11/12/08 Views collide on whether The Citizen reporting on 'Rights' issue was fair

There is more to what opponents said on the ‘Natural Rights’ law

In response to the article “The ballot question came down to one simple belief: they just don’t want gay people in Hamtramck” by Walter Wasacz in the October 5 issue.

It’s exactly this type of inflammatory and misleading title and article that will fan the flames of hatred and distrust in this city. I know Walter is a well-intentioned writer defending the gay and lesbian community, but I had a totally different experience with these young men he writes about in his article.

I, too, sat and talked with Wael and Saleh in Zussman Park that evening. It was an enlightening experience. As chair of the Human Relations Commission I have concerns about finding ways to bring the community together and integrate differing cultures, religions and beliefs. The battle to pass the Natural Rights Ordinance has been a tough challenge for its defenders, which is another lengthy subject, but let’s at least say that it offered another excuse to divide the community.

Some defenders of the Ordinance were unwilling to see the difference between a religious morality that teaches homosexuality is a sin or abomination, and a moral code of loving thy neighbor with justice and equality for all. Seemingly contradictory, this supports the phenomenon of overwhelming Hamtramck support for Barack Obama yet strong opposition to the Natural Rights Ordinance.

Salah, a nephew of Kazi Miah, whom I admire as a former member of our Commission and strong supporter of Obama, is somewhat confused and tormented about these contradictions. He realizes that the same law that would protect him against discrimination as a Bangladeshi, would also protect a gay person. He knows he loves his Muslim faith that teaches homosexuality is an abomination, but he sincerely believes in equal rights for everybody, reaffirmed in Walter’s article, adding “there should be no discrimination in Hamtramck.”

I had a wonderful and promising exchange with these well-dressed, respectful and intelligent young men, totally different than how Walter portrayed their seeming intolerance. These young men are the future of Hamtramck, and they shouldn’t be misrepresented as “anti-gay.” The more they are given respect and the facts about gay rights and how to bring about equality for everyone in this town, the more we will be able to work together to make it a reality.

Bill Meyer 

 Chairman, Hamtramck

Human Relations

Commission

Reporter: Duty was to get ‘Rights’ opponents’ point of view – not take sides

Bill, 

Sorry you believe the story to be misleading and inflammatory. I had no intention of defending the gay and lesbian community in writing it, but to get the views of those who campaigned vigorously to defeat an ordinance, that on its face, was about protecting the rights of all Hamtramckans.

It was done by exploiting the issue of gay rights by making it a moral question of whether homosexuality is even permissible according to Christian or Islamic beliefs. It is the main theme of all the opposition to this ordinance, regardless of whether it was spoken by Catholics or Muslims, residents of the city or outside interests fighting a culture war across the nation with “sword and shield.”  

If anything, I may have misrepresented the tone of that little crowd I interviewed. At first they didn’t want to give me their names fearing I was “a cop.” When I said I was a reporter and wanted to quote them for a news article they were more eager to cooperate, even wanted to give me their rapper aka’s along with their real names.

Some other boys pulled up in a car yelling something about “talking to faggots,” but I didn’t hear the context, didn’t talk to them directly, so I left that out of the article. One of the boys said it was disgusting to imagine “men walking around holding hands in Hamtramck.” I left that out, too, because I wasn’t sure who said it. 

I think it is clear, Bill, that the rhetoric of this campaign against the human rights ordinance intended to push the buttons of those who would react with disgust to a picture of a man wearing a dress, or the implication that this “transgendered freak” might be in the next bathroom stall to their wives and daughters.

That was the language and imagery used from day one of the opponents’ campaign, so I saw it as my journalistic duty to address it. How could I not? If the opponents had attacked the language as clumsily written and overly legalistic (a good argument can be made that it was) and left out the gender political attacks the flames would have been faint. If those guys didn’t hold up signs saying “No to homosexuality to Hamtramck” I would not have approached them to ask them to explain its meaning. 

From a human relations perspective, I would suggest a different approach: put it directly on the table and say Hamtramck needs to welcome and cultivate a gay community, because it is good for all of us to live in tolerance of others regardless of color, ethnic or gender orientation, good for business, not bad as some are naively suggesting, good for building a better society at a neighborhood level.

There’s a lot of work to be done on this issue on a national level. As you pointed out, despite overwhelming support for progressive-minded Obama across the country, it was not a good night for gay rights initiatives anywhere. There is indeed still a lot of education to be done. But language that even in the slightest (and it was more than slight in this case) suggests hate and intolerance must be addressed, as I did in my article.

Walter Wasacz

The Citizen 

Not all Buddhists spoke against ‘Rights’ ordinance         

I was surprised in reading The Citizen newspaper to see “Buddhists” among the people who supported the defeat of the “Human Rights” ordinance.

While it seems some Buddhists decided to go against the ordinance, it would be entirely wrong to assume that an individual monk’s or Buddhist’s personal opinion reflects the views of Buddhism.

I am a Zen Buddhist monk, and I have lived here in Hamtramck as the abbot of the Detroit Zen Center for 15 years. My personal political opinions and views do not matter when it comes to representing Buddhism. I believe a clergy person’s responsibility to support and help people, not push political views.

I believe that “Human Rights” ordinance should be decided upon by the people of Hamtramck, and not influenced in the name of Buddhism or any other faith. Buddhism does not take political sides, but allows the will of the people to prevail.

In this country there is separation of church and state for good reason.

Thank you for clarifying the Buddhist position with regards to political issues.

Hwalson Sunim

Abbot, Detroit Zen Center

In the name of

religion, opponents bore false witness in election

Who lost in the recent ballot initiative about Hamtramck’s human rights ordinance? 

I believe religion was the loser.  I write as an ordained Christian clergyperson who has been very active in interfaith affairs both in metro Detroit and around the world.  I also write as a person who supported the ordinance.

Let me be clear, I have no problems with people who voted “No” on the ballot initiative for reasons of conscience or understanding of various issues.  I may have disagreed, but there were matters about homosexuality, civil rights, or even real estate which could prompt a person to vote “No” in good faith regarding the ordinance.  I can respect such a person.

But for much of the campaign I did not see “good faith” exercised or expressed by those in opposition to the ordinance, specifically in the name of religion.  Instead we saw intolerant Islam and bigoted Christianity put on public display, much to my shame as a religious leader and fervent worker for interfaith understanding and harmony.  We saw a supposedly moral cause pursued by immoral means.  In the name of their religion people in the “No Campaign” chose the lower road far too often.

Hate speech and hate art were used not once but repeatedly in the name of Allah the Compassionate and Merciful (the Muslim statement of faith) and of Jesus who was the Love of God in human flesh (the Christian statement of faith).  No effort was made to calm the vicious passions these hateful expressions aroused.  Insulting terms were hurled freely at polling places and in public rallies. 

If similar slurs were shouted about blacks, Muslims, Arabs or immigrants, they would have drawn public scorn and condemnation.  An insulting drawing was sent out in literature drops to Hamtramck residences.  Is this the kind of Islam or the kind of Christianity that builds justice and communal peace?

In pursuit of one perceived sin, the commandment about not bearing false witness was repeatedly broken.  So who is the immoral one here?  Specifically, central charges were made by leaders of the “No Campaign” about the ordinance which appeared in more than one edition of The Citizen stating that the ordinance would lead to Catholic Churches being forced to perform gay weddings and mosques being forced to hire gay imams. 

These were blatant lies and fear-mongering, for the ordinance said no such thing and in fact had detailed explicit religious exclusions.  Furthermore, the US Constitution would prohibit such interference in the life of religious institutions.  To have a religious law center be silent at best on such misleading statements from their own side is a sign of immoral duplicity that would shame Thomas More for whom the center is named, a man martyred for his integrity. 

Then on election day when I confronted one of the leaders of the “No Campaign” about this deception, he compounded the lying by suggesting that no such claims were made.  I didn’t have the front pages of the earlier Citizen editions with me, but either the Citizen was doing repeated poor reporting of the extensive quotes of “No Campaign” leaders or lying was once again being employed as a means in the supposedly moral campaign.

At the end of the day on Nov. 4 I was a grieving person of faith who had observed religion degraded by those who cloaked themselves in the claims of Islam and Christianity and pointed to pictures of priests and imams on their literature as they shouted hate speech and that gays deserve death.

So now I appeal to my colleagues, the religious leaders of the Christian and Muslim communities:  What are you going to do to address the hate, threats and lies that you unleashed through this campaign? 

These are not fantasy fears like those so often raised in the “No Campaign” but things we saw with our own eyes and heard with our own ears.  What would Jesus do?  What would Mohammad do?  What will you do?

Rev. Daniel L. Buttry

With defeat, now is the time to start a dialogue

With great humility I write this letter.  On Nov. 4, we lost our Human Rights ordinance.

Instead of dreadfully walking through the litany of factors that weighed in on our fight to retain our Human Rights ordinance, I would like to make a challenge to each of you:  let the education begin.

It is very important, now more than ever, to establish a Human Relations Commission that wholly reflects Hamtramck’s community - because the lack of a gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, or transgender person on the current commission has been readily felt. 

We need a commission that does not use minutia as a divisive tool, but uses the intention of its foundation for education and collaboration. 

We need a commission that does not focus on the lack of its punitive action, but focuses on the limitless possibly of substantive action.

We must have a holistic commission that will promote unity and empathy towards others, and never disown that creed, because bigotry, intolerance, and politics are all brothers of the same devil.

 It is very important that other social services, political leaders, religious leaders, residents and friends, gay and straight, start the conversation of homosexuality instead of abating it.  Sexual orientation and gender identity is a necessary discussion worthy of having, because while the words have the choice to exist between two people, someone’s natural sexual orientation and gender identity is not afforded that option.

For everyone, but more so, my gay friends, the presence of a law, or the absence of legislation can never dictate who you are.  I encourage you not to retreat back into the closet or hide from society, but to proudly and openly embrace who you are and deny ignorance the opportunity to tear you down.

We had truth on our side and those that have spread malicious lies and created a haven for hatred will be held accountable.  Trust me, they will be held accountable.

 Until that great arbitrator “Time” passes its hands of judgment, we must stay united.  We must help each other, and help our neighbors.  We must continue to work within our community, embody good deeds, and practice the art of “Good” - which this election has proven is a skill that some people will just never have.

Friends, this is the time for education and openness, and I implore you, let the journey begin.

With deeply profound respect and friendship, my peace to you.

Richard Lee Sparks

Co-Chair, Hamtramck

United Against

Discrimination

On Veterans Day, where are city leaders?

Today, (Nov. 11) Veterans Day, we veterans and supporters are honoring our fallen veterans and comrades.

Unfortunately, our city officials did not have the courtesy to attend our celebration.  Our veterans have fought and died for them to have the freedom to hold their office. 

We would like to thank all of you for showing your support.  They know us when they need our vote, but they don’t when we need their support.  This is a non-political event, we are very disappointed.

Commander, HAVC,

Jerome Balcerzak

Commander, PLAV Post

#10, Roy Kmiecik

Blue Star President,