MassResistance

Friday, September 04, 2009

Mandatory Vaccination in Massachusetts? Connect the Dots

Many citizens are rightly worried about S2028, the "pandemic disaster preparation" bill. We also need to be worried about the vaccination law now on the books in Massachusetts:

MGL Chapter 111, Section 181:

Boards of health, if in their opinion it is necessary for public health or safety, shall require and enforce the vaccination and revaccination of all the inhabitants of their towns, and shall provide them with the means of free vaccination. Whoever refuses or neglects to comply with such requirement shall forfeit five dollars.

Vaccination for what is unspecified. Granted, the fine is only five dollars, but the mandate is disturbing.

Pending bill S2028 would actually remove the "require and enforce" language, but mandate isolation or quarantine for a refuser:

An individual who is unable or unwilling to submit to vaccination or treatment shall not be required to submit to such procedures but may be isolated or quarantined... (Line 409)

But nothing in S2028 specifically overturns Ch. 111, sec. 181. Where does that leave us?
Further, Ch. 111, Section 6 gives total authority to the Commissioner of Public Health to determine what disease is "deemed dangerous to public health" and thus warranting vaccination.
MGL, Ch. 111, Section 6:
The department shall have the power to define, and shall from time to time define, what diseases shall be deemed to be dangerous to the public health, and shall make such rules and regulations consistent with law for the control and prevention of such diseases as it deems advisable for the protection of the public health....

DPH Commissioner Auerbach's Testimony on S2028 Pandemic Bill

Who wrote the Pandemic bill S2028? DPH Commissioner John Auerbach answered this at the March 26 hearing on the bill (then S18).

As we noted, Senator Richard Moore, chief sponsor of the civil-liberties-defying pandemic preparation bill S2028, referred to it as the "pandemic flu bill" at the beginning of the March 26 hearing.

In typical non-transparent Massachusetts Legislature fashion, the hearing came with little fanfare. The hoi polloi have to be kept in the dark anytime their individual freedoms are threatened. Notably, no citizens opposing the bill were present -- since few knew of the bill or the hearing at that time. (Fortunately, CatchoftheDay Video News was there to record it.)

But the big guy, Department of Public Health Commissioner John Auerbach, was there, speaking in support of the bill for his department and the other medical establishment organizations that (he explained) worked together to draft it: the Massachusetts Medical Society, the Massachusetts Hospital Association, the Medical Reserve Corps of Massachusetts, and the Conference of Boston Teaching Hospitals. Auerbach said that "virtually everyone is in favor of" the bill. He said it's a "critical piece of the Commonwealth's preparations in case of a pandemic outbreak or other critical emergencies" (unspecified).

Clearly the medical establishment has a very different outlook on this bill from the general populace. Besides their close ties to Big Pharma and vaccination dogma, S2028 shows they are very concerned with the liability issues of offering emergency treatment "outside standard clinical practice" -- and illnesses resulting from the dangerous vaccines they plan to administer.

The majority of the people seem to have awakened to the dangers of vaccines, and no longer trust any level of government -- or even the professional elites. Too bad they weren't able to make it to the March 26 hearing.

Thursday, September 03, 2009

HIV/AIDS Exempted from Pandemic Control Bill H2028

The pandemic emergency bill S2028 makes an exception for one specific disease, HIV/AIDS, from isolation and quarantine strategies. See lines 456-458:

In this section [re: isolation and quarantine], “disease or condition dangerous to the public health” does not include acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) or the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV).

While it doesn’t make sense to forcibly isolate or quarantine HIV/AIDS carriers, why not employ some of the other strategies enumerated in this bill to contain disease, such as:

- mandatory testing for the disease (lines 423-424).

- entry into premises (without warrant), where it’s suspected the disease is being communicated to others, and closing the premises or forbidding “assemblages of persons” there (lines 78-84 and 351-367).

After all, AIDS activists are always saying more needs to be done to combat the “epidemic”.

Well, our Department of Public Health would never do that, as it would “stigmatize” people with HIV/AIDS. How how could the state possibly condone targeting of gay bars, houses of prostitution, or drug dens where the disease is clearly spread? That would be an outrage on the scale of Stonewall! It would be interfering with freedom of choice and expression! How could it possibly recommend HIV/AIDS testing -- even before the “marriage” of two men? (In fact, the DPH under Governor Romney eliminated all STD testing before marriage. See Ch. 388 of Acts of 2004.)

The DPH believes it’s enough to push condom use and frequent HIV testing.

Is it just a coincidence that our Commissioner of Public Health, John Auerbach, is openly homosexual and “married” to another man?

What is truly frightening is the amount of power the DPH Commissioner would hold in time of a declared health emergency if S2028 is passed.

For more on Commissioner Auerbach, see:

Massachusetts Dept. of Public Health funding homosexual / transgender movement in schools

United Way and Mass. DPH Fund "Transwomen" Handing Out Condoms & Lube

Auerbach at Youth Pride 2007: HIV testing available

New Massachusetts Dept of Public Health Commissioner Is “Married” Homosexual

Wednesday, September 02, 2009

Massachusetts Pandemic Powers: Quarantine for Mental Illness?

To Domenico Bettinelli @ BettNet (re: your post "Massachusetts is NOT forcing vaccines on you"):

OK, Domenico. You make the point that mandatory vaccination is not in bill S2028, and you’re right on the face of it. You say the “rumor” about the bill’s dangers is unfounded. But you obviously have a lot of unwarranted faith in the trustworthiness of our government and medical professionals.

You’re correct that bill S2028 reads:

An individual who is unable or unwilling to submit to vaccination or treatment shall not be required to submit to such procedures but may be isolated or quarantined pursuant to section 96 of chapter 111 if his or her refusal poses a serious danger to public health or results in uncertainty whether he or she has been exposed to or is infected with a disease or condition that poses a serious danger to public health, as determined by the commissioner, or a local public health authority operating within its jurisdiction. (S2028, lines 409-414.)

Note that “serious danger to public health” remains undefined. And what’s the cut off time on detention? The bill does state that isolation would be only for the period of communicability, and quarantine would be for the usual incubation period of the disease. Individuals who refuse testing or decontamination are subject to isolation or quarantine:

When the commissioner or a local public health authority within its jurisdiction reasonably believes that a person may have been exposed to a disease or condition that poses a threat to the public health ...[they] may detain the person for as long as may be reasonably necessary for the commissioner or the local public health authority, to convey information to the person regarding the disease or condition and to obtain contact information ... (S2028, lines 432-439.)
An order for isolation or quarantine may include any individual who is unwilling or unable to undergo vaccination, precautionary prophylaxis, medical treatment, decontamination, medical examinations, tests, or specimen collection and whose refusal of one or more of these measures poses a serious danger to public health or results in uncertainty whether he or she has been exposed to or is infected with a disease or condition that poses a serious danger to public health. (Lines 464-469.)

This is somewhat vague: no definitions for “reasonably” or “condition that poses a threat to public health." Remember that that Gulag was populated with people like Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, who assuredly suffered from some “condition”.

Have you ever heard of what happens in some pediatricians’ offices, when they talk young teenage girls into getting an HPV vaccine (when the wary mother is not present)? It's easy for an authority to pressure a reluctant patient who tries to refuse. Have you ever heard stories of what happens in psych wards, when they tell someone they’re “just doing a TB test” -- when in fact they’re planning to inject the distressed patient with who knows what? (No, I’m not speaking first person.)

Now multiply this scenario by a thousand times given fear, panic, uncertainty and irrationality during an “emergency”, and mix in lack of transparency (or competence) from our public servants. Do you still think the newly needle-enabled EMT or dentist will follow the protocol in S2028 to the letter? Do you think a frightened individual who resists will be respected? And what happens when the resister is in forced quarantine? Who’s in charge there? What is the state of mind of the forcibly quarantined citizen? (Line 475 does state, "Isolation and quarantine orders must utilize the least restrictive means necessary." But who gets to determine that?)

And of course we don't really know what's in those flu vaccines. So much for trusting the authorities.

S2028 even includes a provision “to care for any emerging mental health or crisis counseling needs that individuals may exhibit,” (all terms and places of treatment undefined) -- with their "permission" of course. Might a person resisting the authorities’ entry into his premises be determined to suffer from “emerging mental health or crisis counseling needs”? And when the authorities “exercise ... their powers ... over facilities including but not limited to communications devices” and a person can’t call his lawyer, what then? Well, then we’ve arrived at a police state, and it doesn’t matter that the new law said no one can be vaccinated against his will. The individual's will no longer counts. There’s only the power of the state.

C’mon Domenico. You’re way too trusting. The patriots have come up with the word “sheeple” for a reason.

Let’s end with this. Who gets to define the governing terms in the law? Current Massachusetts law Ch. 111, section 6 gives this power to the Commissioner of Public Health:

Power to define diseases deemed dangerous to public health; control and prevention
Section 6. The department shall have the power to define, and shall from time to time define, what diseases shall be deemed to be dangerous to the public health, and shall make such rules and regulations consistent with law for the control and prevention of such diseases as it deems advisable for the protection of the public health.

And if S2028 is passed, it would add after the word “diseases” (in lines 2 and 5) above: “injuries, health conditions, and threats to health.” All to be defined ad hoc by an unelected official (the Public Health Commissioner), possibly in time of crisis.

And as the statists have said, never let a crisis go to waste!

Pandemic Bill S2028: What Do Its Sponsors Really Have in Mind?

WorldNetDaily has followed up our post on S2028, focusing on Massachusetts but also referring to worrisome legal actions in other states.

Senator Richard Moore is lead Senate sponsor of the pending Massachusetts pandemic bill S2028, "An Act Relative to Pandemic and Disaster Preparation and Response." So it's worth noting that he began the legislative hearing last March by referring to the "pandemic flu bill"! Hmm, it says nothing about flu in the bill. And the hearing was held in March, before the outbreak of the swine flu in Mexico in April. (We'll be linking to video of that hearing soon.)

Wouldn't the pandemic emergency bill also apply to outbreaks of measles, smallpox, typhus, cholera, tuberculosis, leprosy, HIV, hemorrhagic fevers, and bio warfare in general? (A pandemic is "an epidemic of infectious disease that is spreading through human populations across a large region.") Why would Sen. Moore single out "flu"?

It's no wonder so many Americans are suspicious of the government's efforts to vaccinate us for what appears to be a mild flu. (Why have they fast-tracked the H1N1 vaccine? Why are they fast-tracking everything right now, whether it's Cap & Trade, the stimulus, or the health care takeover?)

As MassResistance has reported, Senator Moore has worked closely with "big pharma" in the past, significantly when he tried to push through a mandatory vaccination of all schoolgirls with Merck's HPV drug Gardasil. Who has his ear now?

Tuesday, September 01, 2009

Massachusetts Pandemic Bill S2028 Update

Update to yesterday's post on S2028 "Pandemic and Disaster Preparation" Bill:

We just heard back from the House Ways and Means Committee staffer, who said that the Committee has not yet decided what to do with the bill. To paraphrase his comments:

It's been filed in past sessions but went nowhere. With the new Speaker (Robert DeLeo), it's not clear what will happen with it this session. The Committee is aware of issues with the bill -- some are valid, some not (he said). The Committee is getting lots of calls about it.

Monday, August 31, 2009

Fascist "Pandemic & Disaster Preparation" Bill S2028 Pending in Massachusetts

We first heard about the very scary "Pandemic and Disaster Preparation" bill, S2028, pending in the Massachusetts Legislature in June. We'd come across a video by the National Vaccine Information Center, which briefly mentioned that Massachusetts was leading the way on forced vaccinations, quarantines -- and even martial law. Since then, with the swine flu H1N1 propaganda, the Massachusetts bill is getting attention online. (See index of general pandemic stories here.)

The Boston Herald reported on the Senate's 36-0 approval of bill S2028 on April 28. New England Cable News ran a brief story: video here. Otherwise, the mainstream media has been keeping it pretty quiet.

A petition to impeach its sponsor, Senator Richard Moore, was posted by the Liberty Preservation Association of Mass. on GoPetition in late May. Great job by this watchdog group! (Note: S18 is now S2028.) They wrote on May 2:

The MassLPA's efforts lobbying against the SENATE NO. 2028 AN ACT RELATIVE TO PANDEMIC AND DISASTER PREPARATION AND RESPONSE IN THE COMMONWEALTH have been bearing fruit.

Senator Bob Hedlund has provided a statement, which suggests that he would not vote for execution of S-2028 if and when it comes back for a vote in the Senate.

Several state reps have said that based on our info packets, our lobbying efforts and the unconstitutionality of this bill that it will not go forward.

These are comforting words, but Senator Bruce Tarr, whom still defends this legislation,has stated that this will come back in October during the upcoming, highly anticipated, flu season pandemic.

These are NOT comforting words, but my fears are that Senator Tarr's statement is closer to the truth than what several State reps had suggested.

(Remember that the Massachusetts legislature, led by Senator Richard Moore and the Merck lobbyists, almost passed a law forcing all school girls to be vaccinated with the very dangerous HPV vaccine, Gardasil. There was generalized outrage over that, and the poison vanguard backed down.)

S2028 is enough to make you believe all the fears about the New World Order, its eugenics schemes and martial law plans. (Add this to Obama's coming power to shut down the Internet, and where does that leave us?)

Mike Adams at Natural News reports on the Massachusetts bill's "Forced vaccinations, quarantine camps, health care interrogations and mandatory 'decontaminations' ":

The United States of America is devolving into medical fascism and Massachusetts is leading the way with the passage of a new bill, the “Pandemic Response Bill” 2028, reportedly just passed by the MA state Senate and now awaiting approval in the House. This bill suspends virtually all Constitutional rights of Massachusetts citizens and forces anyone “suspected” of being infected to submit to interrogations, “decontaminations” and vaccines.It’s also sets fines up to $1,000 per day for anyone who refuses to submit to quarantines, vaccinations, decontamination efforts or to follow any other verbal order by virtually any state-licensed law enforcement or medical personnel.

You can read bill S2028 here:

http://www.mass.gov/legis/bills/senate/186/st02pdf/st02028.pdf

On the history and status of the bill in the Mass. legislature: http://www.mass.gov/legis/186history/s02028.htm

We called the House Ways & Means Committee (617-722-2380) today, where the bill is currently awaiting further action. The designated staffer was so overloaded with inquiries about this bill that we only got to his voice mail, and haven't heard back yet. As MassLPA warned above, expect it to be brought up after Labor Day. And we're certain Governor Patrick would sign it. (Governor Romney was ready to hop on board back in 2005.)

Get informed on this double-edged issue, threatening both your health and your civil liberties. For more on the dangers of the vaccines, see NVIC's video, Gardasil & Swine Flu Vaccines: Inconvenient Truths (posted 8/24/09) and articles by Dr. Russell Blaylock. Read the info packet from MassLPA (see above).

Related: The Boston Globe reported on August 13:

Massachusetts health authorities took the unprecedented step yesterday of deputizing dentists, paramedics, and pharmacists to help administer vaccines against both the seasonal flu and the novel swine strain expected to make a return visit in the fall.In another emergency measure, regulators directed hospitals and clinics to provide vaccine to all their workers and some volunteers, a move designed to keep the medical workforce robust and prevent doctors and nurses from making their patients sick. In Massachusetts, disease specialists are expecting to provide up to 9 million flu inoculations within the next few months...

The story makes no mention of S2028.

Saturday, August 29, 2009

Kennedy Funeral Mass a "Scandal" Says Catholic Action League of Mass.

We have no comment upon the death of Senator Ted Kennedy. (If you can't say anything good ...) But we are eager to share this press release from the Catholic Action League of Massachusetts:

SATURDAY, AUGUST 29, 2009

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CONTACT: C. J. DOYLE (781) 251-9739

SCANDAL AT MISSION CHURCH IN BOSTON

The Catholic Action League of Massachusetts today decried the scandal which occurred this morning at Boston's most historic Catholic shrine --- the Minor Basilica of Our Lady of Perpetual Help, known as Mission Church --- where a Mass of Christian Burial was used to “celebrate the life” of one of America's most notorious opponents of Catholic morality, the late Senator Edward M. Kennedy. Senator Kennedy fought for more than three decades to keep the killing of pre-born children legal and unrestricted in the United States.

Surgical abortion has claimed more than fifty-one million human lives since 1973. The Catholic religion defines abortion as an “abominable crime”.

President Barack Obama delivered the eulogy, in which he alluded to Kennedy's support for gay rights. One of the Prayers of the Faithful was a petition to end divisions “between gays and straights”.

Ecclesial participants included Rev. Raymond Collins, Rector of the Basilica; Rev. Mark Hession, Kennedy’s parish priest from Our Lady of Victories Church in Centerville on Cape Cod; Rev. J. Donald Monan, Chancellor of Boston College; and Sean Cardinal O'Malley, Archbishop of Boston, who thanked President Obama for his words and his presence. Both the homilist, Fr. Hession, and Cardinal O'Malley suggested that the late senator had found eternal salvation.

The Catholic Action League called the event “a tragic example of the Church’s willingness to surrender to the culture, and serve Caesar rather than Christ”.

Catholic Action League Executive Director C. J. Doyle stated: “Senator Kennedy supported legal abortion, partial-birth abortion, the public funding of Medicaid abortions, embryonic stem cell research, birth control, federal family planning programs, and so-called emergency contraception. He defended Roe v. Wade, endorsed the proposed Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA), and opposed both the Human Life Amendment and the Hyde Amendment. Kennedy maintained a 100% rating from both NARAL and Planned Parenthood. In 1993, he received the Kenneth Edelin Award from Planned Parenthood, and in 2000 received the Champions of Choice Award from NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts at the hands of the same Dr. Kenneth Edelin, the infamous abortionist.”

During his 1994 reelection campaign, Kennedy said ‘I wear as a badge of honor my opposition to the anti-choicers’. His successful obstruction of the nomination of Judge Robert Bork to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1987 effectively prevented the overturning of Roe v. Wade. Beyond his specific positions on human life issues, Senator Kennedy, along with the late Congressman Robert Drinan, provided the cover and the example for two generations of Catholic politicians to defect from Church teaching on the sanctity of innocent human life.”

“No rational person can reasonably be expected to take seriously Catholic opposition to abortion when a champion of the Culture of Death, who repeatedly betrayed the Faith of his baptism, is lauded and extolled by priests and prelates in a Marian basilica. This morning's spectacle is evidence of the corruption which pervades the Catholic Church in the United States. The right to life will never be recognized by secular society if it is not first vindicated and consistently upheld within the institutions of the Church itself.”

Sunday, July 26, 2009

Why Is Google Harassing the MassResistance Blog?

Brian Camenker at MassResistance sent out the following email, laying bare (uh-oh ... is that "nudity"???) Google's absurd excuse for blocking this blog with a warning page. Yes, it's "nudity":

FOX News in New York asks Google: Why are you blocking the MassResistance blog?
(MassResistance email alert, July 24, 2009)

Google has finally given its reason for blocking the MassResistance blog, but it took a call from Fox News in New York to get it. And it seems to be more political - and frightening - than anything else.

Since 2005 the MassResistance blog has been hosted on Google's blogspot blogging site with few problems. For the last several weeks Google has been blocking the MassResistance blog with a warning screen alleging "objectionable content", and requiring readers to click through to get in. The block was put on almost immediately after researcher Amy Contrada posted some articles and photos from transgender and gay-pride related public events, in preparation for the July 14 transgender bill hearing. Several news outlets, including WorldNetDaily, have covered this incident.

WorldNetDaily: Google blocks blog exposing homosexual agenda; "Actions represent trial balloon for government censorship of 'hate' speech"

Fox News gets involved
Earlier this week FoxNews.com in New York called the MassResistance office asking about Google blocking our blog. Fox reporter Josh Miller said they were interested in the story and could see that given Google's huge power it could lead to censorship issues across the Internet. We discussed the details with him. Later that day Miller called us back and said that Fox finally got through to Google headquarters in San Francisco about this. Google told him that we had violated their terms of service regarding content by posting "nudity", and therefore they had put an "interstitial" (i.e., block) on our blog.

Not "nudity" by any rational standard - this is political
This is a completely absurd definition of "nudity." They are referring to our June 27 posting on "gender expression" - a political issue. You can go to the blog page HERE (just click through their warning page) and judge for yourself.
First, the photos they object to are of homosexual and transgender activists doing bizarre things at public events on public streets, where uniformed police were present. Why weren't any of the people arrested for obscenity, one might ask, if Google finds it so offensive?

Second, none of the pictures show genitals or fully "nude" people. Interestingly, they are mostly pictures of women who have amputated their breasts to "become" men, and who are marching shirtless as a statement of their "masculinity". (Ironically, according to Google's own absurd transgender-support policies these women would be considered "men" anyway since that's their "gender identity"!)

Google clearly knows that these are photos of public political events, not Playboy pinups or pornography. And, of course, Google certainly knows what happens at homosexual-related events because Google participates in them. Google is a frequent participant in Gay Pride events around the country, including the ones in San Francisco and New York which are particularly obscene. Furthermore, Google's blogspot site also hosts some of the most obscene, hateful and outrageous homosexual blogs. It's hard to believe that people would even write some of that stuff. Somehow they don't get flagged by Google for anything "offensive". Most people around the country who see this have agreed that this is viewpoint censorship: unquestionably a political act by Google, not an "anti-pornography" move. And as we said to Fox News - it's MassResistance now, but later it could be you.

Scene from in a recent San Francisco Gay Pride Parade

Story dropped by Fox News
We spoke to FoxNews.com today and they informed us that at the last minute they decided not to publish the story on their site. They didn't give a reason. However, the reporter reiterated that these facts still stand and it's definitely a concern.

As we've said before, we think people need to take this seriously. Certainly WorldNetDaily and others are...

Tuesday, July 14, 2009

Proof: "Gay Marriage" Still NOT Legal in Massachusetts (July 2009)

Today (July 14, 2009), the Massachusetts Judiciary Committee will consider the bill to legalize "gay marriage". That's right -- "gay marriage" is still NOT LEGAL in Massachusetts!

The current Massachusetts marriage statute allows only man/woman, husband/wife couples. So Rep. Byron Rushing has filed a bill, every session since 2004, to change the law to allow same-sex couples to marry. His bill reads:

H1708: Chapter 207 is hereby amended by adding the
following new section:—
Section 37A. Any person who otherwise meets the eligibility requirements of this chapter may marry any other eligible person regardless of gender.

Why has the Legislature never voted on this? Why has the press never recognized that the law was never changed?

Legal means permitted by law.

Rep. Byron Rushing smiles as he sponsors the most radical bills

in the Mass. legislature, including legalization of "gay marriage"

and decriminalization of sodomy.

Even the Supreme Judicial Court recognized that, and told the Legislature to change the marriage statute back in 2003, which it never did. Only because of Mitt Romney's promise to the Log Cabin Republicans do we have phony "gay marriage" -- now celebrated by 16,000 couples. Romney's orders to his executive branch officials to implement such "marriages" was unconstitutional, lacking statutory authority. So those "marriage" licenses aren't worth the paper they're printed on.

One reason MassResistance is so hated by the GLBT movement is that we've pointed this out for years. And the 16,000 "married" same-sex couples just don't want to admit that they're part of a Big Lie.

Note: The law criminalizing sodomy has still not been overturned either. Since sodomy is the basis for "gay marriage," the GLBT lobby's bill to decriminalize sodomy will also be heard today. Can't have a "marriage" without consummation!

Sodomy:
- Anal or oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex.
- Copulation with a member of the same sex.
- Bestiality.
- Any of various forms of sexual intercourse held to be unnatural or abnormal, especially anal intercourse or bestiality.

Saturday, July 11, 2009

GLAD: Perversion, Public Sex and Censorship

So -- now that this blog has made history as possibly the first to be semi-blocked by Google for “objectionable content” -- what exactly is it that is so effective on this blog? First, we publish only facts, “uncomfortable truths,” not rumors or personal attacks. And obviously, our photos reveal the ugly truth. Then, we identify those public figures who are twisting the law to enable public perversion and subversion of our youth and culture.

Jennifer Levi (on right) – GLAD's transgender

rights attorney [GLAD photo]

How did we earn the "objectionable" award? Who's gunning for us? We're sure GLAD, Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, is very unhappy with us (along with their co-conspirators on the GLBT blogosphere). Since we recently posted on GLAD's transgender rights bill [here, here, here & here], we assume it riled quite a few individuals on its staff.

Ms. Lee Swislow, GLAD Executive Director, used to head a transgender/transsexual clinic. [GLAD photo]

GLAD -- the legal advocacy group behind “gay marriage” and “transgender rights” – has a rich history of defending public perversion. The organization was founded to defend the right of homosexuals to have sex in restrooms at the Boston Public Library. That was in 1978. They brag about this on their web site. Bay Windows tells the story [Ethan Jacobs, “GLAD turns 30,” 1/16/08]:

Back in 1978, about 30 years before Larry Craig and his "wide stance" had pundits and late night comedians buzzing about bathroom hook-ups, Boston police launched a sting operation targeting gay men cruising at Boston Public Library (BPL). They sent in undercover cops to solicit and arrest men, and in two weeks they made 103 arrests. Gary Buseck, legal director of Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD), said that such arrests had been common in Massachusetts and around the country and that most men arrested under those circumstances opted to handle the matter quietly, forgoing legal representation and accepting whatever deal police or district attorneys were willing to offer. But the BPL sting triggered an outpouring of anger in Boston’s gay community, and activists organized demonstrations in front of BPL, accusing police of entrapment. The protests also convinced a young attorney named John Ward to found GLAD, which would go on to win marriage rights for same-sex couples in Massachusetts, secure disability protections for people living with HIV across the country, and win numerous other legal victories on behalf of LGBT people and people living with HIV/AIDS throughout New England.

GLAD has gone on to intimidate the Massachusetts State Police into allowing all sorts of public sex – in the Fens (in Boston’s Back Bay), in historic Minuteman Park in Lexington, in Estabrook Woods in Concord (where an informant told us they recently even had mattresses in the woods, left undisturbed by the police), in public lavatories across the state. If the sex is taking place behind a bush or lavatory door, that’s “private” so it’s OK, thanks to GLAD! (We hate to imagine what’s going on in the Boston Public Library lavatories these days.)

Mary Bonauto, the GLAD attorney who argued the State Police case, later argued for "gay marriage" before the Mass. Supreme Judicial Court, and is now challenging the federal Defense of Marriage law (DOMA).

Mary Bonauto, GLAD attorney who argued for

“gay marriage” in Mass before SJC;

now leading lawsuit against federal

Defense of Marriage law (DOMA). [GLAD photo]

(GLAD is now pushing to decriminalize even more open public sex. They had a forum in January 2008 called "Sex on the Margins." We heard the discussion was "out there.")

If GLAD gets its way on “transgender rights,” this blog won’t just contain a warning from Google. Its author will be slapped with a criminal discrimination charge, and Google will have its green light to begin censoring all blogs standing for traditional values. Get ready.

Saturday, June 27, 2009

"Gender expression" defined in photos

"Gender expression" has not been defined, but may soon become a "civil right" in Massachusetts.

The pending Body Mutilation ("Transgender Rights") Bill declares it unlawful to discriminate on the basis of "gender identity or expression" yet fails to define either "gender identity" or "gender expression" in any meaningful way. (Likewise, the phrase "sexual orientation" remains undefined in the law.)

The inclusion of "expression" is heavy with implications on how this bill will play out. Whereas "orientation" and "identity" are states of mind, "expression" connotes ACTION, and guarantees that perversions will be protected when played out in the public sphere.

Soon, scenes such as those below will be unstoppable in public places ("public accommodations"). They will be considered a "civil right" to "gender expression." And as we've pointed out, GLAD is readying its defense for public sex acts. (Thanks to GLAD, pervs can already can do it in restrooms or behind the bushes in the Fens without worry of arrest.)

We see no need to warn anyone of the upsetting nature of these photos, since we'll all be seeing similar things in public within a few years. [Photos by MassResistance, except as noted.]