I hate the HRC
I hate the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) and their closet-case logo of the little yellow equal sign on the blue background and their name which doesn't even mention that they're about gay rights which is ridiculous because they are a single-issue group that doesn't care about anyone else's rights. I hated them before and I hate them more now.
I hated them before for reasons I will go into in a minute.
The reason I hate them more now is that they have gone and disinvited Margaret Cho from this "Unity" event in New York City. In response, the NGLTF (National Gay and Lesbian Task Force), not a perfect organization, but one somewhat more in line with my beliefs, has withdrawn from the event. In a marvelous example of self-censorship, the HRC decided to disinvite Margaret Cho over fears that her performance could be used by the right wing.
Here's a Press Release from Margaret's management about the situation. There are also
news reports about this.
I emailed the HRC about my displeasure about this.
But I already didn't like them. Here are some of the reasons. They are an inside-the-beltway, top-down organization that sucks money out of gay people around the country and decides without much of any input from them what issues the HRC will concentrate on. It's not a grassroots organization.
The HRC refused to issue a position on the war on Iraq. What about the human rights of civilians in Iraq, huh? What about all the money wasted on this war that could have been spent on domestic needs? From an article in The Advocate: "The national gay advocacy group Human Rights Campaign, for example, has maintained its neutrality on the war issue. 'We believe such a statement [for or against war] would fall outside our specific mission, which is to ensure that gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered people achieve equality in today's society,' said David Smith, HRC's communications director."
The HRC resists including transgender folks in legislation. http://www.advocate.com/new_news.asp?ID=12260&sd=04/30/04
I feel this is another example of caving in to what they expect right-wingers to want, rather than pushing for full rights for all. From the above-linked article: " "For over a decade HRC has continued to view the transgendered as too costly for them to deal with," said an unnamed spokesperson for the Transexual Menace. "It's long past time for this to change." Despite adding the phrase gender expression and identity into its mission statement back in March 2001 as characteristics that deserve equality, HRC has consistently supported only a transgender-excluded version of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, a Menace statement read. HRC also still supports the exclusion of transgendered people from federal hate-crimes legislation, it said."
But there are far too many people whose activism consists of writing an annual check to the HRC and sticking a bumper sticker on their rainbow-flagged SUV. I don't see the HRC going away any time soon, unfortunately. But maybe their dissing of someone as well-liked in the gay community as Margaret Cho will lead some people to start questioning whether we need the kind of "leadership" the HRC offers.
I hated them before for reasons I will go into in a minute.
The reason I hate them more now is that they have gone and disinvited Margaret Cho from this "Unity" event in New York City. In response, the NGLTF (National Gay and Lesbian Task Force), not a perfect organization, but one somewhat more in line with my beliefs, has withdrawn from the event. In a marvelous example of self-censorship, the HRC decided to disinvite Margaret Cho over fears that her performance could be used by the right wing.
Here's a Press Release from Margaret's management about the situation. There are also
news reports about this.
I emailed the HRC about my displeasure about this.
But I already didn't like them. Here are some of the reasons. They are an inside-the-beltway, top-down organization that sucks money out of gay people around the country and decides without much of any input from them what issues the HRC will concentrate on. It's not a grassroots organization.
The HRC refused to issue a position on the war on Iraq. What about the human rights of civilians in Iraq, huh? What about all the money wasted on this war that could have been spent on domestic needs? From an article in The Advocate: "The national gay advocacy group Human Rights Campaign, for example, has maintained its neutrality on the war issue. 'We believe such a statement [for or against war] would fall outside our specific mission, which is to ensure that gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered people achieve equality in today's society,' said David Smith, HRC's communications director."
The HRC resists including transgender folks in legislation. http://www.advocate.com/new_news.asp?ID=12260&sd=04/30/04
I feel this is another example of caving in to what they expect right-wingers to want, rather than pushing for full rights for all. From the above-linked article: " "For over a decade HRC has continued to view the transgendered as too costly for them to deal with," said an unnamed spokesperson for the Transexual Menace. "It's long past time for this to change." Despite adding the phrase gender expression and identity into its mission statement back in March 2001 as characteristics that deserve equality, HRC has consistently supported only a transgender-excluded version of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, a Menace statement read. HRC also still supports the exclusion of transgendered people from federal hate-crimes legislation, it said."
But there are far too many people whose activism consists of writing an annual check to the HRC and sticking a bumper sticker on their rainbow-flagged SUV. I don't see the HRC going away any time soon, unfortunately. But maybe their dissing of someone as well-liked in the gay community as Margaret Cho will lead some people to start questioning whether we need the kind of "leadership" the HRC offers.