. On May 29, four days after Floyd’s murder, more than 100 LGBTQ organizations released a joint statement condemning racial violence. “We understand what it means to rise up and push back against a culture that tells us we are less than, that our lives don’t matter,” they said.  
But while LBGTQ groups have emphatically supported the Black Lives Matter movement, some civil rights activists argue that they haven’t done enough to stamp out racism within their own community. “The statement is great for solidarity,” said Earl D. Fowlkes, Jr. “But it’s empty if there is no action behind it.”  
Fowlkes is the founder of the Center for Black Equity, a nonprofit dedicated to advancing equality for Black LGBTQ people. One of the biggest obstacles they face, he told me, is not just acceptance in straight society—but in white LGBTQ society.
In 2017, for instance, Philadelphia’s Commission on Human Relations ordered 11 gay bars to take a training course on the city’s anti-discrimination laws after there were reports of them denying Black people entry for vague dress codes and bartenders giving preferential treatment to white gay men. One bar owner was caught on YouTube saying racial slurs.
Unfortunately, stories like these are all too commonplace. In 2018, an Atlanta gay bar owner posted on Facebook that “if the South had won, we would be a hell of a lot better off.” Fowlkes told me of an incident from two weeks ago when a group of Black men were seated at a different section of a D.C. gay bar than the rest of the white patrons. CBE was contacted about it as a potential discrimination case. “It happens all the time,” he told me.
Yet some queer people are more at-risk than others. According to the Human Rights Center, Black transgender women face the highest levels of fatal violence within the LGBTQ community—and are less likely to turn to the police for help for fear of revictimization by law enforcement personnel. 
But with LGBTQ organizations now thrusting themselves into the national fight against racism, it’s time for them to take a hard look inward. 
One of the ways they can start is by refashioning this year’s Pride Month in yet another way: by embarking on a long overdue conversation about how anti-Blackness has long manifested within queer spaces. That might mean a departure from the joyful and triumphant marches in years past—we are still in a pandemic, after all—but it may spur some much-needed progress on an issue that is too often neglected. 
In the 1960s, community centers or meet ups didn’t exist for LGBTQ people as they do now. This meant that bars were one of the few, if not the only, spaces where police officers knew they could openly target gays and lesbians.
For a long time, this was simply the way things were. Police would barge into these establishments to harass and beat up the patrons. “Gay people just took it,” historian Lillian Faderman, author of The Gay Revolution, told me. “They would scurry off, people who were let go by the police would run off.”
Until, one day, they stopped taking it.
On June 28, 1969, a group of police officers showed up at the Stonewall Inn—a gay bar in Greenwich Village, New York—for what they probably thought would be yet another routine night of harassing patrons. But this night ended differently. A fight broke out between the cops and everybody else. More people resisted, others joined in the pushback. At some point, someone threw a brick through the bar’s window, igniting the famed Stonewall Riots. 
Who, exactly, threw that first brick remains unknown. The two main suspects, however, shared something in common: Marsha P. Johnson, a prominent figure during this period, was a Black trans woman. Sylvia Rivera, who was present at the first fight, was a Latina trans woman. Witnesses have also described what the majority of the people at Stonewall looked like that night: drag queens or gay men of color. In other words, Black LGBTQ people were some of the first who resisted brutality and oppression on behalf of the entire LGBTQ community.  
Images from that night shocked the nation—and shifted the public consciousness about the treatment of gay people. Shortly thereafter, a movement was formed. Over the next few years, more than 1,500 new LGBTQ organizations were created. Still, it took decades of sustained advocacy to gain traction. By 1999, then president Bill Clinton enacted Proclamation 7203, turning the month of June into a federally recognized holiday. Pride Month was born.
But as the LGBTQ community continued to make progress—through increased representation in politics and media, through legislative actions, executive orders, and court rulings to protect gays and lesbians from discrimination—its non-white members have often been left behind.
A 2013 study found that while LGBTQ youth are more likely than their straight counterparts to be homeless, and that the bulk of homeless youth are LGBTQ people of color. Other studies have shown that Black LGBTQ people are more likely to commit suicide. At the same time, Black queer people have amassed far less political capital. A recent study from the Victory Institute found that 77.4 percent of all openly LGBTQ people in elected office are white.  
The increased acceptance of white LGBTQ Americans in mainstream society is at least partly due to the fact that the vast majority of media depictions of queer life—which have helped change the culture—have historically been white-centric.  
Groundbreaking films that found mass audiences have tended to focus on white gay men, such as The Times of Harvey Milk (1984), My Own Private Idaho (1991), Brokeback Mountain (2005), and Call Me by Your Name (2017). The few films about queer people of color—such as Tongues Untied (1989) or The Watermelon Woman (1996)—have generally not been as widely seen. In essence, Black LGBTQ people have always been left out of the aesthetic representations that have helped to normalize the white LGBTQ experience.
For this reason, Cleo Manago coined the term “same-gender loving” for Black gay men and lesbians in the 1990s as a separate identity, due to how isolated many felt in traditional LGBTQ spaces.  
Pride Month festivities have been no exception. Even after the 2015 landmark Supreme Court ruling declaring same-sex marriage a constitutional right, and Pride marches became an established mark of the beginning of the summer in major cosmopolitan cities, many noticed that they seemed awfully white.
Non-white queer people have complained they aren’t always as welcomed at Pride events by their white counterparts. Moreover Pride celebrations have often whitewashed the fact that the early leaders of this movement were people of color, such as Johnson and Rivera.  
Black LGBTQ people felt even more alienated in 2017, when a proposed addition to the pride flag of brown and Black stripes to represent racial diversity received immediate backlash from white, gay members of the community.  
Of course, queer people of color don’t just face racism from inside the LGBTQ community. They have to face it from the rest of the world, too. Indeed, Black queer people are more susceptible to assault and discrimination and the very forms of bigotry and police brutality that the Black Lives Matter movement is fighting against.
Just two days after George Floyd’s death, a Black trans man named Tony McDade became the third victim of a fatal officer-involved shooting in Florida in the past two months. That’s why Black LGBTQ activists argue that the anti-racism and queer-rights movements are deeply intertwined. 
“We know that queer liberation also means Black liberation,” Tyrone Hanley, senior policy council for the National Center for Lesbian rights and a black queer man, told me. “There is a desperate need to look inside and re-examine how LGBTQ communities reinforce white supremacy and anti-blackness.”  
That means reimagining Pride Month. It means placing Black and brown issues at the forefront of the agenda. It means no longer allowing LGBTQ spaces or marches where queer people of color are invisible, nor ignoring the plight of this vulnerable population.
There are already signs of progress. Roughly 30,000 people rallied in West Hollywood on Sunday to protest police brutality and systemic racism, with a specific focus on Black LGBTQ people.
The COVID-19 pandemic made this year’s Pride Month look different. But the entire LGBTQ community’s commitment to tangible anti-racist action should be what does the trick next year—and every year after that.

Giulia Heyward

Giulia Heyward is an editorial intern at the Washington Monthly.