Sunday, November 15, 2009

Microsoft's Poland Ad Eliminates Brother



In August of 2009, a black man was replaced with a white man in a Microsoft online advertisement intended for use in Poland. An Asian man in the ad apparently made the cut, and appeared in both the Polish and stateside versions of the ad.

But the ad's creator(s) missed one small detail. The Asian guy miraculously survived, but only a small portion of the black guy remains. They forgot to Photoshop out his hand.

Engadget reports that the ad has been taken down.

Black Couple Removed From Movie Poster


In the UK, the Couples Retreat movie poster was changed to reflect an all white marketing poster.

The studio said it regretted causing offense and has abandoned plans to use the revised poster in other countries... A Universal spokesman said the revised advert aimed 'to simplify the poster to actors who are most recognisable in international markets'.

10 Year Old Will Not Pledge Allegiance To Country

The Arkansas Times reports on Will Phillips, an elementary school student who refuses to say the pledge of allegiance in school because of discrimination against gay people:

"I've always tried to analyze things because I want to be lawyer," Will said. "I really don't feel that there's currently liberty and justice for all."

After asking his parents whether it was against the law not to stand for the pledge, Will decided to do something. On Monday, Oct. 5, when the other kids in his class stood up to recite the pledge of allegiance, he remained sitting down. The class had a substitute teacher that week, a retired educator from the district, who knew Will's mother and grandmother. Though the substitute tried to make him stand up, he respectfully refused. He did it again the next day, and the next day.


A columnist for the Arkansas News has stood up for Phillips against his angry substitute teacher. Predictably, fellow students have taunted the kid and called him a "gaywad," but he says he doesn't see his quiet act of protest ending any time soon.

As we all know, there is often honor in doing what one believes in right, just even when it is at odds with the majority.

8th Grader Suspended For Haircut


The AP reported that in Hamilton, OH a young Cincinnati Bengals fan has been penalized for clipping. Dustin Reader got the NFL team's stripes and "B" insignia cut into his hair as a tribute to the team's good season. When he showed up to school in the southwest Ohio city of Hamilton on Monday, officials put the eighth-grader into in-school suspension. The school said its code of conduct prohibits extreme and distracting hairstyles.

Reader's parents and barber said they don't understand why the haircut is out of bounds. His father said his son just wants to show pride in the 6-2 Bengals.

School officials said he will continue to do his studies away from other students until the hair grows back or he changes the style.

The Way Some In China View Blacks

Some will argue that the more things change the more things will stay the same. While life in America and in Africa has improved for many people of color, the changes have not come to enough people to change the way many in the world including some in China view Black people.

While President Obama made his first trip to China, many in China will have an opportunity to think about their feeling about racial discrimination in their own country and around the world.

Hung Huang, a Beijing-based fashion magazine publisher and host of "Straight Talk," a nightly current affairs talk show shares some interesting views believed held by some in China. "The Chinese worshiped the West, and for Chinese people, 'the West' is white people."

Hung, 48, said her generation was "taught world history in a way that black people were oppressed, they were slaves, and we haven't seen any sign of success since. The African countries are still poor, and blacks [in America] still live in inner cities." Hung noted that Chinese racial prejudices extend to the country's own minority groups, including Tibetans and Uighurs -- or anyone who is not ethnically Han Chinese.

The view of African Americans as poor and oppressed fits into the official narrative of the United States as a place of glaring inequalities. China's most recent annual report on the United States' human rights record in 2008, released in February, made no mention of Obama's historic election. But it said, "In the United States, racial discrimination prevails in every aspect of social life."

"Black people and other minorities live at the bottom of the American society," the report said. "There is serious racial hostility in the United States."

Thursday, November 5, 2009

NBA Owner Settles Racial Discrimination Housing Lawsuit

The AP reported that the Los Angeles Clippers owner and real estate mogul Donald Sterling has agreed to pay a record $2.725 million to settle allegations by the government that he refused to rent apartments to Hispanics, blacks and to families with children, the Justice Department announced Tuesday.

The Justice Department sued Sterling in August 2006 for allegations of housing discrimination in the Koreatown area of Los Angeles. Other defendants were Sterling's wife, Rochelle, and the Sterling Family Trust.

The defendants allegedly made statements to employees indicating that African-Americans and Hispanics were not desirable tenants.

In addition to the pro basketball Clippers, Sterling owns and manages 119 apartment buildings with over 5,000 apartment units in Los Angeles County.

"The magnitude of this settlement should send a message to all landlords that we will vigorously pursue violations of the Fair Housing Act," Thomas Perez, assistant attorney general for the civil rights division, said in a statement. 31

The settlement, which also covers two related lawsuits by former tenants at one of the Sterling properties, now will be considered by a federal judge. Under the settlement, Sterling and the other defendants would pay a $100,000 civil penalty to the government and would pay $2.625 million into a fund to pay monetary damages to tenants who were harmed.

The Justice Department's previous record settlement for discrimination in the area of rental housing was $2.2 million in a 1996 case.

Sterling spokesman Robert Platt had no immeduate comment.

Can You Sue If Framed By A Prosecutor

This story was reported on NPR.com. It is too important not to share the entire article because this situation could happen to any of us.

Do prosecutors have total immunity from lawsuits for anything they do, including framing someone for murder? That is the question the justices of the Supreme Court face Wednesday.

On one side of the case being argued are Iowa prosecutors who contend "there is no freestanding right not to be framed." They are backed by the Obama administration, 28 states and every major prosecutors organization in the country.

On the other side are two black men — Terry Harrington and Curtis McGhee — men who served 25 years in prison before evidence long hidden in police files resulted in them being freed.


Harrington, McGhee And The Principal Witness

Back in 1977, Harrington, captain of his Omaha high school football team, was applying to college and being recruited for a possible scholarship at Yale.

Then he and McGhee were arrested for the murder of a retired police officer in neighboring Council Bluffs, Iowa, just across the state line.

The principal witness was 16-year-old Kevin Hughes, who had a criminal record, and after being arrested in a stolen car, first fingered two other men, one of whom turned out to have been in jail on the night of the crime.

After his first stories didn't pan out, Hughes implicated Harrington and McGhee, but his eyewitness account was riddled with errors.

He initially got the site of the shooting wrong and the weapon. He said the murder was committed with a handgun, then said a 20-gauge shotgun and finally a 12-gauge shotgun.

He also failed a polygraph test. According to lawyers for Harrington and McGhee, the Council Bluffs police and prosecutors knew all this and more. But they went ahead and indicted the two men, winning convictions before an all-white jury.

'Living A Nightmare'

Former Bush administration Solicitor General Paul Clement will tell the Supreme Court that in 1977, Council Bluffs was an almost all-white community, and that politics and race played a part in the prosecutor's decisions.

The county prosecutor, David Richter, had been appointed to his post and was facing his first election, observes Clement. "He has an unsolved murder, something that is hardly standard fare in Council Bluffs, Iowa," he says. "He had the perfect suspects, if he could tag the murder to a couple of young African-American teenagers from across the state line."

Harrington couldn't believe what was happening to him. He says he was "living a nightmare."

Convicted two days after his 19th birthday, he was sentenced to life in prison without parole.

"When I walked into that front door and that gate closed behind me," Harrington says of his first day in prison, "it was so humiliating that all I could do was cry. I cried all night."

In prison, Harrington assumed a tough alter ego he called "T.J." and did everything he could to survive.

Harrington struck up a friendship with the prison barber, who petitioned for the police records in his case. According to defense lawyers, those records not only disclosed how police and prosecutors had coached Hughes until his story matched the facts, and how other witnesses were coerced into lying, but that the records also showed that police and prosecutors had withheld evidence that pointed to another suspect.

They had identified a white man named Charles Gates, who had been seen with a shotgun near the scene of the crime. Gates, the brother-in-law of a Council Bluffs Fire Department captain, was interviewed and failed a polygraph. But prosecutors and police abandoned their interest in him in favor of Harrington, who was not even offered a polygraph.

"So the bottom line," says Clement, "is essentially that police and prosecutors together at some point in this case stopped looking for the real killer, the real suspect and decided it would be far easier to get an eyewitness account that said to a moral certainty that the two African-American youths from across the state line have committed this crime. "

Total Immunity?

But even after 25 years in prison, Harrington never gave up. In 2003, armed with the newly disclosed police records, he petitioned the Iowa Supreme Court, which overturned his conviction as well as McGhee's, and concluded that the star witness was a "liar and perjurer." Since then, all the witnesses have recanted.

McGhee, Harrington's co-defendant, agreed to a plea deal in exchange for time served. Harrington refused any deal, and prosecutors dropped all charges against him. Under Iowa law, for all practical purposes, there is no way for the men to recover compensation for their 25 years of hard time. So they sued the prosecutors and the police under a federal civil rights law for violation of their constitutional rights.

The Council Bluffs prosecution team, while still maintaining that Harrington and McGhee are guilty, contends that even if the men were in fact framed, prosecutors, under established Supreme Court precedent, have total immunity from being sued.

The Supreme Court has indeed said that prosecutors are immune from suit for anything they do at trial. But in this case, Harrington and McGhee maintain that before anyone being charged, prosecutors gathered evidence alongside police, interviewed witnesses and knew the testimony they were assembling was false.

The prosecutors counter that there is "no freestanding constitutional right not to be framed." Stephen Sanders, the lawyer for the prosecutors, will tell the Supreme Court on Wednesday that there is no way to separate evidence gathered before trial from the trial itself. Even if a prosecutor files charges against a person knowing that there is no evidence of his guilt, says Sanders, "that's an absolutely immunized activity."

Whatever constitutional wrongs were suffered by Harrington and McGhee, he says, they were the result of their conviction at trial, not the investigation that preceded the trial. Without the trial, he contends, Harrington and McGhee "are simply unable to point to any deprivation of liberty that they suffered from the fabrication itself."

Uphill Climb

Not so, says Clement, the lawyer for Harrington and McGhee. The prosecutorial immunity at trial doesn't wash back and launder a frame at the investigative stage, he says.

Clement notes that the Supreme Court has given immunity to prosecutors only after an indictment takes place. Before that, Clement contends, prosecutors have the same limited immunity that police have — namely, they can be sued if they violate clearly established constitutional rights. And in this case, he says, by the time the indictment took place, "the prosecutors were already up to their necks in this conspiracy ... to frame someone for the crime they didn't commit. That violates the Constitution any way you look at it."

While the justice of this argument may be easy to grasp, Clement has an uphill climb before the Supreme Court. There are good reasons for prosecutorial immunity. Prosecutors at every level of government worry that allowing any lawsuit, ever, would provoke a flood of lawsuits, and that prosecutorial independence would be compromised, with district attorneys shading their decisions for fear of being sued.
 

Brothers Connected Copyright © 2009 Community is Designed by Bie