The verdict is in in the Doug Bahl case. Elizabeth over at Mishka Zena has posted a brief entry about the verdict itself, which sparked reaction across the Deaf blogosphere. Ridor’s chimed in, and now Chris Heuer has posted at DeafDC as well. I posted about the Bahl case back when it first surfaced, last fall. At the time, I was dismayed that we are constantly facing incidents where the police are overly aggressive and contribute significantly to tragic circumstances involving deaf people.

I’m still disturbed. While I’m not going to go so far as to say the “guilty” verdict is a travesty, I do firmly believe Bahl’s civil rights were violated. A lot of the comments at Mishka Zena’s blog range from the stunned to the apoplectic. Quite a few people feel as Ridor does– that hearing people cannot be trusted, and that the system is stacked irrevocably against deaf people.

One point that a couple of people brought up is important, though– we have scant information. Aside from Mishka Zena, there’s been almost no information about this case since last fall. There appears to be nothing in the newspapers, or any media source, about the trial and its outcome. In a way, this is to be expected: in the larger scheme of the judicial system, it’s small potatoes– a “nothing” case. But here in the Deaf-world, it’s a huge case, because it reinforces the belief that authority figures, especially those who are hearing, cannot be trusted, and that no matter what a deaf person does, the system will be against them.

I disagree- while there are many cases and situations where deaf people do not get a fair hearing and justice is not served, this doesn’t automatically mean that EVERY cop, EVERY judge, EVERY authority figure is against deaf people from the start. Many are, but there are hearing people out there that try to be fair, that try to understand. If there weren’t, they wouldn’t be hiring deaf people at all, they wouldn’t be ruling in favor of deaf people at all, they wouldn’t be taking sign language courses at all, or dealing with us at all. For every nine jerks out there, there’s one person that’s willing to listen, willing to be fair. We cannot and should not write off hearing people. We DO need to identify and work with those hearing people that are willing to treat us as human beings, as equals; we do need to work with these allies who are responsible, ethical, and able to help in establishing a level playing field for everyone, regardless of who they are.

Back to the Bahl case. I’m a bit perplexed about the verdict– I can’t say for sure that the verdict was right or wrong, even though I firmly believe there was police misconduct. As Cousin Vinny wondered in the comments section at Mishka Zena’s post,

Is there a transcript somewhere? Was Doug Bahl represented by counsel? Was this a jury trial or judged by a sitting judge? Is an appeal in the works? Hopefully more information will come in about the case, so we as a Deaf community can be better informed when it comes to relations with police.

Vinny’s right– all we know for sure is that there was a “guilty” verdict. Bahl hasn’t really made any public statements, and in fact last fall, said that on the advice of his attorney, he wasn’t going to say anything, although he appreciated all the support he was getting from the community at the time. It’s hard for me to say that the verdict was completely wrong when I have no idea what evidence was submitted, what arguments the lawyers made, what testimony was given, and what kind of lawyer Bahl had. This is true for a lot of trials. This doesn’t mean that we should automatically accept all verdicts. As I mentioned to a colleague last night, sometimes the system works; sometimes it doesn’t. There are times when a decision is hailed as the right one to make, and other times, it’s roundly criticized, or highly divisive. The judicial system is imperfect, just like everything else. Nothing is perfect in life. It’s part of why there’s an appeals system. It’s possible the jury found Bahl guilty according to the letter of the law. But one problem I have is that the spirit of the law should be equally important. So while the trial transcript and evidence may show Bahl to be technically guilty, I believe that the entire incident needs to be taken into consideration, and given the police’s response to and subsequent treatment of Bahl, perhaps the verdict should have been “not guilty.”

Sometimes criminal cases don’t go the way you want them to. But there are still remedies. One of them is filing a civil case, and if Bahl hasn’t done so, I certainly hope he does. From what I understand about the situation so far, his civil rights were certainly violated.

This is where we, as a community, come in. I’ve done a search (admittedly not 100% thorough), and there’s absolutely nothing about the Bahl case since last fall. What are advocacy groups doing about this case? What kind of public relations follow-up is being done? What are organizations of and for the deaf doing about this? If Bahl is pursuing a civil case, then there needs to be a push for media attention– this is one of the few avenues that we have, and certainly attention needs to be drawn to this case. We talk about the need for equal access, for communication, for civil rights, then we’re going to have to fight about it. We can’t just sit back and say, “Well, all hearing people are like that.” That creates a self-perpetuating situation, and a potentially defeatist attitude. We can’t just sit back and say, “Well, the system is set up like that. It’s corrupt, you can’t change it.” If that’s true, then why bother trying to change anything?

In the past, some deaf people have lectured and written about parallels between the Deaf and black communities. It certainly wouldn’t hurt to take a page from the lessons of the Civil Rights movement of the 1950’s and 1960’s. We need a major PR push. It’s one thing for people like me to sit back and blog about situations like this– it’s a nice way to blow off steam. The same is true for commenters. But what will really work is contacting local and regional media in the Minneapolis-St. Paul region. What will force people to pay attention is commenting on the violation of the right to equal communication– not on blogs and other similar forums, but to newspapers, television reporters, lawyers, advocacy organizations, and civil rights agencies. If we aren’t willing to speak up, then how can we expect change? How can we expect to attract allies?

I understood and respected Mr. Bahl’s need and request for privacy last fall. But at this point, his attorney really needs to marshal public opinion in favor of his case. Even if Doug Bahl himself still remains silent, his attorney certainly shouldn’t sit back quietly. Regardless of the outcome of any civil trial, public perception is crucial for any potential changes to occur on the part of police and law enforcement agencies in general.

There also is a need for better coverage. I know there aren’t any national deaf newspapers anymore, and those newsletters and papers that still exist are limited in circulation, coverage, and publication schedules. But I really wish there had been some way to have someone at the trial, to provide some insight as to what happened. I’m not sure how feasible that is, but it’s something I’d love to have happen.

Of course, this case opens the same old can of worms again: how to deal with law enforcement? Chris Heuer argues that using one’s voice is definitely an option. While that may work for people who have voices that are relatively clear and understandable, it’s not an choice everyone has. It also divides us again into those who can speak, and those who can’t. Also, not everyone who can “speak” is able to articulate enough to be able to be readily comprehensible, let alone use the phone or other similar activities.

Heuer says the reason he was “not pepper-sprayed by the two officers who approached my car and beaten to a bloody pulp” is because of his voice. Funny, I could have sworn Rodney King was hearing, and certainly used his voice with the police. Certainly didn’t save him from getting “beaten to a bloody pulp.” Lucky for him someone just happened to be playing with their video camera at the time.

Quite a few deaf people I know can speak, but their voices sound like they’ve been drinking, because the words come out slurred. What about those of us who speak, but sometimes misunderstand questions, and then say something meaningless or off-point? Such non-sequiturs on my part have in the past led at least one person to think I was on drugs (even when I wasn’t at the time). What happens then? Do police officers then instantly assume they are dealing with someone who’s drunk or high? What about when the police stay back in their cars, use megaphones or speakers, and assume defensive postures? How then is one supposed get their “wallet out, and [hold] it up so the cops could see that I had just reached for my wallet and not for a gun. I then put my wallet on the dashboard, rolled down the window, and put both my hands on the steering wheel”? They won’t see much, since they’ll be dozens of yards back, huddling behind the safety of their patrol car, shouting verbal orders to a deaf driver they’ve pulled over. What happens then…?

Well, this situation happened in Modesto, California, last year. The victim in this case, Dan Tessien, had an officer fire a beanbag shotgun through his car window, and further blasts hit him in the stomach, arms, and legs. While the original Modesto Bee article has been removed from their archives, you can see a copy of the article here, at Deaf News Network. Tessien used his voice while trying to protect himself from this seemingly unprovoked attack. So just being able to produce audible sounds with your vocal cords isn’t a guarantee that speech will save you.

So while I’m happy Chris Heuer managed to get through his encounter with the local Barney Fifes just fine, as he points out, there’s no guarantee of this happening for anyone else. This is where I agree with him; anyone is at risk. What I disagree with is that being able to speak confers some kind of relative safety. For some, it might; for others, it doesn’t matter what you say or do.

How do we change this situation? It’s not just deaf people that face this problem; as I mentioned earlier, there’s Rodney King. Amadou Diallo. It isn’t just black people either; “DWB” doesn’t just stand for “Driving While Black,” it’s also been used to mean “Driving While Brown.” It’s not an issue that has to do solely with audism or miscommunication. It’s a problem that unfortunately affects a much broader segment of our society. This is why it’s important we publicize these cases, the Doug Bahls, the Dan Tessiens, the Errol Shaws. This is why we should join forces with civil rights groups, with other cultural and ethnic groups. We can’t fight and win this one alone; we need to show that deaf people don’t exist in a vaccuum, and that our problems with police officers are part of a larger, broader social ill.

September Song

Gotham canyons amidst fields,
Spires soaring, soaring, like eagles–
Aging leaves among the green;
The hint of tomato soup in the air.

Reddish warmth to awaken to
But evening chill beckons, in the time of
Not-Quite-October.

Lovely day, beautiful morning, take me in your hands
Familiar life with its promise
Prosaic hours punctuated by the
Memorable.

The child at his desk, the clerk at his books
The judge in her chambers, the chef in her kitchen
The banker in his counting-house, the fireman at his station
The cop on her rounds, the ticket-taker at her booth

Lovely day, beautiful morning, take me in your hands
Familiar life with its promise
Prosaic hours punctuated by the
Memorable.

A hum turns into a roar
Tiny ants on concrete ribbons
Extending along a suburban web.

Over city, over field,
Over lake, over river,
Over trees, over hills,
Over bridges, over rooftops-
But always, always, through the clouds.

We are told, in the halls of schools,
Of tiny, tiny water droplets, or perhaps ice crystals
Floating soundlessly through the air
But in the safety of our seats
We sit, stare, and wonder
What we see there
Beyond the myriad shapes we see from below

A rabbit, a horse, maybe a bird
An apple, or perhaps popcorn
A boat, a truck, a bicycle
An airplane…

Familiar day, morning Prosaic, take
8:46 a.m.
Promise me in your hands life hours
9:02 a.m.
Fragments jumbled, voices smoky
9:37 a.m.
Nervous farewell, hushed prayer that
10:03 a.m.
Punctuated the Memorable.

© DSE
11 Sep 2007

The web is full of interesting stuff, but it’s also full of junk. Craigslist is no different– some of the apartments and houses there are the same fleatraps you’d find on your own through the classifies or through apartment hunting services. The goods for sale range from wonderful finds to the same kind of trash that you find at a garage sale at 4 p.m. on a Saturday. The jobs run the gamut from top flight legal jobs to writing porn blogs for adult websites. The personals are probably full of the same losers you find down at the bars at 2 a.m., with an occasional diamond in the rough.

But one area of craigslist is sometimes interesting. It’s on the left side of the screen, a link titled “best-ofs” or “best of craigslist.” These are the posts that have been flagged as unusual– different, better than average. Some of them were originally nestled within the personals, while others were initially posted in rants and raves, or in the community section.

The other day, while taking care of professional business, I had a short break. Since I had to stay glued to the computer, I decided to check out the rents in the area for comparison, and as always, checked out the job ads (I’ve found two past jobs that way, so it isn’t such a bad place to check, along with more traditional or tried-and-true venues). Out of curiosity, I clicked on the “best of” link. I’d like to share some of these with you, what I consider the more interesting examples of amateur prose at craigslist.

For those of you who aspire to be single, elderly “cat ladies,” now’s your opportunity. This guy in Seattle (and he didn’t indicate whether he was sleepless or not) wrote a tribute to his ex-girlfriend’s cat. He said, in part,

You are the only cat I ever liked…and I think you liked me as I’m the only person you let pick up and walk around with.

But maybe you won’t want him– he might fall in love with your cat, and not you. Then again, it’s worth a try, I’m just sayin’…

At some point in our lives, we’ve had some welcome (or unwelcome!) visitors on the weekends, especially right at moments when we least expect or want them. I still remember the first time we had such folks; my mother opened the door to our tiny apartment one Sunday afternoon when I was still rather small, and a family of three stood there. I still remember the daughter’s blue dress– the kind you wear to church on Sundays. It was the first time I’d ever heard of the Jehovah’s Witnesses.

But I digress. My mother was ten times more reserved and polite under the circumstance than this resident of North Dallas and his plucky pooch, and their experience with “door to door religious idiots.”

Our stalwart writer leads us to the central conflict and approaching climax thus:

Having already had enough of whoever is at the door, I decide to ignore it. The doorbell rings again. Fine. Anyone but Ed McMahon is going to be sorry.

I don’t want to spoil it for you, but the words “bloody,” “tool,” “scream,” “puke,” and “officer” appear after that. It has a (at least to me!) satisfactory ending, but I’ll put your curiosity to rest right now: the last word of this tale isn’t “scar.”

I’ll let you explore the rest on your own, but before I let you go, I’d like to share one more. This one means quite a bit to me, as a former (and future?) teacher. From Washington, D.C., we have an adjunct lecturer who expounds on the real joys of teaching. What this outstanding member of the profession has to say is something I’ve always believed, even though her area is science, and mine is history.

My business is to teach you science, and the real point of that is to help you to learn how to think. How to write. How to ask good questions and demand straight answers. Ten years from now you may not remember the difference between a reverse fault and a normal fault, but you’ll know how to find out.

For anyone in this country who believes that teachers (with the exception of a few “superstar” and “celebrity” professors at the top end) have the good life, our heroine puts it on the line:

The dirty little secret about teaching, especially as an adjunct (which is what a lot of us who teach evenings are) is that it pays…dirt. When you count the hours spent preparing, lecturing, writing, grading labs and papers, I’d make way more dollars flipping burgers than I do for a semester of teaching.

I nominate this lady for Secretary of Education. Too bad we’re only likely to garner her pearls of wisdom either through craigslist, or for those few in D.C., through her courses.

So the next time you’re bored, and you’re surfing through the garbage that clutters the web, zip on over to craigslist and check the “best of” category. You’ll laugh, you’ll cry, you’ll smile, you’ll groan… and with luck, you’ll waste another hour or two. But you’ll also see some of the creativity and wit out there, and wonder why they’re on craigslist, and not out writing books.

Our society is full of paradoxes– lots of people talk a good game, but they often contradict themselves. Take the issue of privacy, for example. The internet, newspapers, magazines, and similar forums have had tons of articles about identity theft, protecting your private information, and the like, and it’s obviously a concern. Yet people seem to have no problem with the government listening in to their calls, snooping into their personal records, and the like.

I have been worried about the erosion of civil liberties the last few years, and I’m surprised there hasn’t been more of an outcry over assaults on the Constitution and the rights that our ancestors fought so hard to secure. For example, habeas corpus. Habeas essentially prevents you from being jailed or detained indefinitely. Here’s an explanation of habeas corpus (a bit legalistic, but I think it covers the basics). As it states at the start,

A writ of habeas corpus is a judicial mandate to a prison official ordering that an inmate be brought to the court so it can be determined whether or not that person is imprisoned lawfully and whether or not he should be released from custody.

Here in the U.S., it probably isn’t on anyone’s radar- yet– because so far the attempts to remove habeas corpus have been aimed largely at “enemy combatants” who aren’t citizens. There’s been some pushback in the courts, such as Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, and Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, which both ultimately ended up in the Supreme Court, where the Justices slapped the gummint’s hand and said, “No.” In the Jose Padilla case, Padilla had been detained as a “material witness” for a month, then labeled an “enemy combatant.” While his attorney filed suit against the government, and the case wended its way through the judicial system, the government refused to charge him, instead holding him indefinitely. He was finally charged in November 2005, more than three years after his initial arrest. The rulings at various levels were often inconclusive, and the Supreme Court ducked and dodged, and never really fully addressed the case. Padilla was recently convicted on conspiracy charges, but has yet to be convicted for any specific act or action.

So why should you care? Because Padilla is a U.S. citizen. Even though right now the abandonment of core legal and constitutional principles is directly at “enemy combatants” and people ostensibly tied into the “war on terror,” it opens the door for the government to do the same thing to anyone. Should any administration choose to do so, it rapidly becomes a slippery slope, and down the line, further abuses could occur.

Even more importantly, in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, which ruled that the military commissions at Guantanamo were invalid, Smirk goaded and rushed Congress into passing the Military Commissions Act. Within the act, a provision stripped habeas corpus from non-citizens. So far, it’s not really on anyone’s radar, because it applies to “non-citizens”– so far. What it definitely does do is change irrevocably what the United States stands for, and what it means to be an American. As Keith Olbermann notes, the removal of habeas is in direct violation of the oath our federal officials make when they assume office.

Right now, the ACLU, among other groups, is fighting to restore habeas corpus. I really hope they succeed. It’s not just here in the U.S. too; there have been concerns in Britain about civil rights as well. It really makes me wonder if the “war on terror” is really a “war on constitutional government.” Except so far the main perpetrators seem to be the constitutional governments themselves, and the public in the nations of such governments seem to be willing to self-destruct, so long as they keep their jobs, homes, and bank accounts.

Back to privacy issues. We have a government that pushed for something called the PATRIOT Act, which included all kinds of goodies, including the right to listen in on your phone calls. For us deaf folks, that may not be too big of an issue, but there’s also the general principle, you know. Not to mention the government looking into library records, medical records, financial records, school records, 33 RPM records, sports records, and the like. So it pleased me this week when a federal judge ruled that the portion of the act dealing with gag orders in relation to National Security Letters is unconstitutional. Of course, this is all contigent on appeal, so who knows what will happen next. I’m just glad the judiciary still has its spine, because Congress can’t seem to find its spine, and the administration never had any to begin with. The Corporate Media has had a mixed record on reporting these types of issues. But when it does get it right, the articles we see are rather disturbing. In this New York Times article from today, it appears the FBI’s data mining in relation to national security letters has extended beyond the initial target, and included everyone that person has been in contact with. In this era of little to no oversight, such a broad net means the tactic can be easily abused.

In case you’re wondering just what national security letters are and why you should be worried, go here. It’s rather old, but for a peek into the life of someone who’s received such a letter and the Kafkaesque situation it produces, see this. As the letter writer recounts:

Living under the gag order has been stressful and surreal. Under the threat of criminal prosecution, I must hide all aspects of my involvement in the case — including the mere fact that I received an NSL — from my colleagues, my family and my friends. When I meet with my attorneys I cannot tell my girlfriend where I am going or where I have been. I hide any papers related to the case in a place where she will not look. When clients and friends ask me whether I am the one challenging the constitutionality of the NSL statute, I have no choice but to look them in the eye and lie.

The author makes a crucial point:

Without the gag orders issued on recipients of the letters, it is doubtful that the FBI would have been able to abuse the NSL power the way that it did. Some recipients would have spoken out about perceived abuses, and the FBI’s actions would have been subject to some degree of public scrutiny.

This is part of the reason why I am concerned about civil liberties. Oversight is crucial, and so far Congress has more or less abandoned their responsibilities in this area (with the exception of a small handful of individual legislators). The courts have a mixed record; sometimes they jump in, sometimes they don’t. This is especially the case with the Supreme Court, which twice had an opportunity to rule in the Padilla case, and chose not to. To understand better the kind of atmosphere the writer has had to live in, watch the film “The Lives of Others.” It happened not that long ago, in Eastern Germany. Don’t kid yourself– it is very plausible it could happen here.

At some point, we cross the line, past the point of no return. I’ve written about this before, about the “moral Rubicon” we face. Several lines have been crossed over the last few years, but there’s still time to turn back. But the decision is up to all of us– not just our judges, our legislators, our other public officials. It’s up to anyone who has a mind and a willingness to speak up and speak out.

What does it mean to be an American? What kind of essential values do we hold, or should we hold? What examples of such values can we demonstrate to the world? How can we speak about the freedoms we have, if we are denying ourselves the rights to those freedoms? How can we speak authoritatively about oversight and checks and balances, when these reference points are being weakened and removed?

Right now, such a discussion is a paradox– we’re willing to define ourselves as individuals, and to protect our privacy in individual situations. But we seem to have a bit of a problem when it comes to the collective “we”– what is our role as a society, and what are the boundaries of such a society? Is the United States we have now the United States we want? When we talk about privacy, what are we protecting, and how much do we want to protect? When we talk about safety and security, what and how much are we willing to give up in the process?