Jump to content

Bruce Jenner interview (mini rant)


dash

Recommended Posts

So, I'm having some mixed feelings. (For example, he seems to have misused the term asexual, here to mean that he isn't looking for a relationship at this point in his life.)

But the way the whole thing ended had me outraged, when Diane Sawyer quoted statements of support from his former teammates, and then said "and even [the Soviet athlete he beat] had this to say, 'I have no problem with how he chooses to live his life,' and even joked, 'I never could have lost to a woman!'"

No, that is not a "joke of support." That's TRANSPHOBIA. And she ended the report on that note, with a smile, as if that was the perfect, heartwarming note to end the whole program on.

What the heck.

I thought even though Jenner did a good job, Sawyer kept asking these outrageous biased questions... like raising how people will see his transition as a publicity stunt for the show (which actually visibly angered Jenner). When she asked his son how he felt about it, and he (the son) said something about now getting an "upgraded" version of his dad, as his authentic self -- and was only positive about the upcoming transition -- she literally said, "you can't really feel that way," and insisted there had to be some negativity in there somewhere. The son acknowledged some changes pose challenges, but never said there was some negativity in there.

So when we come back to him and his wife, standing in the kitchen with Jenner, all smiles? Her voiceover says they are pushing aside the pain in order to seem happy (I don't have an exact quote). Really? She has to insist that they're in pain about it, even when they never said so? It's that inconceivable?!

She did keep insisting about everything, "this is so hard to understand"!

And not in the context of her just speaking for herself, but in ways that implied that it just is, as a matter of the universe, "difficult to understand." Hey, if it's hard for HER to understand, she can say so. That's different from "these things are difficult to understand" as a blanket statement about capital R reality, dropped in as framing for Jenner's story and the stories of other trans people. It Just Is Hard to understand that sexual orientation is different from gender identity! Let's repeat this over and over -- not just that this statement is true, as a reminder to the audience, but how Hard It Is to understand it!

(He said that he's never been attracted to men sexually, at all. So what does she ask? "In your next relationship, what gender person are you thinking of dating?" Um, what? Didn't he say he's never been at all interested in men, and didn't you just remind viewers over and over that gender identity and sexual orientation are separate? He said he wasn't interested in another relationship now, and she kept pressing, which is when he finally said "OK, if I have to go with something, say asexual." Which now misrepresents asexuality, which isn't "I've been a very sexual person my whole life, and I'm going through a lot right now and need to work on myself for a while, so I'm not interested in a relationship right now."

OK, that's my rant. It's just so hard for me to watch things like this (interviews with trans people aimed at "the general public," with a cis interviewer).

I would have liked to see it end with something about "since I have all this money, this is what I'm going to do for all the less fortunate trans people out there." I mean, if he says he's had a spiritual epiphany that he's been put on this Earth (and made a trans person) in order to help trans people, some concrete steps he's taking to help other trans people (especially those who are truly disadvantaged) would be nice.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Batman's Ace

Interviewers act like that because when things make sense, the interviews are shorter and you can't put as many exclamation points in the article titles. Contentment, understanding, and certainty aren't sensational enough. Also, we wouldn't want whoever wrote the questions (quite possibly not her) to come up with something genuinely insightful; we need shocking, not sympathetic!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interviewers act like that because when things make sense, the interviews are shorter and you can't put as many exclamation points in the article titles. Contentment, understanding, and certainty aren't sensational enough. Also, we wouldn't want whoever wrote the questions (quite possibly not her) to come up with something genuinely insightful; we need shocking, not sympathetic!

Sad and disgusting, is what.

Link to post
Share on other sites

shouldn't be people using "her/she"? I haven't saw the interview so can't comment on that but if she came out as a trans woman why people are still using he and her male name? did I missed something in the story?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Melancholy Dolly

shouldn't be people using "her/she"? I haven't saw the interview so can't comment on that but if she came out as a trans woman why people are still using he and her male name? did I missed something in the story?

From what I've heard, Bruce hasn't disclosed any new names or pronouns and is continuing to use his current name and pronouns until further notice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now I no one thing to keep away from, although from what I've read here, I can't say I'm upset about Jenner using the word asexual in that context after being pushed. I can't imagine how frustrated I'd be with that, and trying to come up with one word answer that close of the discussion for the interviewer. Not the best use for the word, agreed, but the context seems to warrant it well enough.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, that's my rant. It's just so hard for me to watch things like this (interviews with trans people aimed at "the general public," with a cis interviewer).

it is understandable the frustration.

i saw on an lgbt website an interview with a musician that is heterosexual where they ask those annoying questions that lgbt persons get in interviews.

another article i recall was where a dj (both club and radio) decides to write the answers to all the annoying questions that she gets ask for being a woman that is a club dj.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Calligraphette_Coe

I stopped watching television a long time ago because of interviews like this and because of things I remember from the famous "Wires and Lights in a Box" speech that Edward R. Murrow made a long time ago. The Jenner interview just validates, for the millionth time, what he said in that speech, especially the end:


It may be that this present system, with no modifications and no experiments, can survive. Perhaps the money-making machine has some kind of built-in perpetual motion, but I do not think so. To a very considerable extent, the media of mass communications in a given country reflects the political, economic and social climate in which it grows and flourishes. That is the reason our system differs from the British and the French, and also from the Russian and the Chinese. We are currently wealthy, fat, comfortable and complacent. We have currently a built-in allergy to unpleasant or disturbing information. And our mass media reflect this. But unless we get up off our fat surpluses and recognize that television in the main is being used to distract, delude, amuse and insulate us, then television and those who finance it, those who look at it and those who work at it, may see a totally different picture too late.

I do not advocate that we turn television into a 27-inch wailing wall, where longhairs constantly moan about the state of our culture and our defense. But I would just like to see it reflect occasionally the hard, unyielding realities of the world in which we live. I would like to see it done inside the existing framework, and I would like to see the doing of it redound to the credit of those who finance and program it. Measure the results by Nielsen, Trendex or Silex-it doesn't matter. The main thing is to try. The responsibility can be easily placed, in spite of all the mouthings about giving the public what it wants. It rests on big business, and on big television, and it rests on the top. Responsibility is not something that can be assigned or delegated. And it promises its own reward: both good business and good television.

Perhaps no one will do anything about it. I have ventured to outline it against a background of criticism that may have been too harsh only because I could think of nothing better. Someone once said--and I think it was Max Eastman--that "that publisher serves his advertiser best who best serves his readers." I cannot believe that radio and television, or the corporations that finance the programs, are serving well or truly their viewers or their listeners, or themselves.

I began by saying that our history will be what we make it. If we go on as we are, then history will take its revenge, and retribution will not limp in catching up with us.

We are to a large extent an imitative society. If one or two or three corporations would undertake to devote just a small fraction of their advertising appropriation along the lines that I have suggested, the procedure might well grow by contagion; the economic burden would be bearable, and there might ensue a most exciting adventure--exposure to ideas and the bringing of reality into the homes of the nation.

To those who say people wouldn't look; they wouldn't be interested; they're too complacent, indifferent and insulated, I can only reply: There is, in one reporter's opinion, considerable evidence against that contention. But even if they are right, what have they got to lose? Because if they are right, and this instrument is good for nothing but to entertain, amuse and insulate, then the tube is flickering now and we will soon see that the whole struggle is lost.

This instrument can teach, it can illuminate; yes, and even it can inspire. But it can do so only to the extent that humans are determined to use it to those ends. Otherwise, it's nothing but wires and lights in a box. There is a great and perhaps decisive battle to be fought against ignorance, intolerance and indifference. This weapon of television could be useful.

Stonewall Jackson, who is generally believed to have known something about weapons, is reported to have said, "When war comes, you must draw the sword and throw away the scabbard." The trouble with television is that it is rusting in the scabbard during a battle for survival. Thank you for your patience.

If people want to know what this experience is *really* like, they should come to places like this one to read peoples' stories, away from the glare of hot lights and contrived scripts. Because only a soldier on the front lines can tell you what war is *really* like.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole Jenner thing may not be ideal, but I believe he genuinely wants to do something positive for trans people. If his interview can spark further dialogue in society to start building a foundation of understanding, then the door can be opened to educate people further. The transgender experience varies from person to person and he said he wasn't a spokesperson for us as a group.

Link to post
Share on other sites
butterflydreams

I'm with Zen on this one. 100%. I'm sure it's always been this way, but in an age of sensationalism, short attention spans, click-bait headlines, etc, I just don't want any part of it. I didn't even know who Bruce Jenner was. I mean, I know about music from the 70s, but that's about it. He was an olympian? So what? That was 40+ years ago.

The modern media loves a sensation story. It's my personal belief that a genuine, non "look at the freak(s)" interview/media story about trans people is simply not possible at this point. By it's very nature. They're just people. Just like you or me or anyone. The only reason they're being interviewed is because they're trans and that's "weird", "abnormal" and whatever else. People love that stuff, for good, bad and neutral reasons, but it's still reducing a person to some kind of "weirdo". On the media, you can do that. In person, you can't.

That's why I'm very much behind Zen's suggestion that people come to places like this one. Interact with trans people on a more direct, personal basis. That's really no different from me talking to someone online who builds model railroads. I can ask them about how it works, what trains they like, etc. No "biggest model railroad in the country" sensationalism. No "model railroads are coming back!" exaggerated claims. Just a person talking to another person learning about a part of their life.

Just because some celebrity shares some experience (in this case, being trans) with other people doesn't mean they're alike. I'm sure I have very little in common with Bruce Jenner, or any number of other trans "celebrities" for that matter. And it only reinforces the idea of trans people as some "other". Celebrities are this amorphous "other". It's a completely different world when that trans person is your best friend, your child, your parent, your neighbor. Those are the people that matter most though. They're the ones you will actually encounter. How will you react then?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I watched the entire interview. It can be seen here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4BkXEKDGH4

I found it to be more positive than negative. Diane brought up questions for the audience (speaking off interview) to help people understand the issue. During the interview, she let Jenner describe their story. She seemed and acted more understanding than the opposite.

Other pertinent people were interviewed, including Dr. Spack of Boston and Professor Boylan who helped educate viewers.

Jenner was right in explaining that GD does not go away, and also that people with it sometimes go to extraordinary lengths to prove themselves in their assigned gender role (transwomen are twice as likely to join the armed services in the USA for example, from what I have read).

Jenner is a public figure, and the fact that she did opt to publicly come out may be a good thing for TS education and rights.

:cake: to Ms Jenner

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't envy the amount of public scrutiny aimed at Jenner over all of this. I wish them the best.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Calligraphette_Coe

My just being here talking about this subject could get me fired from a job I've done faithfully despite my having fulfilled my responsibilities completely at great benefit to my company and society.

Who speaks for me? Especially if that happens?

I remember writing to some of the community leaders back in the late 90s and early 2000s after I had my first meltdown. All of them flat out ignored me. One wouldn't even write back to tell me why I wasn't going to be approved to participate in a forum. I can only surmise that back then, if one wasn't transitioning, one was making excuses and had NO right to support from those who were/did. I never got a phone call, a card or anything from the people in the community. You can't begin to imagine how badly this hurt and how alone and abandoned I felt.

I'd like to know when Diane Sawyer is going to interview people like me who fear for their lives and livelihoods? Who have been the victims of violence?

So, please forgive me if I seem skeptical about this whole dealie. I was an MIA and nobody came back for me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
butterflydreams

Zen, I'm so sorry you had to go through that. Sadly, I know the feeling all too well (for non-trans related experiences), and I think you're entirely justified in feeling the way you do. That's why I don't find myself allied with too many groups or people. If life has taught me one thing repeatedly it's that you have to watch out for yourself. The buck has to stop with you, and that can be extremely difficult, but it's the only thing you can really do.

These kinds of things are so often primarily spectacle. Maybe good. Maybe bad. Maybe neutral. Ultimately mostly moot for the majority of us on the ground floor. Like it or not, there is no one looking out for us plebs. Diane Sawyer isn't going to interview you. She isn't going to interview me. That might actually make a difference. That might actually make people think. Can't have anyone doing that now can we?

(Please pardon my scathing cynicism. This is what happens when you're a little kid and you are engrossed with shows like X-Files. You take the 'trust no one' mantra to heart.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

shouldn't be people using "her/she"? I haven't saw the interview so can't comment on that but if she came out as a trans woman why people are still using he and her male name? did I missed something in the story?

The new name hasn't been announced yet. And for the interview, permission was given to continue using the male pronouns, so the interview says "he" which is probably why people are still using that. The interview is being advertised as "Goodbye" to the male though, so might prefer her/she now that it's over? I am unclear on Jenner's preference, haven't gotten time to watch it yet, just read the articles about it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

He did seem to prefer he for the interview (at one point he said he would still be "dad" to his kids), and talked about "her" as another person or another self in a way. He also basically invited Diane to come back in a year to see how things have gone.

Maybe it was spectacle, but it seemed fairly respectful of him, and also included bits about trans* in general and input from other people, such as a doctor or 2, other trans* people, his children and sister and mother. Also, it got a very large audience, so it may cause more people to think about these issues and hopefully open some minds a bit.

It's easy to pick holes, but I'd rather look for the silver lining and hope for the best. :)

(sorry, I'm no good about being a cynic or a curmudgeon)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see anything wrong with the way Sawyer conducted the interview. She's basically playing a stand-in for the viewers who don't have much understanding of what it means to be trans, so she's asking the questions the layman would ask. This was not a show for people who are already well-educated in this subject.

As for Jenner mis-using the word "asexual" - pff, who cares? He just made a mistake. It happens.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was annoyed at basically the same things. I thought it was a respectful interview from Diane, and have no problems personally with her, but yeah, there were a few moments that made me cringe. The most was after the whole conversation where he very specifically said that he was never interested in males, only females - and she seems to "get it", she then goes on to ask again "so, which gender would you marry if you got re-married?" Like what? Was that question filmed before the previous question or something? I can actually understand how Jenner would give up trying to explain at that point and just say "asexual" (which I was of course peeved about, because of the misrepresentation, but he obviously just wasn't knowledgeable about what that word means, most people think it means celibate, I wish they could have had one of the professionals pop up and correct that mistake but whatever, the show wasn't about asexuality).

I also didn't like how she pushed the supportive son to try to admit he had problems with it. That was the only time Diane was a bit disrespectful. The son is looking at this experience positively and wants whats best for his parent - I don't see why Diane had to try to pressure him to admitting he might have some slight discomfort with some of it. Like, I'm sure there is, but that's not what the son is focusing on nor what he wants to say about his dad. That was just trying to make "drama" in my eyes..

And of course, the ending made me laugh simply because of how bad it was. The rival saying "I can't believe I lost to a woman" or something. And Diane thinks that's a heartwarming comment/ending to the show? :wacko:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Calligraphette_Coe

Zen, I'm so sorry you had to go through that. Sadly, I know the feeling all too well (for non-trans related experiences), and I think you're entirely justified in feeling the way you do. That's why I don't find myself allied with too many groups or people. If life has taught me one thing repeatedly it's that you have to watch out for yourself. The buck has to stop with you, and that can be extremely difficult, but it's the only thing you can really do.

These kinds of things are so often primarily spectacle. Maybe good. Maybe bad. Maybe neutral. Ultimately mostly moot for the majority of us on the ground floor. Like it or not, there is no one looking out for us plebs. Diane Sawyer isn't going to interview you. She isn't going to interview me. That might actually make a difference. That might actually make people think. Can't have anyone doing that now can we?

(Please pardon my scathing cynicism. This is what happens when you're a little kid and you are engrossed with shows like X-Files. You take the 'trust no one' mantra to heart.)

And mine. Unfortunately, some of us live in the Universe where Spock has a beard, and the only interview *we'd* get is with Bill O'Reilly on the Fox News Channel. Because *that* would be a MUCH closer analogue to what life is *really* like here in the hinterlands. And in its own perverse way, might be a million times closer to the zeitgeist, especially when viewed by people 100 years from now. Who might, upon seeing *that* gem, say:

It's hard to believe that people where so backwards-thinking and parochial back then so as to treat trans* people that way! Makes you shudder.....

Link to post
Share on other sites
Certified Cake Decorator

I'm confused. Is Jenner id-ing as female? My parents say that Jenner is still using male pronouns because he isnt "fully trans"

But my rents are awful people so i wanted to hear it from you all. What's the full story?

Because if Jenner is using she pronouns then i am SOOO disappointed in the media for cracking jokes about "he" "deciding" to become trans all of a sudden.

Can someone explain this?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jenner was still portraying herself as male (but transgendered) and stated that she would have male pronouns used at this time (she still uses the name "Bruce"). In the near future, this will change, and she will use a female name and present as female, and at that time, the feminine pronouns will be proper. In short, she has not yet transitioned (but will very soon).

The media used the male pronouns by Jenner's request (and many stated that they were using such at that request, so it is not their fault and they were not doing anything untoward).

Link to post
Share on other sites
Certified Cake Decorator

Oh ok thanks Kelly! I still think my parents are terrible though.... :P

Link to post
Share on other sites
littlepersonparadox

I'm confused. Is Jenner id-ing as female? My parents say that Jenner is still using male pronouns because he isnt "fully trans"

But my rents are awful people so i wanted to hear it from you all. What's the full story?

Because if Jenner is using she pronouns then i am SOOO disappointed in the media for cracking jokes about "he" "deciding" to become trans all of a sudden.

Can someone explain this?

From what i hear Jenner requested that male pronouns still be used. We all have our own thought and sediments when it comes to how we should/need to transition so if jenner still feels like male pronouns are more acceptable for themselves at this stage so be it. However since I don't trust the media to be 100% accurate all the time with this kinda stuff i'm gonna stick to neutral/avoid pronouns like the plague until I get something concrete on what pronouns Jenner wants.

This interview is good for a few things. Yes it's kinda low in points and sensationalism gets the better of it. (also i can forgive the ace misrepresentation they were badgered into it and it's not as bad as brooklyn ninety nines mis-use of asexuality.)

This story actually is letting me know more inadvertently about how my parent's think and feel about trans* people. I realised i'm not coming out anytime soon given the amount of wayward statements made by my parents commenting on this stuff.

Link to post
Share on other sites
littlepersonparadox

Jenner was still portraying herself as male (but transgendered) and stated that she would have male pronouns used at this time (she still uses the name "Bruce"). In the near future, this will change, and she will use a female name and present as female, and at that time, the feminine pronouns will be proper. In short, she has not yet transitioned (but will very soon).

The media used the male pronouns by Jenner's request (and many stated that they were using such at that request, so it is not their fault and they were not doing anything untoward).

I know this is a double post but thanks kelly I didn't know that hence the first paragraph of my first post.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Calligraphette_Coe

This interview is good for a few things. Yes it's kinda low in points and sensationalism gets the better of it.

I won't, but I'd love to live to see the day when interviews like this....wouldn't happen-- because they wouldn't be news. Where ENDA was passed and in effect for years, where people would just say 'So what' if someone mentioned someone's trans*/ace/gay/whatever ness.

IDIC.

Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOJgvV8EwTY I saw the interview here and have to say it was really good and respectful in my opinion. she let him speak openly giving the possibility to tell his personal truth and experience.

I personally think is really well done and as someone who is starting transition at 36 I do really respect and understand his journey. it can be really hard to make people understand that the male/female you've been all your life was anyway you but at the same time not you. also previous relationship/marriage can be hard to understand, so it's the parenting side of it. Sexuality is what people are most confused by, that's why they talked a lot about it, again I do find hard to give a "label" especially when you do have an idea in your head about gay and lesbian and you're aware you don't fit in even if "tecnically" the label fits you. I also do not think the word asexual was used in an inappropiate way. I am asexual and I'm not aromantic but at the moment I do feel so because of the place I am now in my journey; and he said anyway at the moment that's what suits him best and it didn't felt like the first word that came to his mind, I felt like he knew the meaning and use it with specific intention. plus is alway good to have it out mainstream so more people will hopefully look it up and learn about ace people :) I think the part about bottom surgery was good because they stated it's something rude to ask but that he was fine talking about it, which can be contradictory but it is good to send the message that it's something personal that we don't have to decide straight away but more of a working in progress that needs to be privetly.

every transition is different everyone of us has different issues and different attitudes especially regarding the past. and the time at which you do transition is a big factor. lots of young people are born in a time when you can find anything online and find it hard to immagine a world when it was impossible to know about "trans" and what that environment does to the image you have of yourself. and I do believe this is a great thing :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Calligraphette_Coe

lots of young people are born in a time when you can find anything online and find it hard to immagine a world when it was impossible to know about "trans" and what that environment does to the image you have of yourself. and I do believe this is a great thing :)

Instead, I grew up with pieces in the newspapers like this one, misgendering and all:

HIV-positive transsexual loses appeal of judge's order to leave hometown

forever

November 16, 1998

By Laurie Asseo, Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — A transsexual who says a Pennsylvania judge banished him from

his hometown for life after he tested positive for the AIDS virus lost a

Supreme Court appeal today.

The justices, without comment, turned down Raul Valentin's argument that he

should be allowed to pursue a federal civil rights lawsuit against the judge.

Lower courts said the judge enjoys total legal immunity.

Valentin was arrested in Lebanon, Pa., in 1987 after an altercation at a local

swimming pool. A transsexual who had been taking injections to enhance his

breast size, Valentin was wearing a bikini at the time.

A local magistrate sentenced him to 30 days in jail for disorderly conduct.

While in jail, he was tested and found to have the human immunodeficiency virus

that causes AIDS.

Valentin said he then was taken before Court of Common Pleas Judge G. Thomas

Gates, who ordered him to leave town and never come back.

According to Valentin, the judge said that if he ever returned, Gates would

find other charges to bring against him and would see that he was sent to state

prison.

Valentin said police took him to the bus station and gave him a one-way ticket

to New York City. He remained there and now lives in a hospice on Staten

Island.

Valentin filed a civil rights lawsuit against Gates in 1997, but a federal

judge in Pennsylvania threw it out. Judges have absolute immunity from being

sued over judicial acts they take in matters over which they have jurisdiction,

the judge ruled.

The state judge's "general jurisdiction over criminal matters'' was enough to

give him immunity, U.S. District Judge William Caldwell said.

Because Valentin "complains about being sentenced, he must have dealt with the

judge in his judicial capacity,'' Caldwell added.

The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that ruling.

In the appeal acted on today, Valentin's lawyer said Gates lacked the authority

to act because he was not presiding over any case involving Valentin. The 3rd

Circuit court "has set a new standard for judicial immunity,'' his lawyer

argued.

The case is Valentin vs. Gates, 98-526.

Link to post
Share on other sites

every transition is different everyone of us has different issues and different attitudes especially regarding the past. and the time at which you do transition is a big factor. lots of young people are born in a time when you can find anything online and find it hard to immagine a world when it was impossible to know about "trans" and what that environment does to the image you have of yourself. and I do believe this is a great thing :)

*agrees* :)

The ability to transition is indeed easier now than before. Every decade, it gets easier. And now, many can transition as a young person. People born earlier tend to transition at later ages because of that.

I do think that it is a good thing that young people can begin transition before puberty. :cake:

Older people such as Jenner can still do so, especially when GD becomes unbearable. That fact that BJ is doings so and in public will hopefully be beneficial to the cause.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Kappamaki

On the subject of Jenner calling himself asexual, I didn't really take personal offense to him, but I was still really disappointed and frustrated because it seemed to me calling himself "asexual" was just his way of replying with a non-answer to the "What is your sexuality" question, or perhaps just as shorthand for "I'm dealing with stuff and not pursuing a sexual relationship." In other words, he didn't know the real definition of asexuality and was using the word wrong. It was an honest mistake, but it was also an example of asexual awareness failing and resulting inadvertent erasure. Considering that the same day of the interview I'd gotten a lot of crap and acephobic language from a bunch of doctors about my asexuality because they were ignorant of the orientation, I had every right to be irked at some celebrity being ignorant on national television.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Instead, I grew up with pieces in the newspapers like this one, misgendering and all:
HIV-positive transsexual loses appeal of judge's order to leave hometown

forever

November 16, 1998

By Laurie Asseo, Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — A transsexual who says a Pennsylvania judge banished him from

his hometown for life after he tested positive for the AIDS virus lost a

Supreme Court appeal today.

The justices, without comment, turned down Raul Valentin's argument that he

should be allowed to pursue a federal civil rights lawsuit against the judge.

Lower courts said the judge enjoys total legal immunity.

Valentin was arrested in Lebanon, Pa., in 1987 after an altercation at a local

swimming pool. A transsexual who had been taking injections to enhance his

breast size, Valentin was wearing a bikini at the time.

A local magistrate sentenced him to 30 days in jail for disorderly conduct.

While in jail, he was tested and found to have the human immunodeficiency virus

that causes AIDS.

Valentin said he then was taken before Court of Common Pleas Judge G. Thomas

Gates, who ordered him to leave town and never come back.

According to Valentin, the judge said that if he ever returned, Gates would

find other charges to bring against him and would see that he was sent to state

prison.

Valentin said police took him to the bus station and gave him a one-way ticket

to New York City. He remained there and now lives in a hospice on Staten

Island.

Valentin filed a civil rights lawsuit against Gates in 1997, but a federal

judge in Pennsylvania threw it out. Judges have absolute immunity from being

sued over judicial acts they take in matters over which they have jurisdiction,

the judge ruled.

The state judge's "general jurisdiction over criminal matters'' was enough to

give him immunity, U.S. District Judge William Caldwell said.

Because Valentin "complains about being sentenced, he must have dealt with the

judge in his judicial capacity,'' Caldwell added.

The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that ruling.

In the appeal acted on today, Valentin's lawyer said Gates lacked the authority

to act because he was not presiding over any case involving Valentin. The 3rd

Circuit court "has set a new standard for judicial immunity,'' his lawyer

argued.

The case is Valentin vs. Gates, 98-526.

I know this is off topic for Jenner, but I'm really confused about that case! 1) A judge can ban someone from their hometown forever for a disorderly conduct charge? Or was the eviction based on "you have HIV, so we want you out of town," which raises a different series of legal issues? 2) A judge can threaten to throw someone in prison for returning to said town? They are not claiming, for instance, that this defendant has an outstanding arrant against them and so they have the right to take the defendant into custody upon return, they are literally making returning to a town a crime in its own right. O.o

I understand judicial immunity, and I can see why a suit against the judge personally would fail, but what the judge here did looks on its face to be an overstepping of his authority in sentencing, thus forming the basis for an appeal on those grounds.

I'm a lawyer. I have never once heard of a case of a judge banning someone from their hometown (let alone permanently), for ANY conviction, including the most heinous of crimes. Even the sex offender cases get really dicey in terms of what restrictions can legally be placed on where they may live.

I'm very confused.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...