Granny Geek

Well, the idiots are back in charge of the asylum again.

The Dallas City Council is considering a bizarre ordinance that will establish a daytime curfew for children. The ordinance will punish BUSINESS OWNERS and operators by subjecting them to a CRIMINAL PENALTY—and a fine of up to $500—if they allow children to remain on their premises between 9:00 a.m. and 2:30 p.m. on days when the Dallas Independent School District is in session.

What a lot of rot. Why on earth would we want business owners in Dallas to act at surrogate cops or truancy officers? Under existing law, truant children can already be picked up by police and taken back to school. Truant children are already fined $500 for each truancy offense. Under the proposed ordinance, conviction of a child, parent or business owner creates a criminal record. For crying out loud: A CRIMINAL OFFENSE FOR TRUANCY. What’s next? The Death Penalty for jaywalking?

The City Council is scheduled to vote on the ordinance on Wednesday, April 22. Granny urges you to contact your city council representative to oppose this nonsense.

Her crime? She was suspected of possession of…

It’s another example of the arrogance of local officials. This time, it’s a school official in Arizona.

Here’s the story.

Savana Redding, an eighth grade honor student at a middle school, was pulled from class by the vice principal. Earlier that day, ANOTHER student had been found carrying  ibuprofen pills.

The student caught with the pain killers claimed that she got the pills from Redding.

Redding denied the accusation, and agreed to a search of her backpack. No pills were found

Then, Redding was taken to the office of the school nurse SO THAT A STRIP SEARCH COULD BE PERFORMED.

In the school nurse’s office, Redding was ordered to strip to her underwear.  She was then commanded to pull her bra out and to the side, exposing her breasts, and to pull her underwear out at the crotch, exposing her pelvic area.  The strip search failed to uncover any ibuprofen pills.

That’s right. A strip search was performed on a child, in a non-emergency situation, without the knowledge or consent of her parents.

Are you as outraged as we are?

OF COURSE the parents sued. And, amazingly enough,  a three-judge panel sided with the school. The parents appealed, with the help of one of Granny’s favorite organizations. And on appeal, eight of eleven judges agreed that Redding’s constitutional rights had been violated.

“A reasonable school official, seeking to protect the students in his charge, does not subject a thirteen-year-old girl to a traumatic search to ‘protect’ her from the danger of Advil,” the court wrote.  “We reject Safford’s effort to lump together these run-of-the-mill anti-inflammatory pills with the evocative term ‘prescription drugs,’ in a knowing effort to shield an imprudent strip search of a young girl behind a larger war against drugs.”

“It does not take a constitutional scholar to conclude that a nude search of a 13-year-old girl is an invasion of constitutional rights.  More than that: it is a violation of any known principle of human dignity,” the court continued.

Granny wants to know how on earth the “War on Drugs” became “War on our children.”

“Students and parents nationwide can breathe a sigh of relief knowing that adolescents cannot be strip searched based on the unsubstantiated accusation of a classmate trying to get out of trouble,” said Adam Wolf, an attorney with the ACLU Drug Law Reform Project and co-counsel in the case…

“This ruling is a victory for our fundamental right to privacy, sending a clear signal that such traumatizing searches have no place in America’s schools.”

Doesn’t time fly? Tomorrow, January 11, 2008, is the six-year anniversary of the first arrival of prisoners at Guantánamo Bay. For all that time, Guantánamo has made a mockery of our
laws and values and become an international embarrassment.

The ACLU has set January 11th as a day of protest. The ACLU and other organizations across the country are asking people of conscience to wear orange in protest of Guantánamo.

Dig out that orange sweater from Halloween. It’s appropriate. Guantanamo is freaky. And scary. And spooky.

A photo of Barak Obama allegedly NOT putting his hand over his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag has been circulating on teh internets. On the basis of that photo, jingoistic loonies referred to as the “Patriot Police” have been questioning Obama’s patriotism as well as his qualifications to be President.

There’s only one problem.

The story isn’t true.

The photo, which has circulated widely on the Internet, was taken in September during Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin’s annual Democratic fundraiser. A message accompanying the photo claims Obama didn’t observe the pledge.

Obama said the photo was taken during the singing of the national anthem, not the pledge.

If the photo had been taken during the Pledge of Allegiance, wouldn’t everyone have been facing the flag? DUH!

You can see the video of the event here.

Granny thinks that how a person salutes the flag should not be a test of political office. Especially since some loyal, tax-paying American citizens will not salute the flag, for religious reasons. You see, these Americans take the Ten Commandments very seriously. Especially the second one:

Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth…thou shalt not bow down to them nor serve them..

In 1943, during the middle of the Second World War, the Supreme Court ruled that Jehovah’s Witnesses children did not have to salute the flag in schools.

…the Jehovah’s Witnesses asserted that it was against their religious beliefs to pledge allegiance to a flag; they believed that their allegiance should be pledged solely to God. Because of their deeply held religious beliefs, Jehovah’s Witnesses children who declined to recite the pledge in unison with others were expelled from schools. Their parents were thrown in jail and attacked and beaten on the streets in America. In the Barnette case, the Supreme Court finally sided with the ACLU and came down squarely in support of religious freedom and the freedom of conscience of religious believers

So it seems possible that a person can be a loyal and patriotic American without ever saluting the flag.

Then again, perhaps Granny is wrong. Perhaps the Constitution is wrong. Perhaps the Supreme Court is wrong. Perhaps the ACLU is wrong. Perhaps the manner in which one salutes the flag SHOULD be a test of that person’s worthiness to hold political office.

‘Nuff said.

It’s Banned Books Week again. Since 1982, we Americans have used this week to remind us of our precious First Amendment right to express our opinions without interference from the government, even if that opinion is unpopular or unusual.

Courts have long held that government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.

Some school districts still don’t get it.

The ACLU of Texas has surveyed every Independent School District and Charter School in the state for titles of books that were banned, restricted or retained as a result of a challenge last year.

The data was obtained and the report itself compiled by a group of volunteers and was funded and supported by the ACLU of Texas. The results?

The total number of challenges is dramatically higher this year. Sixty-six districts reported challenges for a total of 116 items, compared to 48 districts with 65 challenges in 2005-2006, an increase of almost 40% in the number of districts reporting challenges and a significant 78% increase in total reported challenges.

Forty percent of book challenges (46 items) this year resulted in outright bans on the materials.

An additional 32% of material was restricted in some fashion (38 items), either by putting the material in the librarian’s office, requiring parental permission, or in the case of curricular material providing an alternative to the assignment.

Exactly one fourth of the challenged materials (29 items) were reinstated without restrictions.

The list is long and predictable. Some examples:

Isabel Allende’s The House of Spirits
J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter (entire series)
Alice Walker’s The Color Purple
Maurice Sendak’s In The Night Kitchen

The report contains a complete list of books banned or challenged in Texas schools as well as a list of banned and challenged books BY SCHOOL. And the Houston ISD led the list of challenges with 11 books.

In addition, there’s a list of books banned or restricted without due process, such as “Friday Night Lights.”

Book: Friday Night Lights, by H.G.Bissinger
Action taken: Banned (in two different districts)
Reason: Profanity, Inappropriate language
Notes: (From one district report)
Censoring party is assistant superintendent for administrative services. Objected to “locker room language.” When librarians complained about the policy not being followed, he called book “slam dunk” that needed no review.

The ACLU of Texas, in its role as an advocacy organization, has made the entire report, “Free People Read Freely,” available to you without charge. Just click here!

Or, if you’d rather talk to a real person and have a hard copy mailed to you, call Amy at 512-478-7300 x129.

In a manner of speaking, Senator Larry Craig got caught with his pants down in the men’s room of the Minneapolis airport on June 11.

Y’all know that he pled guilty and was fined for disorderly conduct when he allegedly signaled to an undercover policeman that he wanted to engage in sexual activity.

Here’s the interesting part. Craig wants to withdraw his guilty plea. He says that he was the victim of a “sting” operation by the police.

He has a point. Since when is it illegal in this country to ask someone if they want to have sex? It happens every day: in bars, restaurants, hotels, stores, on campuses, in airplanes and, yes, in airports.

Craig did NOT engage in public sex. He only “signaled” that he might be interested.

Like it or not, solicitation for private sex is protected speech under the First Amendment.

You can guess where this is going, can’t you?

Yep. The ACLU has filed a Friend-Of-The-Court brief asking that Senator Craig be permitted to withdraw his guilty plea because the sting operation that was used to arrest him was probably unconstitutional.

In its brief, the ACLU argues that the government can arrest people for soliciting public sex only if it can show beyond doubt that the sex was to occur in public. Solicitation for private sex, regardless if it occurs in a bar or a restroom, is protected speech under the First Amendment.

When free speech rights come into play, police enforcement actions must be “carefully crafted” so that they don’t unnecessarily ensnare people who are engaging in constitutionally protected speech.

The secret sting operation used by the police to arrest Senator Craig was not “carefully crafted” to avoid ensnaring innocent speech, says the ACLU.

Alternatively, posting a sign that the restroom is being monitored is an effective means of deterring public sex without risking trampling on free speech rights and illegally trapping someone who might not intend to have sex in public in the first place.

In fact, many law enforcement agencies, including the Minneapolis Police Department and the U.S. Department of Justice, recommend signs rather than secret sting operations as enforcement mechanisms.

According to Anthony Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU:

“If the police really want to stop people from having sex in public bathrooms, they should put up a sign banning sex in the restroom and send in a uniformed officer to patrol periodically. That works.”

There’s no word yet from Senator Craig on how he feels about the ACLU entering the case. The hearing is scheduled for September 26.

Interestingly enough, the Department of Justice has prepared a training manual for local police departments on how to deal with “Illicit Sexual Activity In Public Places.” Would you like to read it?

Sikhism originated in northern India in the 15th Century. Today, Sikhs (“Disciples”) number more than 23 million all over the world. Sikhism is a monotheistic religion.

There is only one God. Truth is his name. He is the Creator. He is without Fear. He is without hate. He is timeless and without form. He is beyond death, the Enlightened One.

Sikhs believe:

- in one God without physical attributes or image but present in all people and things
- in a society where men and women are equal and democracy is practiced in everyday life
- in earning their living honestly and through hard work
- in sharing what they earn with the poor
- in serving God and their fellow human beings

Sikh men wear a peaked turban that serves partly to cover their long hair which they never cut out of respect for God’s creation. A devout Sikh would never remove his turban in public.

Sounds like a group of people who are respectful, and who should be treated with respect, right?

No. Not in Dallas.

You see, on June 23 of 2006 a Sikh, Amardeep Singh, appeared in the courtroom of Judge Albert Cercone in Dallas County District Court for a traffic citation.

When he arrived, he was told by a court employee that he was in violation of the court’s “no hats” policy and that he must remove his “hat.” Although Singh tried to explain to Judge Cercone that his turban was not an accessory but instead an important part of his faith, Judge Cercone said that if Singh did not leave the courtroom and stayed with his “hat” on, he would be arrested. After consulting with his uncle, a Sikh priest, Singh removed his turban.

Singh was humiliated.

“I could not believe that here in the United States, a judge whose job it is to uphold the law would show such disrespect for my religion,” said Singh. “As a devout Sikh, my hair, beard, and turban have deep religious meaning to me. I treat this article of faith with utmost respect and pride. A turban is not an optional clothing item to put on and remove at will. Ordering me to remove my turban was extremely humiliating for me.”

Singh, pictured above, tried to resolve the matter before bringing a lawsuit. You see, in a similar case in Georgia a judge who made the same demand on a Sikh man in his courtroom acted like an adult and apologized when he realized his error. Not Judge Cercone of Dallas. Nope. No Way.

Singh contacted the ACLU of Texas, Last week, the ACLU filed a lawsuit for religious discrimination. The case is being brought under the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which prohibits government authorities from burdening an individual’s right to free expression of his or her religion.

According to Lisa Braybill, Legal Director of the ACLU of Texas:

Judge Cercone not only denied Mr. Singh his basic rights to
religious practice while defending himself in court, he caused him
deep humiliation as well,” said Lisa Graybill, Legal Director of
the ACLU of Texas. “For Singh, the turban signifies devotion to
God, and is an integral part of a Sikh’s identity, just as a
yarmulke is for Jewish men or a hijab is for Muslim women.

Pardon the expression, but “Hats off!” to the ACLU for taking the case.