Small Justice Moments

Once in a while, the world manages to see through the nastiness and intellectual dishonesty that so often appears in courtroom trials.

Today, the jury in the Angie Zapata murder trial delivered guilty verdicts on all charges.

"Hearing 'guilty on first-degree murder' and 'guilty of bias-motivated crime' was a hugely emotional experience for all the family, friends and the supporters of Angie," Barton added.

Considering that the defense was trying to recycle a "blame the victim" strategy, it is a major relief to see the jury toss that evil little strategy onto the midden heap.

Andrade admitted killing Zapata, but his defense argued that he acted in the heat of passion after discovering that Zapata was biologically male. The defense asked for a lesser verdict, such as second-degree murder or manslaughter.

Throughout the trial, prosecutors referred to Zapata as "she," while the defense referred to the transgender teen as "he."

"When [Andrade] met him, he met him as 'Angie,' " defense attorney Annette Kundelius argued on Wednesday. "When he found out it wasn't 'Angie,' that it was 'Justin,' he lost control."

But the jury rejected the argument, deciding in favor of prosecutors, who argued that Andrade knew Zapata was biologically male and that knowledge motivated the crime.

"This was an ambush attack," said Chief Deputy District Attorney Robb Miller. "This was an all-out blitz."

Zapata was "born in a boy's body but living as a female," added Miller. "Ultimately, she was murdered because of it."

To the jury: Thank you for seeing through the defense and convicting Andrade for the evil crimes he committed.

To the prosecution: Thank you for treating the victim with dignity, and respecting her memory. Above all, thank you for pursuing this case to its just end.

This Is Why It's Called "Systemic Discrimination"

I see yet another bright bulb in the Stelmach cabinet has just demonstrated the utter cluelessness that seems to pervade this bunch of politicians when it comes to treating other people with respect.

There is no reason to change the definition of spouse in the benefit plan for government employees, an Alberta cabinet minister in charge of human resources said Monday.

"I don't see the problem," Treasury Board president Lloyd Snelgrove said.

A booklet distributed to civil servants last spring defined a spouse as someone of the opposite sex. Gay and lesbian couples who are married are called "benefit partners" in the same document, even though same-sex marriage has been legal in Alberta since July 2005.

But Snelgrove said the government gives all employees equal coverage, so he has no intention of changing the definition of spouse to include people in same-sex marriages.

"Now if the government as a whole decides that they want to review terminology around a spouse, that's a little bigger thing because I would imagine there's more departments [like] justice that would use that same definition," he said.

You don't see the problem, Snelgrove? You are either blind, have never actually looked at the wording, or your brain is still paralyzed from the cabinet session where Liepert convinced to cut funding for GRS in this province!

Legally, those two people are married. The term spouse applies to them just as much as it does to Mr. Snelgrove and his wife. Assuming, of course, that Mr. Snelgrove is married.

The fact that "benefits partner" implicitly creates a second class of benefit management is one problem; the fact that it will be seen as an implicit form of hostility by any GLBT members of the civil service is another.

That an Alberta politician from the current governing party doesn't understand this is no surprise. It's not like reality bothers them much at all.

Systemic Discrimination - A Textbook Example

One of my sore points about delisting GRS in Alberta is that it further exposes transsexuals to all kinds of systemic discrimination - whether that is additional scrutiny at a traffic stop because the gender marker on the license doesn't match the appearance, or passing through customs when travelling doesn't matter. This is a source of additional stress in a form that only compounds the stresses (internal and external) that a transsexual experiences during transition.

Well, it seems that even though Alberta has been forced to recognize same sex marriages, within the government there is still considerable denial.

Scott Mair, who used to work for Children's Services, says that according to a booklet he received in May 2008, Mair's husband is not his spouse, he is his "benefit partner."

"This is what our government has put out for its own employees," Mair said. "Clearly discriminatory. Absolutely disgusting, and they're telling me that my marriage doesn't mean anything.

"To me it was systematic bullying and hatred that we've seen consistently through the Alberta government."

It may seem at first that I am conflating two unrealted issues. However, I am not doing so. Systemic discrimination is often subtle, delivered in terms of words and subtext messages. The fact that the Alberta Government is still using different language when it talks about same-sex spouses in communicating with its employees is neither surprising, nor is it acceptable. It sends a message that a same-sex spouse is "different" than an opposite sex spouse, yet in law (which is what matters here), there is no difference in Canada. This duality of language is unnecessary.

Again, as with delisting GRS recently, this sends a message to those it is aimed at - "The government doesn't value you, go live elsewhere".

The Wingnuts Heard The Dog Whistle In The Budget

I said cutting GRS funding was a dog whistle for the fundies.

Sure enough, as if to make my point for me, the following letter appeared in the Edmonton Journal:

Why don't we consider delisting abortions? Surely in this enlightened day, no baby should suffer annihilation just because the timing is wrong, or because proper birth control was not used. How many abortions are performed in Alberta each year, and how much do they cost taxpayers? I am not questioning abortion where the health of the mother or baby is at risk. But Alberta could be a leader in delisting this abhorrent medical procedure.

Judy Buddle, Edmonton

I'd hardly say that this comes as a surprise per se; although I still think it has more to do with a proposed series of amendments to the Alberta Human Rights legislation the Lindsay Blackett has been working on for quite some time.

Positive Commentary From A Place I'd Not Expect

In particular, a columnist for the Edmonton Sun who goes by the name Yukon Jack, covers the GRS issue in terms anyone can understand:

OK, Johnny Hetero, roll with me on this one. You wake up tomorrow morning and all of a sudden you're a woman.

Everything about you mentally, emotionally is male.

You like to fight, spit, swear, drive truck, crush beers and belch.

You are a man ... man.

But physically you are a woman. Well, after a week of playing with your boobs, it would be terrible.

Your life would be ruined. There would be no getting used to it.

You would suffer depression, anxiety and stress about everything you ever do, and would have difficulty keeping a job.

Well, for a bargain basement price of between 17 and 70 grand the provincial government can fix that. Well, they could have, but not any more.

In an attempt to save 700 grand annually, Alberta Health and Wellness will discontinue sex-change operations.

"Why should we pay for something that can't be proven? Prove you shoulda been a woman?"

Why don't you prove that you're clinically depressed and not just lazy. We pay for that.

These people are not gay. They don't get their jollies in fishnet stockings and lipstick. This isn't a Thai Lady Boy.

Aside from the the obvious, they're normal people. They're not flamboyant, they're not confused, they're broken and we can fix 'em for dirt cheap.

This isn't cosmetic. A nose job, boob job, lipo, botox or collagen. This isn't something they've done to themselves, like lung-cancer-smoker guy, or severe-head-wound-quad-riding guy, liver-disease-alchoholic guy, or tanning-salon-skin-cancer girl.

If Bobby Bigot wants to make this a taxpayer issue ... news flash. They pay taxes. They pay into Alberta Health Care.

In the meantime ... I'll just shut my big yap.

Blame The Victim: Angie Zapata Edition

The defense in this case makes me sick.

But an attorney for Allen Andrade said the case is about the woman's deception and Andrade's reaction to that deception, not whether Angie Zapata's lifestyle was right or wrong.

"This girl that he had just spent the last day with, was in fact a man, and Allen snapped," defense attorney Bradley Martin declared in opening statements.

Oh yes, the "trans-panic" defense (a variation on what's been used to justify beating GLBT people to death for years) It's the most intellectually vacuous excuse making I've ever seen - especially when it's murder.

Accusing the victim of "deception" hardly justifies a murderous response under any circumstances. If you are so fragile that learning someone is transgender is a threat to you equivalent to having a gun pointed at you, then perhaps you shouldn't be trying to date people yet.

The defense argument is ridiculous and offensive. To accuse a transsexual of being "deceitful" for living their life is beyond offensive, it demonstrates a clear lack of understanding of the transition process itself, and the WPATH standards of care which clearly obliges the transitioning person to live at least a full year in their chosen gender before they are candidates for Gender Reassignment Surgery.

Nieto showed jurors partial transcripts of tape-recorded jail calls in which Andrade allegedly told his girlfriend that he "snapped" and that "gay things need to die."

In another transcript, Andrade downplays the slaying. "It's not like I went up to a school teacher and shot her in the head, or killed a straight law-abiding citizen," he said in the transcript.

Martin said the jail calls were taken out of context as Andrade joked with his girlfriend about a crime he knew he didn't commit.

"Taken out of context" - ah yes, the excuse of politicians everywhere. In this case, the excuse of a murderer trying to justify to himself his own actions.

Let me be very, very clear here. Murder is murder. You cannot justify it based on some ridiculous excuse like "I panicked because she was transsexual". There is no way that someone being transsexual poses that much of a threat to anybody.

If the judge allows this defense to prevail, it will be open season on transsexuals across America. Sadly, this kind of defense is being used because it has been successful before - when it had no right to be.

How Convenient ...

A little more than a week after arbitrarily axing GRS from the AHCIP, we now hear the inevitable excuse of the Alberta conservative - It's Ottawa's Fault.

A sick Albertan is just as sick as a sick Quebecer or sick Ontarian, Premier Ed Stelmach said Thursday.

As the province continues to evaluate delisting health care services, Stelmach echoed his health minister's concern Alberta is being short-changed by the federal government to the tune of $700 million.

"We're going to work very hard to get the (money) from the federal government," he said Thursday following a public library announcement in downtown Edmonton. "We can't carry the country. All we're asking for is respect."

My, my. What a predictable tactic. Even when the government in Ottawa is dominated by Albertans, the default excuse for Alberta's politicians when their financial ineptitude is revealed is to start pointing fingers at Ottawa. It has happened time and again ever since Don Getty replaced Peter Lougheed.

"We're a government that's looking forward long-term," Stelmach said. "If we maintain the same cost increases annually in one department, then health expenses will far outstrip and be the dominant operational part of government."

He emphasized the province will work "collectively with Albertans" to find a balance.

Uh huh. Like you worked "collectively" with Alberta's transsexuals in deciding to axe medical treatment? This is a government which has its priorities completely awry, and is hiding their agenda.

So Now He's Assembling an "Experts Panel"

As if I needed more evidence to confirm my belief that Stelmach/Liepert's decision to delist GRS was done out of spite and malice, we now have Liepert musing about forming an experts panel to evaluate further cuts.

So ... Liepert felt completely qualified to delist anything to do with transsexuals - after all who would possibly want that ?!? ... and now he wants to consider what else should be delisted, so he's going to form an advisory panel.

Brilliant move, Mr. Liepert. Alberta's transsexuals are going to have a field day with that one when your earlier decision about GRS gets hauled up ... not unlike happened in Ontario a few years ago.

First they came for the transsexuals ... did you speak up? What happens when they come to you and yours?

Reasons Legal Equality Matters

I'm ashamed to say that the following story is taking place here in Canada: Transsexual Quebec inmate sentenced to serve time in male prison [TRIGGER WARNING: The crimes involved in the inmate's are not pretty]

A court-appointed lawyer who assisted Veilleux at her trial says tensions boiled over at the women's facility because while Veilleux is legally a woman, she still has male sexual organs.

At least one of female detainee didn't appreciate sharing space with Veilleux, said lawyer Andre Boissonneault. "Legally she is a woman but she hasn't had her operation, so she's partly a man," Boissonneault said.

Okay, I can understand that Ms. Veilleux has not yet had surgery, fair enough. However, Corrections Canada blew it in their handling of Ms. Veilleux:

Boissonneault said provincial jail officials went to great lengths to accommodate Veilleux, including keeping other inmates behind bars while she bathed and changed.

"Then she was sentenced to 40-months in prison and instead of sending her to a prison for women, they sent her to a prison for men," Boissonneault said.

Mistake 1: Punishing other prisoners for her presence. Locking the rest of the population up while Veilleux showers or changes is a mistake - a huge one. That's a recipe for creating tensions, no doubt about it. It also affirms the commonly held assumption that a transsexual gender is somehow "less valid" than that of others.

Mistake 2: Placing Ms. Veilleux in a Men's prison. I'm sorry, but that is wrong on so many levels it's not funny; worse, it actually places Ms. Veilleux in personal danger.

Mistake 3: Did the prison that Ms. Veilleux was held in take any steps to educate the other prisoners? They are as much a part of the story here as Ms. Veilleux. From what has been described, I suspect that they did not take such steps, or worse they only took a bare minimum approach. (The actions taken by the prison (Mistake 1) suggest to me that they may not even have done that much, but that is purely speculation)

Granted, Prisons are not nice places, nor are they expected to be. That said, someone who has transitioned (is living full time in gender, and has undertaken steps such as legal name change) and is now living as a woman is guaranteed to be a target when housed in a men's-only institution.

Now, the first piece of advice to anyone who is planning to transition is pretty simple - Don't do anything stupid that gets you tossed in jail. However, reality is that transfolk are like the rest of the population, and some will inevitably do things that are illegal, and some do wind up in prison.

For prisons and the legal system, this situation means that there is a need to find ways to accommodate transsexuals who are incarcerated. Filing people based on what's between their legs doesn't work in this case, and can result in horrific situations. We don't incarcerate people to denigrate them, and we certainly don't do so to put them in situations where they will be raped repeatedly at the hands of others (last I checked, rape is crime in its own right - even when it occurs in a prison).

Unfortunately, what we have here is currently a situation involving a prisoner in a legally ambiguous state, and the bureaucracy running the prisons isn't responding to the situation constructively.