Arquivo da tag: EUA

Cotas Raciais Discriminam! Sim ou Não?

 

cotas

Afinal, para que cotas raciais no acesso ao ensino superior? Será mesmo que elas violam a igualdade? Que elas reforçam o racismo? Que elas diminuem o nível da educação? Que elas afirmam a inferioridade do cotista?

 

Deixe um comentário

Arquivado em Direito Constitucional

“The Lost Year – 1958-1959” – Fechamento de Escolas para evitar negros

The Lost Year

Documentário sobre a reação de bons (?) pais e mães cristãos contra o INSULTO INACEITÁVEL de aceitar que negros americanos frequentassem as mesmas escolas dos seus filhos brancos.
O Documentário conta como se perdeu o ano escolar de 1958-1959 porque os brancos, perseguidos pela decisão da Suprema Corte (Brown vs. Board of Education), se organizaram e, em nome de Deus e da Família, fecharam as escolas em uma comunidade nos EUA:

 

The “Lost Year” of 1958-59, is less known than the story that preceded it. But the Lost Year is a separate, equally significant historical episode.

During that year, Governor Orval Faubus closed all high schools in Little Rock, locking out 3,665 black and white students from a public education, and locking in almost 200 teachers and administrators to contracts to serve empty classrooms.

Students and citizens were held in limbo. The 10th, 11th and 12th grades were closed. Faubus’ school closing occurred at the beginning of the 1958-59 school year. Several weeks later a referendum was held and Little Rock voters, by a three-to-one margin, supported segregation over complete integration of all schools—the only two options on the ballot.

Faubus and segregationist state legislators created new state laws to further forestall court ordered racial integration of schools decreed in the 1954 Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka.

For the second time in two years, many in Arkansas tried to assert state’s rights over the authority of federal courts and the power of President Eisenhower. During the Lost Year, Little Rock was further torn by racial conflict, societal disruptions, and political machinations.

Denying an education to all Little Rock high school youth profoundly affected thousands of families as the city ruptured into an even more divided community.

The Students

The students’ stories are compelling. White students from Central High, Hall High, and Little Rock Technical High and black students from Horace Mann High scrambled to find an education.

Fifteen and sixteen year old children had no access to local public education for an entire year. Many were forced to leave the state. Some studied to enter college early. Others boarded busses daily to travel miles for classes in other cities. Parents and siblings coped with separations from their teenage students who moved in with relatives or with friends around the state. Students, themselves, coped with life-changing disruptions from friends, family, and classes.

It was a period unmatched in its peculiarities. Students had no schools to attend, but football continued at all campuses by suggestion of the Governor. The School District briefly experimented with live television teaching on local stations.

A Private School Corporation for whites attempted to rent public school buildings and hire public school teachers, but federal courts restrained their efforts.

Several private schools opened in alternative locations with alternative teachers and enrolled 44% of all the white high school students in Little Rock.

Predictably, class and race were factors in who found schooling and who did not. Ninety three per cent of white students found some form of education that year. White families were better able to find transportation, pay tuition, or make more elaborate arrangements for alternative schooling.

No private education emerged for blacks and fifty percent did no academic work that year. Many found jobs and hoped that schools would open, or joined the military to finish their education. Many of these students never returned to school.

Ironically, the remaining members of the Little Rock Nine, having suffered through the previous year at Central, were also affected. Some left the state for alternative schooling or enrolled in correspondence courses from universities.

[back to top]

The Community

Beyond the students, the community was in chaos. The Little Rock School District Superintendent and members of the School Board changed three times in one calendar year through resignations, appointments, and elections.

State legislators expanded the troubles beyond Little Rock when they passed laws that targeted NAACP members and jeopardized the civil liberties of all teachers and professors.

State employees were intimidated with requirements to list all organizations to which they belonged or to whom they paid dues. For months, the ever changing political upheaval of the community was measured by rising tensions and falling morale in every home of students, parents and teachers.

A Turning Point

Opposing sides worked publicly and behind the scenes to jockey for control of their community. The Capital Citizens Council and the Mothers’ League of Central High represented the segregationist groups.

Few public voices stood for the moderates, but Harry Ashmore, Editor of the Arkansas Gazette, and The Women’s Emergency Committee to Open Our Schools were among the first to have the courage to speak out.

Finally in late spring a turning point came in the Lost Year crisis. At a session of the Little Rock School Board, which had gathered to consider renewing the teachers’ contracts, three of the six member board walked out. These moderates considered this an end to the official business of the meeting, believing that no further action could be taken by the remaining segregationists.

However, the three remaining segregationists on the Board continued the session, and fired forty-four teachers and administrators who were believed to support racial integration. This purge served as a wake-up call to the city.

Moderates formed STOP (Stop This Outrageous Purge) to recall the segregationist school board members to try to regain control of their community and their public schools.

Segregationist opponents formed CROSS (Committee to Retain our Segregated Schools) and attempted to recall the moderates on the school board. In a twenty day campaign, the opposing sides battled for the hearts of the community.

People of Little Rock had to choose between keeping their beloved teachers and administrators, or bowing to the segregationists’ purge. After a year of closed schools and the firing of teachers of both races, the voters of Little Rock narrowly recalled three segregationist School Board members, and the new Board opened schools early for the 1959-60 school year.

Lessons of the Lost Year

The disruptions of the Lost Year have had life-long consequences for former students and teachers, their families and the community of Little Rock. Their stories must be told.

The lessons of the Lost Year, often unknown or little regarded, have much to teach us about public education and a community spirit that challenged segregation. The views of displaced students on race and desegregation were shaped by these events and have become life-longs beliefs.

Perhaps most importantly, the Lost Year illuminates how the community took their schools back on an integrated basis and informs the world that all of Little Rock was not represented by screaming mobs of segregationists at Central High in 1957.

 

 

 

Fonte: The Lost Year 
P.s. Se alguém tiver/achar com legendas, por favor, me diga.

 

 

Deixe um comentário

Arquivado em Democracia, Direito Constitucional, Direitos Humanos, Minorias

Suprema Corte dos EUA determina aplicação de lei da Califórnia que proíbe ‘cura gay’

Suprema Corte dos EUAJuízes recusaram pedido de revisão de texto por parte de defensores de terapias reparativas

SÃO FRANCISCO – A Suprema Corte dos EUA abriu o caminho para iniciativas que embarreiram a “cura gay”, ao determinar a aplicação de uma lei da Califórnia que proíbe o aconselhamento psicológico que visa a transformar menores gays em heterossexuais.

A Lei da Califórnia deveria entrar em vigor no ano passado, mas ficou em espera por conta de ações que tentaram derrubá-la. A Justiça não atendeu ao recurso de apoiadores da chamada conversão ou terapia reparativa.

Os juízes mantiveram uma decisão de agosto de 2013 que dizia que o banimento cobria atividades profissionais que cabem ao estado regular, e que não violava a liberdade de expressão dos profissionais e dos pacientes buscando tratamento.

​No ano passado, o Tribunal de Apelações dos EUA foi favorável ao entendimento, defendido por ​legisladores da Califórnia, de que ​terapias destinadas a mudar a orientação sexual para menores de 18 anos estavam fora das pesquisas científicas e têm sido repudiadas pelos principais grupos médicos, além serem consideradas potencialmente perigosas.

“A Suprema Corte decidiu bloquear qualquer abertura possível para se permitir mais abuso infantil psicológico na Califórnia”, disse o senador estadual Ted Lieu, autor da lei, nesta segunda-feira. “A recusa do Tribunal em aceitar o apelo de terapeutas com fundamentos ideológicos extremos e​ que​ praticam o charlatanismo de terapia de conversão gay é uma vitória para o bem-estar da criança,​ da​ ciência e​ dos​princípios humanos básicos.”

A lei diz que terapeutas profissionais e conselheiros que ofereçam tratamentos destinados a eliminar ou reduzir atração pelo mesmo sexo em seus pacientes estão apresentando conduta não profissional e, por isso, estão​ sujeito​s​ a sofrer revisões em seus licenciamentos. A lei, entretanto, não abrange ações de pastores e conselheiros leigos que forneçam terapias de “cura gay” por meio de programas da igreja.

Os grupos que criticam a lei argumentam que os legisladores não têm comprovação científica de que a terapia faz mal. O governador de Nova Jersey Chris Christie assinou uma lei proibindo a prática em seu estado no ano passado.

Fonte: O Globo

Ver também:

 

Deixe um comentário

Arquivado em Direito Constitucional, Direitos Fundamentais, Judiciário, Minorias

60 anos depois do caso Brown, a segregação racial volta às escolas dos EUA (ou nunca deixou de existir)

Jim Crow in the Classroom: New Report Finds Segregation Lives on in U.S. Schools

 As the U.S. Supreme Court upholds a ban on affirmative action in Michigan and the country marks 60 years since the landmark decision of Brown v. Board of Education, we look at how segregation is still pervasive in U.S. public schools. An explosive new report in ProPublica finds school integration never fully occurred, and in recent decades may have even been reversed. Focusing on three generations of the same family in Tuscaloosa, Alabama, the story concludes: “While segregation as it is practiced today may be different than it was 60 years ago, it is no less pernicious: in Tuscaloosa and elsewhere, it involves the removal and isolation of poor black and Latino students, in particular, from everyone else. In Tuscaloosa today, nearly one in three black students attends a school that looks as if Brown v. Board of Education never happened.” We are joined by Nikole Hannah-Jones, whose article, “The Resegregation of America’s Schools,” is the latest in the ProPublica series “Segregation Now: Investigating America’s Racial Divide.”

TRANSCRIPT

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: The Supreme Court has upheld Michigan’s ban on affirmative action at state colleges and universities. The case centers on a 2006 voter referendum in Michigan that barred race- and sex-based preferences in admissions. An appeals court previously ruled the ban violates the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause. But in a six-to-two decision, the Supreme Court overruled the lower court. The justices in the majority argued policies affecting minorities that do not involve intentional discrimination should be decided at the ballot box rather than in the courtroom. In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor argued, quote, “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race … is to speak openly and candidly on the subject of race, and to apply the Constitution with eyes open to the unfortunate effects of centuries of racial discrimination.”

Tuesday’s ruling will likely bolster similar anti-affirmative action measures in several other states, and it comes as this spring marks 60 years since the landmark Supreme Court ruling ofBrown v. Board of Education, which was intended to end segregation in America’s public schools. But an explosive new report finds school integration never fully occurred and, in recent decades, may have even been reversed. “The Resegregation of America’s Schools” is the latest in an ongoing series by ProPublica called “Segregation Now: Investigating America’s Racial Divide,” and it focuses on three generations in the same family in Tuscaloosa, Alabama.

AMY GOODMAN: The report concludes that, quote, “while segregation as it is practiced today may be different than it was 60 years ago, it is no less pernicious: in Tuscaloosa and elsewhere, it involves the removal and isolation of poor black and Latino students, in particular, from everyone else. In Tuscaloosa today, nearly one in three black students attends a school that looks as if Brown v. Board of Education never happened.”

Well, for more, we’re joined by the author of “Segregation Now,” the whole series, Nikole Hannah-Jones. She covers civil rights for ProPublica, with a focus on segregation and discrimination in housing and schools.

We welcome you to Democracy Now! Congratulations on this remarkable series, and coming out now at the same time that the Supreme Court has backed a ban on race as a factor in college admissions. Before we talk about Tuscaloosa, if you could briefly comment on this idea that race shouldn’t matter when you look at the schools of America.

NIKOLE HANNAHJONES: Well, I think it’s very obvious, if you just look strictly at the facts, that we still have a racialized K-12 system and that black and brown students tend to be in schools where they’re receiving an inferior education. They have a less rigorous curriculum. They’re less likely to get access to classes that will help them in college, such as advanced placement physics, higher-level math. And they are most likely to be taught by inexperienced teachers. So, when you have this system where black and brown students are receiving a very different education than white students, and then once you get to the college level you say race no longer matters, and despite your disadvantage in a public educational system, that now we are all—everyone should compete at the same level, I think, in some sense, it’s just—there’s just a big disconnect between what’s happening on these two levels of education.

AMY GOODMAN: It’s interesting, Sonia Sotomayor, Justice Sotomayor’s dissent, very eloquent dissent, against Chief Roberts.

NIKOLE HANNAHJONES: Yeah, so, in 2007, Chief Justice Roberts wrote in a decision striking down voluntary desegregation orders in Seattle and in Louisville, Kentucky, and these were two districts that wanted to maintain integration in the schools because they understand the value of that for students as—I guess, really in terms of education. And what Chief Justice Roberts said, a very pithy response, the way to stop discriminating on race is to stop discriminating on race. And Justice Sotomayor definitely addressed that and said, “You can’t ignore the existence of race, and the way that you eliminate racial inequality is not to pretend that it doesn’t exist.” So, she was directly kind of addressing that response.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: Could you explain, Nikole—you said that minorities, black and brown students, receive an inferior education. Could you give a kind of overview of why that’s the case? Is it because of districting, where schools—what schools get what kinds of resources, etc.? Why is that the case?

NIKOLE HANNAHJONES: What’s often forgotten about Brown was Brown was really addressing the system of racial caste that we had then and that resources will really—

AMY GOODMAN: Explain what you mean by BrownBrown v. Board of Education.

NIKOLE HANNAHJONES: Oh, I’m sorry. Right, Brown v. Board of Education, which was the 1954 ruling, the landmark ruling that struck down the concept of separate but equal in schools. And what it understood was that resources follow white students in this country, that schools that have a significant percentage of white students get better teachers. They get better textbooks. They get better, really, curriculum. And so, today, that’s still the case. We have not eliminated that kind of connection between resources and race.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: So could you talk about what it is that prompted this study? This was a year-long investigation that you conducted. How did you come upon the topic and decide to research it in this way and focus on Tuscaloosa?

NIKOLE HANNAHJONES: Well, I had—prior to working on school segregation, I had spent nearly two years working on housing segregation and really looking at the federal failure—the 45-year federal failure to enforce the Fair Housing Act, and asking why, when we have a fair housing law, we still have so much racial segregation. And so, during the course of that, I became very interested in the connection between segregated housing and segregated schools, and I knew I wanted to do some reporting on school segregation, in particular.

And I focused on the South because, despite what a lot of people think, the South actually did desegregate. And it went from being completely segregated to, within a span of 40 years, even now, to becoming the most integrated region of the country. The South also educates the most black students. So you have the one region of the country that actually did desegregate, and they’re educating the most black students, and they are starting to now slide back on that. And so, to me, it was critical to write about the South first because that’s where we have the most to lose.

AMY GOODMAN: I want to go back to 2007. The Tuscaloosa School Board approves a redistricting plan then that further segregated black students. This is school board member Ernestine Tucker speaking in a video that accompanied the ProPublica investigation.

ERNESTINE TUCKER: My position was: We’ve rushed into this. We need more time. We need more research. But for the majority of the people on the school board, who represented the majority of the voters, it was OK. And I said to them, “We will experience the damage of this decision for the next 50 years.” I said, “It’s criminal, what we’ve done tonight.”

AMY GOODMAN: That was Tuscaloosa School Board member Ernestine Tucker. This is Shelley Jones, former chair of the Tuscaloosa School Board.

SHELLEY JONES: We have maintained a desegregated school system. There are all kinds of evidence that—that every day, I think, the board endeavors, yet today, to maintain that and to ensure that. Those who had doubts that this would—that desegregation and the Green factors would be maintained of desegregation, I think now they realize, in fact, yes, we do—we see it in action. It is taking place.

AMY GOODMAN: Former Tuscaloosa School Board Chair Shelley Jones from a video by Maisie Crow called Saving Central. Can you talk about the role of the school board in Central High? You know, it’s interesting, Central, because Central was also Little Rock, Arkansas.

NIKOLE HANNAHJONES: Right.

AMY GOODMAN: But you looked at Tuscaloosa.

NIKOLE HANNAHJONES: Right. So what brought me to Tuscaloosa, what I was interested in was the South had been reshaped largely because of federal court orders. So the courts had forced integration on the South, and it had been successful. And over the last 20 years, we’ve seen a lot of those segregation orders lifted by the courts, and what we found was that as districts lose their federal oversight, they do begin to resegregate. And Tuscaloosa has become one of the most rapidly resegregating school districts in the country. And that’s largely because of what the school board did with Central.

So, in 2000, when a federal judge released Tuscaloosa from its court order, the school board immediately voted to split up Central. And Central had been created by the court order. In 1975—or, excuse me, ’79, 25 years after Brown, Tuscaloosa still operated a virtually black high school and a white high school. And so, a court forced the merger of those two schools, and it created Central. And it was actually an integration success story. But because of fears of white flight, the board voted in 2000 to split apart that school, and they created three high schools—two integrated and one that was entirely black.

And so, what I really wanted to show with this report is that segregation is not an accident. And I think a lot of times we focus on, well, it’s just—you know, it’s natural, or it’s based on where people live. But the irony of Central High School is Central High School is actually located in an integrated neighborhood, but the white students right across the street from the school are gerrymandered into a district to go to an integrated school, and that Central was created as a black school by the intentional drawing of district lines.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: Could you explain, Nikole, why is it that federal judges have been lifting court-ordered segregation mandates? Because that’s obviously had an enormous effect on this resegregation.

NIKOLE HANNAHJONES: Right. I think part of it is—I mean, in the ’90s, the Supreme Court began to really roll back desegregation. And so, it made it much easier for school districts to get out from under desegregation orders. Prior to that, the Supreme Court had a very high standard, which was districts had to eliminate, root and branch, all vestiges of segregation. But by the ’90s, the court was saying that they only had to do it to the extent practicable. In other words, they didn’t actually have to eliminate it, but if they showed that they tried in earnest, then a court could release them. So, that started to happen. And then, during the two Bush terms, Bush really had a policy of trying to get as many of these orders dismissed. There was integration fatigue. I think people felt like, after 40 or 50 years, that enough time had passed and that we had eliminated anything that could be related to the time before Brown, and any current discrepancies and any current disparities are related to kind of things like neighborhood and poverty and have nothing to do with race.

AMY GOODMAN: Let’s go to the principal of Central. Let’s go to Clarence Sutton Jr., speaking in the video Saving Central: One Principal’s Fight in a Resegregating South, which accompanied theProPublica investigation.

CLARENCE SUTTON JR.: If we did school 8:00 to 3:00 like we always did it, we would still be in the same spot. You just can’t do school like everyone else does school. It takes me giving up my day, my evening. It takes my wife saying, “Do what you have to do,” and be understanding. It takes a faculty to say, “We’ll come in our school free. Don’t worry about paying us. We’ll all donate two hours. We’ll come in on Saturday.” It takes that kind of people. It’s a system that’s just getting in place, but I feel like we’re 10 years behind. So we’re working faster to play catch-up. When I went to Central High School, I felt special. The whole state thought we were special. You had National Merit scholars. You had four or five foreign languages being taught. You had the best teams. You had a math national championship. But to break that up, that’s something I think I will never really understand.

AMY GOODMAN: That’s Clarence Sutton Jr., principal of Central High School in Tuscaloosa in that video by Maisie Crow. Explain who Mr. Sutton is and his role at Central.

NIKOLE HANNAHJONES: So, Dr. Sutton is the principal of Central, and he actually attended the integrated Central and then was a product of that integration and now is teaching at a school that is 99 percent black and more than 84 percent poor. And so, he really talks about the educational struggles, because it’s not just the racial segregation, but it’s also the segregation of these students by income, that you take the most disadvantaged students and concentrate them in one school, but also don’t give that school the resources. I mean, for 10 years, Central didn’t even offer a physics class. There were years where it didn’t offer advanced placement classes, while the most integrated high school had 12 advanced placement classes. Teachers who were let go of other schools could be rehired at Central. So, what people feared would happen when Central was broken apart, which was that these poor black students would be separated and written off, is largely what people say happened at Central.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: You also suggest, Nikole, that Alabama state officials actively encouraged white parents to remove their children from public schools. Why did they do that? And what was the impact of that ultimately?

NIKOLE HANNAHJONES: I think today we tend to forget that there was a reason the Supreme Court had to rule on the issue of school segregation. In the South, it was written into the law. White supremacy was written into the law. And there was a belief that black students should not attend schools with white children. And elected officials fought very virulently against desegregation. And when it became clear that the courts were going to force desegregation, white officials in Alabama and other parts of the South shut down schools. They shut down sometimes entire districts. And they also encouraged what were called segregation academies, which were white flight academies, private academies that were set up to educate white students who were for fleeing the public schools. So, a lot of times we attribute white flight to busing or to desegregation, but it really was begun and led by public officials.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: Another striking fact that you bring up in your piece is, while there was this racial segregation, there was an enormous amount of economic diversity. One of the people you profiled, James Dent, one of his classmates at Druid High School was Condoleezza Rice. So how is it that that economic diversity works together with this racial uniformity?

NIKOLE HANNAHJONES: Right. So, at the time, in Tuscaloosa and other places, every black person in the community went to the same high schools, because the schools were segregated. So, no matter how wealthy you were or how poor you were, you went to the same high school. And that economic diversity has always been very important. But now, what happens is that in—the integrated high schools are largely being integrated with more middle-class black students, and what’s left behind in these segregated schools are the poorest black students in the community. And so, not only are they experiencing no racial diversity, but they’re also experiencing no economic diversity.

AMY GOODMAN: As we wrap up, I wanted to go to the title of your investigation, “Segregation Now.” Let’s go to that famous inauguration speech by Governor George Wallace of Alabama, who had been elected as a Democrat on November 14, 1963.

GOVGEORGE WALLACE: Let us rise to the call of freedom-loving blood that is in us and send our answer to the tyranny that clanks its chains upon the South. In the name of the greatest people that have ever trod this Earth, I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny, and I say segregation now, segregation tomorrow and segregation forever.

AMY GOODMAN: That’s Democratic Governor George Wallace in his inauguration address after winning the race for governor. That was back in 1963, Nikole. That was more than a half a century ago. And that is the title of your series that you’ve spent a year investigating and writing.

NIKOLE HANNAHJONES: We chose “Segregation Now” not to necessarily say that what George Wallace predicted would be true, because it’s not. What George Wallace and others like him wanted was all-white schools. All-white schools don’t really exist anymore. But all-black schools do. And that’s the segregation today, is that 60 years after Brown, and really, I show through a single generation of one family, integration is gone for many students.

AMY GOODMAN: And yet, in New York, a study has just shown New York has the most segregated schools in the country.

NIKOLE HANNAHJONES: Absolutely. And this is one of the things where I hoped the story—excuse me—would do some myth busting, because we all up here have this perception of the South. The South did integrate. We have never seen true desegregation in the Northeast or the Midwest. And if you look at in terms of neighborhoods and schools, the most segregated parts of the country have—for black people, have consistently been in the Midwest and in the Northeast.

AMY GOODMAN: Seventy-three percent of charter schools in New York City were deemed so-called apartheid schools, where white enrollment was below 1 percent?

NIKOLE HANNAHJONES: Yes. And over all of the New York public schools, it’s about a quarter of black students. And in Chicago, it’s a third of black students are in these so-called apartheid schools. So I think there’s a lot of reckoning to be done.

AMY GOODMAN: Why apartheid schools?

NIKOLE HANNAHJONES: They call them apartheid schools because they’re 99 percent black or brown. And that’s not my terminology, but when you talk to the researchers who use this term, is they want to shock Americans with that term. They want to say—because we have kind of come to accept once again separate but equal. When you look at Race to the Top, when you look at No Child Left Behind, we’re still trying to make these separate schools equal. And never in the history of our country have we managed to do that. So I think what they’re really trying to do is say these schools are unjust, and they want to shock people with that terminology.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, Nikole, you’ve done a remarkable job. We’re going to link to your series. Nikole Hannah-Jones joined ProPublica in late 2011, covers civil rights with a focus on segregation and discrimination in housing and schools. Her major ongoing investigation is “Segregation Now: Investigating America’s Racial Divide.” And we will—her latest piece, “The Resegregation of America’s Schools.” We’ll link to it at democracynow.org.

When we come back, the new Pulitzer Prize-winning nonfiction writer Dan Fagin will join us. His book is called Toms River: A Story of Science and Salvation. Stay with us.

Fonte: Democracy Now

Ver também:

Deixe um comentário

Arquivado em Direito Constitucional, Direitos Humanos, Minorias

Juíza declara inconstitucional prática de revista policial em Nova York

US-JUSTICE-POLICE-FILES
Manifestantes fazem protesto em Nova York contra a brutalidade policial em outubro de 2011 TIMOTHY A. CLARY / AFP/Arquivo

NOVA YORK — Uma juíza federal decidiu nesta segunda-feira que a controversa política de “stop-and-frisk”, que autoriza que a Polícia de Nova York possa revistar qualquer pessoa, mesmo sem suspeitas aparentes, viola a Constituição porque é dirigida principalmente a negros e latinos – um duro golpe para o prefeito Michael Bloomberg, que prometeu recorrer da decisão. O Departamento de Polícia defende que a política tem sido utilizada para impedir crimes.

Com os números mostrando que 87% das 533.042 pessoas paradas para averiguação no ano passado eram negras ou de origem hispânica, a juíza Shira Scheindlin viu na prática violações da Constituição e “listagem racial indireta” de milhares de cidadãos nova-iorquinos. A maioria dos suspeitos é de homens jovens e inocentes.

Segundo a juíza, a prática não atende aos padrões de suspeição “razoáveis” determinados pela Suprema Corte – que permitem à polícia parar pessoas se acreditar que atividades criminosas “possam estar em andamento”. Para ela, a prática nova-iorquina tem visado deliberadamente a grupos raciais específicos, resultando na averiguação discriminatória e desproporcional de milhares de negros e hispânicos com a conivência de altos oficiais da polícia.

“Altos funcionários da cidade fecharam os olhos para evidências de que os oficiais estão praticando discriminação racial ao realizar as revistas”, escreveu ela. “Em seu afã de defender uma política que acreditam ser eficazes, eles deliberadamente ignoraram a prova esmagadora de que a política de revistar as ‘pessoas certas’ consiste em discriminação racial e, portanto, viola a Constituição dos Estados Unidos.”

A juíza também ordenou que a política seja alterada de modo que as revistas sejam baseadas em “uma suspeita razoável e de forma racialmente neutra”. Um monitor será nomeado para supervisionar as mudanças.

Na decisão de 195 páginas, a juíza não recomendou o fim da prática – mas determinou que um jurista independente, o advogado Peter Zimroth, supervisione um “amplo processo de reformas” para garantir que os procedimentos da polícia nova-iorquina estejam de acordo com a Constituição. Ela encontrou violações sistemáticas, sobretudo, dos artigos 4º (que protege o cidadão contra buscas e apreensões injustificadas pelo governo) e 14º (que garante proteção igualitária).

Bloomberg promete apelar

O caso chegou aos tribunais pela ONG Centro de Direitos Constitucionais. A organização moveu uma ação coletiva em nome de vários cidadãos que disseram ter sido parados e revistados sem justa causa. Segundo a ONG, metade das abordagens ocorre somente com perguntas. Outras vezes, porém, há revistas de bolsas, malas e sacolas e até revistas de corpo inteiro. Apenas 10% dos casos de abordagem resultam em prisão. Durante dez semanas, a juíza ouviu 12 vítimas e representantes do comando da polícia.

Quando recebi a notícia (da decisão) esta manhã, chorei – disse David Ourlicht, de 25 anos, um dos proponentes da ação, parado e revistado na St. John’s University, em 2008, segundo a polícia por andar de modo suspeito com um volume sob a roupa de inverno.

A magistrada rejeitou os argumentos da polícia de que os procedimentos são avaliados em sindicâncias internas. O número dessas abordagens polêmicas quase quintuplicou na última década: se no ano passado foram 533.042 pessoas, em 2002 esse número foi de 115 mil, de acordo com a ONG.

O prefeito prometeu apelar. Segundo ele, a prática do “pare e reviste” deixou a cidade de Nova York mais segura nos últimos anos e impediu a circulação de armas de fogo ilegais.

– As pessoas também têm direito de andar nas ruas sem serem mortas ou roubadas – declarou Bloomberg, cujo legado, segundo analistas, pode ser manchado pela decisão judicial.

Fonte: O Globo

O GLOBO (EMAIL) – COM AGÊNCIAS INTERNACIONAIS

Publicado:12/08/13 – 17h06
Atualizado:12/08/13 – 22h45
Ver também:

Deixe um comentário

Arquivado em Direito Constitucional, Direitos Fundamentais, Direitos Humanos, Minorias

Lei dos EUA é ampliada para proteger gays e imigrantes contra abusos

Em sessão lotada, Obama assina a reautorização da Lei da Violência Contra a Mulher Foto: AFP
Em sessão lotada, Obama assina a reautorização da Lei da Violência Contra a Mulher
Foto: AFP

O presidente dos EUA, Barack Obama, reautorizou na quinta-feira a Lei da Violência Contra a Mulher, histórica legislação de 1994 contra a violência doméstica no país. Numa cerimônia lotada no Departamento do Interior -a Casa Branca não conseguiria acomodar tantos ativistas que apoiaram a medida, segundo o presidente-, Obama sancionou uma versão ampliada da lei, que estende as suas proteções a homossexuais, imigrantes, indígenas e vítimas do tráfico sexual.

“Um dos grandes legados desta lei é que ela não se limitou a mudar as regras”, disse Obama. “Ela mudou nossa cultura. Valorizou as pessoas para que começassem a se manifestar…, e deixou claro para as vítimas que elas não estavam sozinhas, que sempre tinham um lugar aonde ir, e que sempre tinha gente ao seu lado. E hoje, porque membros dos dois partidos trabalharam juntos, somos capazes de renovar esse compromisso.”

A nova versão da lei foi aprovada graças à ação de 87 deputados e 18 senadores republicanos que convenceram suas lideranças partidárias a apoiarem o projeto.

Fonte: Terra

Sobre isso ver:

http://jus.com.br/revista/texto/21999/homofobia-no-brasil-resolucoes-internacionais-e-a-constituicao-de-1988/2

http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0104-40602011000100005

https://alexprocesso.wordpress.com/2012/07/17/homofobia-comissao-interamericana-de-dir-humanos-da-oea-cobra-de-novo-acoes-do-brasil/

 

Meu comentário: nossa, mas o Obama está até parecendo a Dilma… oh, wait!

Deixe um comentário

Arquivado em Democracia, Direito Constitucional, Direitos Fundamentais, Direitos Humanos, Laicidade, Minorias

Corte nos EUA decide que lei contra casamento gay é inconstitucional

O Ato em Defesa do Casamento considerava legal apenas a união entre homem e mulher

NOVA YORK – Uma corte de apelação federal em Nova York considerou nesta quinta-feira como inconstitucional o Ato em Defesa do Casamento, uma lei que considera que a união legal só pode ser feita entre um homem e uma mulher. Ao anunciar a decisão, o presidente do tribunal, o juiz Dennis Jacobs, disse que a discriminação contra os homossexuais deve ser combatida pelos tribunais assim como os juristas lutaram contra o preconceito contra as mulheres nos anos 70.

“A questão não é sobre se os homossexuais obtiveram mais sucesso político nos últimos anos: eles claramente obtiveram. A questão é até que ponto eles têm acesso à proteção legal contra a descriminação.”, disse Jabobs, que foi indicado pelo presidente George H.W. Bush, em 1992.

O Ato em Defesa do Casamento foi uma lei firmada pela Câmara dos EUA e pelo presidente Bill Clinton em 1993. Desde então, muitos estados têm usado a legislação para banir a união legal entre homossexuais, proibição que já foi derrubada em Massachusetts e em Nova York.

James Esseks, um advogado pela União das Liberdades Civis Americanas, elogiou a decisão da corte e disse que a iniciativa era “um divisor de águas para o movimento jurídico dos direitos da comunidade LGBT.”

Pesquisa estima que 3,4% dos americanos são LGBTs

Uma pesquisa do instituto americano Gallup, divulgada nesta quinta-feira, revela que 3,4% dos americanos em idade adulta se declaram lésbicas, gays, bissexuais ou transexuais assumidos. Nos números do levantamento, que inclui entrevistas com mais de 121 mil pessoas, há mais mulheres identificadas como LBGTs do que homens. Os jovens, entre 18 e 29 anos, são os que assumem com mais facilidade a opção sexual.

“A mídia contemporânea acha que a população LGBT é desproporcionalmente branca, masculina, urbana e muito rica”, diz Gary Gates, professor da UCLA e responsável pelo relatório. “Esses dados revelam que a população LBGT tem uma proporção mais abrangente em pessoas que não são brancas e que não são ricas”, afirmou o especialista, que defende o objetivo da análise é combater estereótipos construídos sobre os homossexuais.

De acordo com o levantamento, os LGBTs são divididos em 4,6% afro-americanos, 4% hispânicos, 4,3% asiáticos, 3,2% são brancos. Cerca de 3,6% das mulheres são homossexuais, contra 3,3% dos homens. Dentro do grupo dos jovens entre 18 e 29 anos, 8,3% das mulheres assumiram serem LGBTs, em comparação a 4,6% dos homens da mesma idade.

Em contraste com pesquisas passadas, a análise da Gallup não registrou grandes diferenças da população LGBT sob o aspecto de educação. Entre os entrevistados com apenas o segundo grau ou menos, 3,5% se identificavam como homossexuais. No grupo dos universitários, o número cai para 2,8% e 3,2% em pós-graduados.

Em relação à renda, 16% dos homossexuais disseram receber mais de US$ 90 mil por ano. No entanto, uma parcela de 35% recebe menos de US$ 24 mil. Cerca de 32% das mulheres homossexuais tem filhos de menos de 18 anos, enquanto 31% dos homens também.

De 2004 a 2008, o instituto havia feito uma pesquisa parecida na qual a estimativa da população homossexual nos EUA era de 3,8%. Este ano, o índice caiu quatro pontos percentuais.

Fonte: Globo

 

ver também:

 

Deixe um comentário

Arquivado em Democracia, Direito Constitucional, Direitos Fundamentais, Direitos Humanos, Laicidade, Minorias