| Libertarian Party of NY -- Issues |
Three Westchester members of the Libertarian party spoke out during public address period on March 8, 1999, in White Plains, NY--Blay Tarnoff, Norma Siegal, and Bonnie Scott. They did not fall into the two main categories present at the hearing--anti-gays or representatives of a minority to be protected by this commission. The libertarians presented a fear of government enabling a privately-funded commission to act as a branch of the government, capable of fining any business or group in the county, except religious and some other organizations.
I agree that we need investigation into human rights violations. I think it's wonderful that we can find the private funding to support these investigations, as this legislation implies. The men and women
However, I would like to refer you to the web site of Human Rights Watch--www.hrw.org, an international organization that criticizes our country's human rights problem, in fact, problems right in our state... mainly police brutality
Some would oppose this Commission because certain groups, like homosexuals, would be protected by it. I have the opposite objection. I believe that human rights are innate and that everyone deserves protection. No government can say who should be protected from discrimination, because any enumeration will leave somebody out, or imply that the listed groups should get a preference over those not listed.
In his State of the County address from last April, supporting this commission, County Executive Andrew Spano cites, "saving significant tax dollars by avoiding judgements against the county." I would posit, however, that by creating a Human Rights Commission with the power to fine businesses for alleged violations, you are in fact opening the county up to potential lawsuits.
I say, as a current resident of North White Plains, having spent all 27 years of my life in Westchester
I welcome a Human Rights Commission that is privately funded, as long as its focus includes the county and town governments
I agree that a privately-funded Human Rights Commission will uncover problems in the private sector. My request is that their scope also include our government, and that they use that same tool that serves Amnesty International so well: media pressure.
I support a Human Rights Commission if its power is limited to focusing attention on the problem, assisting in conciliation (as provided in this legislation) and, failing that, assisting the victims of discrimination to sue in court.
I do not support a privately-funded Human Rights Commission with the power to issue subpoenas, hold hearings, and impose and collect fines.
Enforce the laws we already have on the books to deal with violence, fraud, and other serious forms of discrimination. Violence is a crime. Perpetrators should be prosecuted equally, no matter what color or sexual orientation their victims are.
Failing to hire someone is a murky issue, and the county will open itself up to as many lawsuits as it tries to prevent, if it enables a privately-funded Human Rights Commission to fine our County's businesses for something that should be taken to a real court, instead.
Footnotes: [not in speech 3/8/99, presented for the record to Cty. Executive Andrew Spano]
[1] Or transgendered humans. The use of man/woman, he/she is linguistic convenience, and should not be construed to imply a choice of acceptable genders, sexual orientation or configuration, rather, the inclusion of the entire spectrum of gender, biological or otherwise.
[2] The full URL of the 1998 Human Rights Watch of police brutality in New York City is http://www.hrw.org/hrw/reports98/police/uspo99.htm The URL for the 1999 report is http://www.hrw.org/hrw/worldreport99/usa/index.html. A summary of Amnesty International's report on the U.S. Penal System is at http://www.november.org/AmnestyInt01.html. And finally, A recent Westchester Weekly Article at http://www.westchesterweekly.com/articles/guard.html discusses correction officers and the stresses on them which can lead to similar problems.
[3] The powers of the proposed Commission are defined in §700.10.
[4] Except for four years at college upstate NY. (The address I gave there was my work address.)
[5] Again, a shortcut of speech. I do not mean to exclude city and village governments in NY state from my desired scope of the Human Rights Commission.
[6] The Libertarian Party is not against mutually-agreed, private arbitration of differences. This proposed commission, however, will be a panel understandably appointed with special interests, that may be influenced by donations, and its judgements--which may include compensatory as well as punitive damages--must be appealed to courts higher than the venue that the offense would normally be tried under. This imposes an undue burden on corporations and individuals to prove that their speech, decisions, and actions were indeed constitutional.
I wholeheartedly agree with all the speakers before who support this legislation because they feel it is wrong to discriminate. Well I, too, feel it is abhorrent to discriminate. But, I would like to point out a danger in the Human Rights legislation we are considering today.
This legislation will grant privileges and protections to some and not others, based on such factors as race and other group membership. This legislation takes the position that it is a proper function of government to favor one race over another, and one group over another, in order to correct past discrimination. In our system of government, where the majority rules, do we really want to hand the majority the power to decide the fate of minorities? Do we really want the majority to decide which minority should be favored and which should not? Do we really want the majority to decide what is a "good" reason for discriminating and what is a bad one?
The fact is, that if racism, sexism, and discrimination are rampant in society, then we would be insane to allow the majority to discriminate under color of law. And if there is not so much discrimination in society, then this legislation isn't really necessary.
It's also important to note that even though it's for a good reason, it is an unfortunate fact that legislation such as this, which favors one group over another, seems unfair to many people. Of course, if this legislation passes, some people will be wrongly accused under it. And some people, who would never even think to discriminate, will resent being pressured to prove they do not discriminate. And some people will simply resent having to undergo the expense of being forced to comply with new regulations. And some people will just not like being made to feel they are inferior to others. I ask you, what will happen when those in the majority start to feel they have just been pushed too far? What will an active and angry majority do with the power to discriminate we are considering giving them today?
I tell you, ladies and gentlemen, this bill is a dangerous devil-child. It is never wise to enable the majority to codify its racial preferences in law. Government must never discriminate on the basis of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or any other irrelevant basis. Because, once it has the power, it can and will be exerted in ways no one may have intended. The law must judge all persons not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. I urge you to reconsider this disastrous legislation.
Blay Tarnoff
March 8, 1999
Protect Human Rights--Stop the Drug War
Two-thirds of drug convictions are people of color
| LPNY Home |