Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.RoundClass[13]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[8]

Details

Caselist.RoundClass[13]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2016-11-05 23:05:22.845
	1	+2016-11-05 23:05:22.0

Caselist.CitesClass[8]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,19 @@
	1	+The new generation LGBTQ movement is working with community-based solutions, moving away from the flare of courts. Lazare ‘10/13
	2	+Sarah Lazare is a staff writer for AlterNet, A former staff writer for Common Dreams. “Meet 5 Movement Leaders Across the U.S. Fighting for LGTBQ Issues on the Ground.” Alternet. October 13, 2016. http://www.alternet.org/lgbtq/meet-5-movement-leaders-across-us-fighting-lgtbq-issues-ground JJN
	3	+"We've gotten dragged into a national conversation where same-sex marriage is held up as the pinnacle of the LGBTQ struggle, but there are so many other things our communities struggle around, issues that have to do with life and death,” Paulina Helm-Hernandez, the co-director of the queer liberation group Southerners on New Ground (SONG), told AlterNet. “We’re dealing with issues like criminalization, health care access and core safety. We’re thinking about ways our people know a lot about violence and how to survive." Helm-Hernandez is one of countless movement leaders in rural communities and urban centers across the country bringing a queer lens to racial, social and economic justice activism. LGBTQ organizers are at the helm of the Movement for Black Lives, calling for an end to extrajudicial police killings, and on the frontlines of native resistance at Standing Rock, where indigenous earth defenders have erected a "two-spirit camp," for gay and lesbian indigenous people. They are demanding an stop to deportations and mass incarceration and devising concrete, community-safety alternatives to calling the police. While fending off the racist incitement of the 2016 election cycle, LGBTQ organizers are also going on the offensive, preparing to mobilize for demilitarization at home and abroad no matter who wins in November. AlterNet spoke with five U.S.-based organizers whose political and cultural work shows that LGBTQ movements go far beyond marriage equality, and are shaping the social movements that define our times. 1. Kym Anthoni, New Orleans “Second lining is very big in New Orleans culture,” said Anthoni, an organizer with the youth-led LGBTQ organization BreakOUT. “After someone passes away, people will do a dance celebrating resilience. Every year around the anniversary of Hurricane Katrina, we do a second line for the people who died to celebrate resilience, strength and moving forward.” “When a transgender woman has been killed, or you’ve gone through a bunch of bullshit, we embody the culture of second line, recognizing that we have a lot of pain and embracing resilience, saying let’s let go of the harsh shit that you’ve been through and celebrate the fact that you made it,” Anthoni continued. “Last year for the Trans March of resilience, we had a whole second line. We were uplifting the voices that are normally not uplifted in our culture.” New Orleans has been hit hard in recent years by a wave of killings targeting transgender women of color. Among them was BreakOUT community member Penny Proud, a 21-year-old black transgender woman murdered in 2015. This summer, the organization released a statement reading, “It is with heavy hearts that we share the news that another young, black trans/gender non-conforming person, Devin Diamond, has been murdered in New Orleans, just a few weeks after 24-year-old Erica ‘E’ Davis was shot in the Treme neighborhood on her way to work.” Key to BreakOUT’s organizing is the principle that “we deserve to walk down the street and not be attacked, we deserve to not be criminalized,” said Anthoni. This demand is aimed at curbing vigilante violence as well as law enforcement brutality. The organization’s first campaign was called We Deserve Better and took on rampant abuse by the New Orleans Police Department. According to a report released in 2014 by BreakOUT, police abuse is widespread. The survey found that “75 percent of people of color respondents feel they have been targeted by police for their sexual orientation or gender identity or gender expression compared with 24 percent of white respondents.” In addition, the report states that “43 percent of people of color respondents have been asked for a sexual favor by police compared with 11 percent of white respondents.” Anthoni emphasized that it is important for the broader public to understand that police brutality is also an LGBTQ issue. “Police always target trans women of color just for being trans,” Anthoni said. “They over-eroticize transgender bodies. The queer and transgender youth of color are most targeted by law enforcement. It’s a huge issue because it takes your power away, it makes you feel vulnerable. Our vulnerability can sometimes cost us our lives.” In addition to organizing, political education and youth work in local high schools, Anthoni said, “The main core of what we do is heart healing justice work. We focus on finding ways to heal as a community.”
	4	+
	5	+Court civil rights victories act as fly paper drawing other social movements into the court to focus on litigation strategies
	6	+Rosenberg 8 (Gerald N., University of Chicago political science and law professor, Ph.D. from Yale University, member of the Washington, D.C. bar, The Hollow Hope: Can Courts Bring about Social Change?, p. 427)
	7	+If this is the case, then there is another important way in which courts affect social change. It is, to put it simply, that courts act as “fly-paper” for social reformers who succumb to the “lure of litigation.” If the constraints of the Constrained Court view are correct, then courts can seldom produce significant social reform. Yet if groups advocating such reform continue to look to the courts for aid, and spend precious resources in litigation, then the courts also limit change by deflecting claims from substantive political battles, where success is possible, to harmless legal ones where it is not. Even when major cases are won, the achievement is often more symbolic that real. Thus, courts may serve an ideological function of luring movements for social reform to an institution that is structurally constrained from serving their needs, providing only an illusion of change.
	8	+
	9	+Courts wreck movements
	10	+Becker 93 (Mary, Prof of Law @ University of Chicago Law School; 64 U. Colo. L. Rev. 975 ln)
	11	+Binding judicial review can impede political movements even when the Supreme Court does not actually block success. The relegation of high matters, such as sexual equality, to the courts saps political movements of their strength, particularly after ineffective victories. 76 At the same time, judicial review can mobilize the opposition, and the Court itself will be influenced by the resulting political climate, a climate it has helped create. When ineffective judicial victories weaken a movement, there may be less grass-roots pressure for change. Yet, real change in the relationship between the sexes is unlikely without change at the grass-roots level. Decisions from on high are unlikely to transform intimate relationships. Judicial victories protecting one or some outsider groups, but not all such groups, also interfere with the development of effective coalitions. This may be most harmful to the most vulnerable groups, such as lesbians, bisexuals, and gay men. Real or perceived judicial protection of less marginal groups, such as straight women or racial minorities, may mean that these groups are less likely to form effective coalitions with the more marginal groups. Judicial review is, therefore, a "divide and conquer" strategy.
	12	+
	13	+The court system destroys crucial parts of the LGBTQ movement and works to further marginalize people. Leachman ‘14
	14	+Gwendolyn M. Leachman - Gwendolyn M. Leachman. Sears Law Fellow, Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity, UCLA School of Law; J.D.; Ph.D. Candidate, Jurisprudence and Social Policy Program, UC Berkeley. “From Protest to Perry: How Litigation Shaped the LGBT Movement’s Agenda.” University of California, Davis. 2014. http://lawreview.law.ucdavis.edu/issues/47/5/Articles/47-5_Leachman.pdf JJN *bracketed for offensive language
	15	+The primary contribution of this Article has been to expose a set of advantages that may be associated with social movement litigation — media visibility and organizational stability — and to illustrate how these advantages may work to elevate the issues being litigated to top priorities for protest-based activists operating outside the courtroom. In this Part, I dig deeper into the normative consequences that this work implicates for the LGBT movement and for current understandings of litigation as a tool for social change. I argue that the consequences of legalization of a social movement’s agenda depend on two factors: first, the extent to which movement litigation focuses on legal impact (winning favorable precedent), and second, the dominant framing and assumptions inherent in the law that movement actors deploy. In movements like the LGBTQ movement, where lawyers predominantly use impact litigation focused on antidiscrimination law, the legalization of movement goals has the potential to marginalize the movement’s more far-reaching visions for social change. The refocusing of a movement around litigation priorities has substantive consequences only if litigation strategies are divorced from the larger movement’s needs and goals. This is something that is particularly likely to occur in conventional impact litigation, which prioritizes formal legal outcomes. Focusing on gaining formal legal advances leaves little need for litigating groups to assess what other activists are doing or what change most constituents desire.347 Focusing on winning favorable precedent further pushes lawyers toward “juridically intelligible” issues and claims,348 which have the greatest likelihood of succeeding in court. Impact litigation groups tend to select priorities based on legal expertise rather than democratic concerns for community goals.349 My analysis in this Article, which corroborates findings from previous work,350 suggests that has been the dominant pattern in LGBT movement impact litigation. When lawfocused impact litigation groups operate in pluralistic movements with diverse political factions and demands — as they do in the LGBT movement351 — legalization will likely generate a substantive change in movement focus (and risk subordinating the priorities of protest groups).352 Does the legalization of a movement’s priorities harm that movement? It depends on whose perspective you take. Some might argue that legalizing a social movement’s agenda could be advantageous for a movement in that it would weed out the more radical movement subgroups, reducing movement infighting and concentrating movement efforts into common, perhaps more attainable, goals. Yet eliminating radical dissent in a movement is only beneficial to the extent one discounts radical politics as ineffective — a position which privileges a reformist view of movement success.353 Radical movement factions tend to envision their own contribution not in terms of attaining a checklist of political gains, but rather as cultivating an alternative vision of society that the current system is incapable of producing.354 By this definition, sacrificing movement segments that earnestly advocate and attempt to diffuse an alternative vision of change that cannot be addressed through legal reform would instead diminish a movement’s prospects for success. Instead of considering the harm that legalization might cause a social movement — a normative judgment that shifts depending on how one evaluates movement effectiveness — it is more useful to consider the effects of legalization in terms of its ability to redefine the scope of movement goals. Legalization of a movement’s agenda helps enshrine within the political culture of that movement the set of values that dominate the legal landscape — and history tells us that those values can be “left” or “right” values, depending on the context.355 For movements whose central purpose is to promote equality for a disadvantaged group, what is crucially important is the extent to which the law supports a vision of equality that would adequately address the plight of a movement’s constituents. Some commentators have held that U.S. law is inherently incapable of ameliorating, or even having an adequate language for conceptualizing, persistent social inequalities;356 this would suggest that the privileging of political goals that can be framed in law’s terms will necessarily constrain equality movements from pursuing more effective alternative strategies. I would not so resolutely discount the potential for law to support transformative politics. Social movements often cultivate their own interpretations of legal principles, which may fly in the face of official understandings,357 as an organizing tool in politics. The law is then, at the very least, capable of radical interpretation and expressing transformative visions of equality and social change. Yet though law contains the potential for radical interpretations promoting substantive equality, this potential often remains latent.358 Antidiscrimination law in particular — the typical target of equality movements — has become settled around quite limited understandings of equality. Judicial interpretation has crystallized around a definition of equality as formal access to equal opportunity359 and discrimination as isolated, intentional acts by prejudiced perpetrators, which cause harm to individual victims.360 This interpretation not only denies remedies for the structural factors most responsible for perpetuating inequality, it also places the focus on preventing individual wrongdoing rather than producing substantive outcomes and creating real change.361 Thus, when antidiscrimination litigation comes to define an equality movement’s priorities, the movement may find itself privileging issues with little hope of creating social transformation through substantive equality. The emphasis on single-axis identity categories in antidiscrimination law362 raises another potential harm in the legalization of movement goals: marginalizing intersectionality. Although those who have multiple subordinated identities experience discrimination differently than those who have a single subordinated identity, antidiscrimination law provides few opportunities for claims based on the combination of more than one protected identity category.363 Very few courts have acknowledged intersectional discrimination364 and instead typically address intersectional claims in the alternative.365 Courts’ requirement of a comparator group in discrimination claims further complicates effective intersectional claims-making.366 It is unsurprising, then, that civil rights advocacy tends to reflect the law’s single-axis paradigm.367 The legalization of movement goals around antidiscrimination litigation may accordingly facilitate the marginalization of movement goals focused on intersectional subordination and crosscutting, multi-issue goals.368 In the LGBTQ movement’s case, this might help explain why issues like “support for working families, ending violence against women, prison reform, poverty, and redistribution — all once critical parts of our LGBTQ liberation movement’s agenda have disappeared in the national LGBT movement discourse.”369 In summary, the elevation of litigation priorities on a movement’s agenda may circumscribe the movement’s goals, but the potential for litigation to do so depends on the approach movement lawyers take — what doctrine they target, and how instrumentally focused they are on law reform goals. In movements that use impact litigation focused on antidiscrimination law, there lies the danger that legalizing the agenda could marginalize a movement’s structural demands and attempts to address multiple dimensions of subordination. These goals are arguably more transformative than goals that resonate with the existing antidiscrimination paradigm, in that they target particularly intractable inequalities, which are given scant public attention and often go undetected and unchallenged. Because there is no surer way to diminish the possibilities for far-reaching reform than to undercut efforts to achieve it, the reorientation of movement activists around a more conservative set of legal priorities can work to undermine a movement’s potential to produce transformative change. CONCLUSION The original empirical research presented in this Article suggests that litigation strategies in the LGBT movement have become the most visible and stable forms of LGBT activism and that the organizations that use litigation have become independent, agenda-setting movement leaders. With the media as its megaphone, and the stable organizational support behind it, litigation appears to have been privileged vis-à-vis other tactics for social change, drawing protest groups away from more radical priorities for cultural transformation and toward the legal reform goals articulated through movement litigation. In short, the substantive issues being litigated become the default agenda of the whole LGBT movement, radical and stateoriented factions alike. The primary contribution of this Article has been to introduce a set of systemic, unintentional mechanisms, outside the strategic choices made by lawyers in the attorney-client relationship, which may privilege legal frameworks for imagining inequality and advancing social change in a social movement’s political agenda. In the case of the LGBTQ movement (and perhaps other contemporary equality movements that target antidiscrimination law), this privileging of legal frameworks for change may have diminished the more expansive visions of social change espoused by the movement’s more radical factions. The LGBTQ movement has come to be defined by legal reform goals based on sexual and gender identity, marginalizing many of the broader priorities espoused by queer activists (e.g., sexual liberation, challenging the patriarchal nuclear family, support for working families, poverty, redistribution).370 The marginalization of those queer movement priorities appears to have occurred through institutional mechanisms similar to those identified by previous antidiscrimination scholarship;371 instead of being intentionally cut out from the broader movement agenda, queer priorities may have instead been diminished by a set of unintentional, systemic processes — arising from factors like journalistic practices, interactions among movement organizations, and protest planning routines — which may elevate social movement litigation and the dominant, legalized views of inequality that it typically promotes.
	16	+
	17	+LGBTQ Rights are crucial to avoid extinction Tatchell ’89
	18	+Peter Tatchell - is a British human rights campaignerbest known for his work with LGBT social movements, was selected as Labour Party Parliamentary candidate for Bermondsey. “Gay Liberation is Central to Human Emancipation.” Peter Tatchell.net. However, note at the bottom: “An edited version of this article was published in "Labour Briefing", 1989. See also "Beyond lesbian and gay rights", Interlink. May /June 1989.” http://www.petertatchell.net/masculinity/gay_liberation.htm JJN *bracketed for offensive language
	19	+Lesbian and gay LGTBQ liberation is of critical importance to the broader project of human emancipation. It is not merely a minority issue, nor purely a question of civil rights and sexual freedom. The ultimate aim is a cultural revolution to end heterosexual supremacism and the concomitant cult of heterosexual masculinity which underpins all relations of oppression and exploitation. This was the revolutionary agenda of the lesbian and gay liberation movement which emerged 20 years ago following the Stonewall Riots in New York in June 1969. In contrast to earlier liberal-oriented movements for homosexual equality, the lesbian and gay liberation movement did not seek to ape heterosexual values or secure the acceptance of homosexuals within the existing sexual conventions. Indeed, it repudiated the prevailing sexual morality and institutions - rejecting not only heterosexism but also heterosexual masculinity with its oppressive predisposition to rivalry, toughness and aggression (most potently symbolised by the rapist and the queer-basher). In contrast the "radical drag" and''gender-bender" politics of the Gay Liberation Front glorified male gentleness. It was a conscious, if sometimes exaggerated, attempt to renounce the oppressiveness of masculinity and subvert the way masculinity functions to buttress the subordination of women and gay men. Lesbian and gay liberation is therefore truly revolutionary because it specifically rejects the male heterosexual cult of masculine competitiveness, domination and violence. Instead, it affirms the worthwhileness of male sensitivity and affection between men and, in the case of lesbians, the intrinsic value of an eroticism and love independent of heterosexual men. By challenging heterosexual masculinity, the politics of lesbian and gay liberation has profound radical implications for oppressed peoples everywhere: it actively subverts the male heterosexual machismo' values which lie at the heart of all systems of domination, exploitation and oppression. Lesbian and gay liberation is therefore not an issue which is peripheral. It is, indeed absolutely central to revolutionary change and human liberation in general. Without the successful construction of a cult of heterosexual masculinity and a mass of aggressive male egos, neither sexual, class, racial, species, nor imperialist oppression are possible. All these different forms of oppression depend on two factors for their continued maintenance. First, on specific economic and political structures. And second, on a significant proportion of the population, mainly heterosexual men, being socialised into the acceptance of harsh masculine values which involve the legitimisation of aggression and the suppression of gentleness and emotion. The embracing of these culturally-conditioned macho values, whether consciously or unconsciously, is what makes so many millions of people able to participate in repressive regimes. (This interaction between social structures, ideology and individual psychology was a thesis which the communist psychologist, Wilhelm Reich, was attempting to articulate nearly 60 years ago in his book, The Mass Psychology of Fascism). In the case of German fascism, what Nazism did was merely awake and excite the latent brutality which is intrinsic to heterosexual masculinity in class societies. It then systematically manipulated and organised this unleashed masculine violence into a fascist regime of terror and torture which culminated in the holocaust. Since it is the internalisation of the masculine cult of toughness and domination which makes people psychologically suited and willing to be part of oppressive relations of exploitation and subjection, repressive states invariably glorify masculine "warrior" ideals and legally and ideologically suppress those men - mainly homosexuals - who fail to conform to them. Given that this internalisation of masculine aggression within the male population is a prerequisite for injustice and tyranny, love and tenderness between men ceases to be a purely private matter or simply a question of personal lifestyle. Instead, it objectively becomes an act of subversion which undermines the very foundations of oppression. Hence the Nazis' vilification of gay men as "sexual subversives" and "sexual saboteurs" who, in the words of Heinrich Himmler, had to be "exterminated- root and branch." In conclusion: the goal of eradicating injustice and exploitation requires us to change both the social structure and the individual personality to create people who, liberated from masculinity, no longer psychologically crave the power to dominate and exploit others and who are therefore unwilling to be the agents of oppressive regimes (whether as soldiers, police, gaolers and censors or as routine civil servants and state administrators who act as the passive agents of repression by keeping the day-to-day machinery of unjust government ticking over). By challenging the cult of heterosexual masculinity, lesbian and gay liberation politics is about much more than the limited agenda of human rights. It offers a unique and revolutionary contribution to the emancipation of the whole of humanity from all forms of oppression and subjugation.

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2016-11-05 23:05:26.996

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Smith, Calen

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Loyola AB

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+13

Round

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+1

Team

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Harvard Westlake Nayar Neg

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+NOV-DEC - DA - Hollow Hope

Tournament

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Damus