‘I think it’s just disgusting’ — Just one of many appalling anti-gay comments uttered by San Antonio, Texas Councilwoman Elisa Chan. THAT’s free speech?
Last Month in Texas, San Antonio City Councilman Diego M. Bernal (District 1) introduced a proposal to revise the city’s non-discrimination policy, which he calls severely “outdated”. Bernal wanted to tighten the policy’s language to make it all-inclusive, and to bar discrimination against anyone on the basis of religion, sexual orientation, or gender. The current document has not been revised in decades, and conservative councilmen and councilwomen like Elisa Chan (District 9) would like to keep things that way.
Bernal’s proposal was met with stiff opposition where critics believed the language of the proposal would prevent future public officials from running for office based on past comments while taking positions on issues involving homosexual or transgender lifestyles. In response, Bernal himself proposed removing the specific language in order to push forward the remainder of the proposal, which the City Council recently took up Aug. 2.
Opponents launched a broad right-wing smear campaign against the proposal as well, before the it had even been introduced, claiming that the revised proposal would limit “free speech and religious liberty.” You can see a rough summary of myths and facts about the proposal reported here at Media Matters For America.
That all seems like our current bipartisan politics conducting normal business, doesn’t it? Not quite.
Last week, a now-former aide to Councilwoman Elisa Chan came forward with a very disturbing audio recording of a meeting concerning this same proposal which took place in May of this year. James Stevens, the aide who left his job under Councilwoman Chan earlier this month, relinquished the recording to Brian Chasnoff of San Antonio Express-News.
Stevens stated:
My decision to record in the first place was that, during the staff meetings, we weren’t really discussing the ordinance itself. We were really just talking about ways to appeal to the (voting) base and to get them fired up as opposed to analyzing the ordinance…[Chan] is only focused on her political future. She’s not focused on the policy itself and how it’s going to really affect the city. We spent 80 percent of that meeting talking about how disgusting homosexuality is.
The audio recording of Chan’s remarks is absolutely appalling. Here is a news report from Fox 29 in San Antonio, Texas on the whole affair:
Here is a sample of some of the more disturbing comments made by Chan in the recording:
By the way, this is politically incorrect. I don’t think homosexual people should do adoption. They should be banned by adoption. You’re going to confuse those kids. They should be banned.
If you wanted to choose that lifestyle, we don’t want to discriminate you, but you shouldn’t affect the young people. How terrible ? They’re going to be confused. You see two men go into a bedroom. You see two women kissing. Is that not confusing? It’s confusing.
It is actually, what you call, suggestive, for the kids to be corrupt, which is against nature. I’m telling you, anything that is against nature is not right.
You know, to be quite honest, I know this is not politically correct. I never bought in that you are born, that you are born gay. I can’t imagine it.
When I say that it’s ? behavioral preference, they say that, ‘No, you’re born with it.’ But I never bought into that.
I think it’s just disgusting just to even think about. All the definitions. ?
Elisa Chan held a news conference Tuesday and addressed those comments publicly for the first time since James Stevens came forward with the audio recording of the May meeting. In her statement, Chan refused to apologize for the comments, refused to resign, and refused to change her views of LGBT people. Her statement was interrupted more than once with applause and cheers from spectators.
Bravo, Councilwoman Chan! As an American, her personal beliefs should be acknowledged and respected, no matter how repulsive or distasteful we might find them to be. Chan’s personal speech and thoughts are protected under the First Amendment, which means that she cannot be prosecuted based on those personal beliefs.
There is though, a fatal flaw in the argument of “Freedom of Speech” and “private conversation” that Chan presented during her news conference. At the time she made those statements, or slurs, she was officially in performance of her duties as an elected official, and taking part in a meeting regarding legislation of the very thing she vehemently spoke against. She was making those statements in her official capacity as a city councilwoman, not a private citizen. If that wasn’t enough, she then instructed her staff to create false propaganda and media to circulate in local papers supporting the claims that were discussed during the meeting.
Further statements made by Elisa Chan in the recording:
Can you guys come up with a draft? Come up with draft with all the good, those arguments we talk as a speaking point, in terms of we’re addressing an issue that is not an issue. This is national politics again at the council level.
This is another layer of bureaucracy, that we have not heard any discrimination. And then add in the family value in there. ? Maybe I’ll use the industries, that we have a trend, that is, maybe I’ll use we have water rates and CPS rates to worry about.
Maybe what we can do, can we maybe throw some questionable confusions like, OK, this ‘transgender, because the definition is so broad?
Maybe I say I was not educated on what transgender is about.
According to the U.S. Supreme Court, none of these statements are protected under the First Amendment, not only because Chan is herself a public official, but also because of the sheer defamatory nature of the statements and the intent behind them to perpetuate them to the public at large. Ironically, the First Amendment does not protect Chan or her staff, but it does protect Stevens’ recording and the publication of that recording according to the 1964 ruling of The New York Times v. Sullivan.
Whatever excuse Councilwoman Chan wants to come up with for her statements, she is clearly wrong in her assertion of the First Amendment. More than that, she has violated her oath of office and according to Article II, Section 7 of the current San Antonio City Charter, she is now subject to “forfeiture of office” as a result of her remarks.? It’s also interesting to note that the original proposal introduced by Councilman Bernal contained specific wording regarding possible statements like Chan’s, before he removed it under intense pressure from critics of the proposal.
Sec. 2-552. ? Appointed Officials, Boards and Commissions.
(a) Appointments to Boards and Commissions.
When making appointments to boards and commissions, the City shall not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, veteran status, age or handicap disability.
(b) Prior Discriminatory Acts.
No person shall be appointed to a position if the City Council finds that such person has, prior to such proposed appointment, engaged in discrimination or demonstrated a bias, by word or deed, against any person, group or organization on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, veteran status, age, or handicap disability.
(1) No appointed official or member of a board or commission shall engage in discrimination or demonstrate a bias, by word or deed, against any person, group of persons, or organization on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, veteran status, age or handicap disability, while serving in such public position.
(2) Violation of this standard shall be considered malfeasance in office, and the City Council shall be authorized to take action as provided by law to remove the offending person from office.
Edited by: SB
