Outside the State House.
About 250 demonstrators - split between BPS and college students - marched from the Common to the State House and City Hall today to urge Gov. Baker and Mayor Walsh to formally declare sanctuaries for not just undocumented immigrants but other minority groups, including lesbians, gays and transgender people as we move into the Trump era.
They had a specific demand for Baker: Denounce Steve Bannon.
The protesters also demanded that the two elected officials protect public schools from a potential onslaught by privatization forces. Speakers at a rally at the Parkman discussed their work on the successful No on 2 campaign, in which Massachusetts rejected a proposal to allow the creation of 12 new charter schools every year.
"No Trump, no KKK, no racist USA!" was among the chants shouted out during the rally and the march up to the State House. A contingent peacefully entered the State House - after leaving their signs outside - and went up to Gov. Baker's office, where an aide came out and told them the governor was "unavailable".
Her entire sign read "People before Profits:"
@universalhub @ACLU_Mass they're inside city hall now, asking @martywalsh_ma to come out and speak w them. pic.twitter.com/jI2Y0jerJY
— C. Scott Ananian (@cscottnet) December 5, 2016
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
Comments
You want protests?
By TommyJeff
Mon, 12/05/2016 - 5:34pm
Just wait 'til Sessions comes for the weed.
But seriously.
By anon
Mon, 12/05/2016 - 6:00pm
When he nominates Ted Cruz to the Supreme Court the protests will be massive.
im gonna tell this to my children
By Scumquistador
Mon, 12/05/2016 - 8:22pm
itll be the scariest bed time story, sure to give them nightmares
To hell w the children
By Stevil
Mon, 12/05/2016 - 8:33pm
Ted Cruz as a SCOTUS justice gives ME nightmares.
Well we're all granted right
By Ahab
Mon, 12/05/2016 - 5:35pm
Well we're all granted right for protest via the Constitution provided it's peaceful. Good to see that this wasn't as riotous as the crowd in places such as Portland.
Surprised that they got snubbed by Baker.
By anon
Mon, 12/05/2016 - 5:53pm
He was a leader in the anti-Trump movement. Has he changed his tune? Will he be against protecting sanctuary cities next?
You haven't been keeping up with the news, I take it
By adamg
Mon, 12/05/2016 - 8:34pm
We're talking about Charlie "Give Trump a chance" Baker.
Sorta like President Obama
By Anony-Mouse
Mon, 12/05/2016 - 10:24pm
Seems the Gov is Sort like Hillary, and President Obama in that respect.
They're more concerned about
By Chris Lynch
Tue, 12/06/2016 - 12:38am
They're more concerned about a peaceful transition than protecting the Republic from this emotionally damaged man who, if he wants the job, it's just to make himself wealthier.
more like a leader
By anon
Mon, 12/05/2016 - 9:18pm
in the I'm a Republican Governor in Massachusetts and Want to Eventually Get Re-elected Movement.
What would that meeting have been like?
By bosguy22
Tue, 12/06/2016 - 8:44am
"WE'RE ANGRY DONALD TRUMP WAS LEGALLY ELECTED PRESIDENT"
Baker- "uh, yah me too."
The protesters want the mayor
By anon
Mon, 12/05/2016 - 5:55pm
The protesters want the mayor to declare sanctuary for lesbians? What does that mean?
That lesbians and others will be protected here
By adamg
Mon, 12/05/2016 - 8:35pm
Possibly hard to imagine here in Boston, but there's a whole big country out there where non-straight people are not treated with the sort of common decency you'd expect.
Book recommendation
By Roman
Mon, 12/05/2016 - 8:41pm
https://www.amazon.com/Cleanest-Race-Koreans-Thems...
Let's try this again
By Waquiot
Mon, 12/05/2016 - 10:47pm
What does this mean?
Trump has has nothing to say on this issue, except to say that the North Carolina bathroom kerfuffle was BS and to invite the winner of the 1976 Olympic Decathlon to the Republican National Convention. Sure, his Vice President would not be considered "stellar" on LGBTQRST rights, but the body of evidence against him is making insurance companies cover conversion therapy and allowing caterers to refuse to have to handle gay weddings. That puts the VP-elect still to the left of the President who signed the Defense of Marriage Act.
Regardless of who was elected President, the rights of lesbians, gays and transgender would remain as they have been in the Commonwealth. Now, undocumented immigrants are another story, and that is why I am aghast at how people are protesting Trump.
Lord, have mercy...
By SHABAZZ X
Mon, 12/05/2016 - 11:20pm
Tell me, when did said president ever support measures to require women who have abortions to also have funerals for the 'victims of infanticide'?
Stay on topic
By Waquiot
Tue, 12/06/2016 - 12:08am
When gay men start having abortions, your comment will be germain. Until then...
Conversion Therapy should be
By anon
Tue, 12/06/2016 - 7:47am
Conversion Therapy should be considered a hate crime. At the very least, no insurance SHOULD cover it. It's like wanting insurance to cover heroin - not just a 'therapy' without medical / psychological benefit but is something actively harmful and life ruining.
You're missing something
By Waquiot
Tue, 12/06/2016 - 8:52am
Pence never advocated that people should be made to undergo conversion therapy. There was a feeling that it should be covered, most likely by people who somehow think that it would "help" those who think they are gay.
That said, I have yet to see any proof that Trump is supportive of this, or that he has any ill feelings towards gays and lesbians. I think the transgendered thing was covered in Cleveland over the summer.
Oh please
By SwirlyGrrl
Tue, 12/06/2016 - 9:18am
YOU are the one who is missing something.
If we were talking about Catholics being forced to become Protestants you wouldn't be talking about "giving the option" blah blah blah.
We are also talking about enabling parents to force their minor children through this purely religious torture, and a 50+% suicide rate. This is not scientifically valid medicine or mental health - it is aimed at getting gay kids to kill themselves. You cannot even begin to assert that Pence doesn't know full fucking well what he was advocating for in that regard. Conversion "therapy" IS torture and it KILLS CHILDREN.
I sincerely hope that your son isn't gay if you think that parents should be "given the option" of perpetuating hate crimes against gay children.
What are you going to do for an encore - tell us that all those children raped by priests were "only given an option"?
I'm missing nothing
By Waquiot
Tue, 12/06/2016 - 10:52am
I think that conversion therapy is BS and that no one should have to go through it. Parents should just accept their kids for being their kids.
On the other hand, I'm not going to impose my beliefs on others. Yes, this does swing both ways. I'm just saying that there is a big difference between the government allowing families to choose to do this and the government making people do this.
But yeah, keep on pissing on the Catholics. You know who else has something against the Catholic Church? Mike Pence. Left the church and everything. If he said that his minor children had to attend a church because he was changing religions, fine. That's how these things work. If you really want to double down on this, ask me what I think about Christian Scientists.
Some day,
By erik g
Tue, 12/06/2016 - 11:25am
I am going to invent a device that lets me administer small electric shocks over standard TCP/IP, and I'm going to fine-tune it by having it target anyone who ever trots out that oldest and tiredest of chestnuts, "Your intolerance of my intolerance is the REAL intolerance." And I will make a million dollars, and be forever spared from this insufferable talking point. People who do bad things to their gay kids/family/neighbors/whatever are wretched human beings who deserve every bit of scorn we can heap on them. Mike Pence specifically should be sentenced to walk his house barefoot while I strew Legos on the floor. People who say bad things about those same bigots are such a completely different thing that my mind boggles at the very idea that they're being used in the same sentence.
Also, no one was pissing on Catholics at any point in this thread--that's your persecution complex acting up. In fact, Swirly was doing the exact opposite: contending that applying your very argument to Catholics would be a really shitty thing to do.
Oh, Swirly's anti-Papism is there
By Waquiot
Tue, 12/06/2016 - 12:46pm
Either that, or I was deluded when I thought she wrote
She didn't have to go there, but she did.
Religious child abuse
By SwirlyGrrl
Tue, 12/06/2016 - 2:57pm
Is religious child abuse. An apologist for suicide-inducing child torture has no room to complain if his own religion's child abuse is brought up when he is excusing other forms of such abuse.
You are a very sad person if you can't see that the same attitudes breed the same results just because you have declared your enabling to be sacred and special.
You're correct, but you're also disingenuous
By lbb
Tue, 12/06/2016 - 9:20am
You are correct that Trump himself hasn't attacked LGBTQ people directly as such, much (apart from saying that he would "strongly consider" nominating a Supreme Court justice to overturn marriage equality, and support for HB2, and supporting FADA and other so-called "religious freedom" laws, and...). You are also correct that Pence's alleged support for so-called conversion therapy is ambiguous at best, and that he's never made a statement in favor of electroshock treatment for gay people, contrary to what some people are saying. But you are being disingenuous if you believe that stocking his cabinet with homophobes means nothing, or that our new overlord won't hand the reins over to Pence, a well-documented homophobe, while he goes golfing. History is full of leaders who didn't have any personal animus towards gays, or so they said - but they were perfectly willing to let their underlings' prejudices have free rein. Consider also the implications of Trump being able to fill numerous lower-court judicial appointments that went unfilled during the Obama administration because of Republican obstructionism, add in the trend to create ever more so-called "religious freedom" laws at every level of government, and it's a goddamn bleak future for LGBTQ people under Trump. To say anything else is a flat-out lie.
Good points, but
By Waquiot
Tue, 12/06/2016 - 10:57am
How can any court or cabinet member really do anything to erode gay rights in Massachusetts?
Even social conservatives like me see this as a state issue. If New York wants to pass a law allowing gay people to get married, fine. If Mississippi wants to enshrine marriage as only between a man and a woman (which of course was overturned by the Supreme Court), sure. This goes back to the first point-
What does sanctuaries for not just undocumented immigrants but other minority groups, including lesbians, gays and transgender people even mean?
Social conservatives like me see this as a state issue
By spin_o_rama
Tue, 12/06/2016 - 12:23pm
Well of course thats not the case when it comes to marriage, SCOTUS recognized that blocking gay couples from the hundreds of federal laws and benefits given to married couples was a violation of equal protections under the law. But of course you know this, so whatever.
This reminds me a of a straight friend who is getting married this year and posted on Facebook. He wondered aloud why gay couples fight so hard for "just a piece of paper." He of course will be filing paperwork and fees for "just a piece of paper" for his marriage but seemed to disingenuously forget about all those federal laws and benefits that come with it.
You read the rest of that paragraph, right?
By Waquiot
Tue, 12/06/2016 - 12:44pm
You know, the part that noted that the Supreme Court said what you say it said.
But again, What does sanctuaries for not just undocumented immigrants but other minority groups, including lesbians, gays and transgender people even mean?
But hey, thanks for being tolerant of other people's views.
Keep playing the victim
By spin_o_rama
Tue, 12/06/2016 - 12:50pm
I chose to respond to your views about gay marriage and states rights, which clash with SCOTUS. I don't really have to respond to your loaded question if I don't want to.
Thanks for letting me be the victim
By Waquiot
Tue, 12/06/2016 - 2:50pm
I mean, we could have a discussion about what it means to be a sanctuary and who it would apply to, along with perhaps actual proposals by the incoming President, but instead you decided to harp on my views on what constitutes a marriage.
But hey, to each his or her own.
Well ...
By SwirlyGrrl
Tue, 12/06/2016 - 2:59pm
You seem to love to play the victim - especially when called out on your "sacred right" to bigotry.
Or...
By lbb
Wed, 12/07/2016 - 9:04am
...you could get off your passive-aggressive butt and google it. But you'd rather be spoon-fed, and then spit out what you're given as unacceptable. Come on, Waquoit, if you want to play that game, expect people to call it what it is.
Sigh
By Waquiot
Wed, 12/07/2016 - 9:30am
So, the incoming administration plans on deporting gays, lesbians, and transgendered persons? That's typically what causes sanctuaries to be created.
But hey, I'll keep on being passive-aggressive as long as you keep on being straight up aggressive. A question was asked, but no one seems to want to answer it. I might not like what this theoretical LGBTQRS sanctuary would be, but it could understand it if someone explained it to me. You see, some of us actually like to understand different opinions.
Here's how
By lbb
Tue, 12/06/2016 - 8:53pm
Google "religious freedom laws". You'll learn a thing or two.
Ah, a graduate of the Trump School of Government
By Waquiot
Wed, 12/07/2016 - 12:11am
Google "how laws are made in the United States?". Fascinating stuff.
Hint- neither cabinet members nor judges pass laws, though the latter do have the power to declare a law unconstitutional.
Nazi Scum?
By anon
Mon, 12/05/2016 - 6:16pm
If i remember right Nazi's imprisoned, starved and sent a whole buncha people to their death in gas chambers.
Comparing our future president to them is a bit of a stretch
You're right, she was wrong
By adamg
Mon, 12/05/2016 - 8:13pm
Her sign should have said NEO NAZI instead, except the rhyme wouldn't work as well.
Do you really believe that to be true?
By Roman
Mon, 12/05/2016 - 8:17pm
For a guy I didn't vote for, I'm finding myself drawn to defending our future president a whole lot. Guess why.
Because you haven't been paying attention?
By TommyJeff
Mon, 12/05/2016 - 8:27pm
How many guesses do I get?
Because you're a nice guy
By Roman
Mon, 12/05/2016 - 8:42pm
as many as you want.
You won't get it though.
Ain't it the truth
By Waquiot
Mon, 12/05/2016 - 8:27pm
I mean, there's so much to dislike about the guy, yet the things people get hung up on amazes me, along with things like, well... I spent too much of my Sunday talking about such things, and I will probably spend the next 4 years doing the same.
As people like to say, Sanders would have cleaned Trump's clock, but instead we got what we got.
Maybe Trump's not a neo-Nazi
By adamg
Mon, 12/05/2016 - 8:43pm
I can buy that. However, he has neo-Nazi supporters, and he's created an environment where, as stupid as it sounds, we're starting to see articles about whether Jews are "white."
He's done little to nothing to tamp that down and, yes, Mr. CEO of Breitbart is going to be right there in the White House. Add to the fact that, yes, Trump is all on his own an authoritarian who incites crowds to press hatred to the point that a wire service has to pull some reporters off his beat, shows he has no concept of the First Amendment or, for that matter, the Fourteenth (sorry, Donny, you can't just strip a natural-born American citizen of citizenship), whines at media executives about photos of his double chin and complains about a TV sketch show, constantly, and, well, I can see why people might be worried.
Maybe in four years we'll all just look back and laugh and laugh at how paranoid we were.
Or maybe we'll sigh about how we weren't alert enough.
You're doing it again
By Roman
Mon, 12/05/2016 - 8:52pm
I just read that Atlantic piece myself. You know what it is? More gossip. Left-wing academics pontificating about their fears about what's going on in the minds of the other side with absolutely no evidence beyond the fears articulated by other left-wing academics, politicians, and activists.
Repeat after me: not journalism; gossip.
I'll also note that somehow you're not assailing the Atlantic as an anti-Semitic publication because of the provocative title it ran that piece with. If it had appeared in Breitbart of Fox News...oh boy...give me a few days for my geiger counter and radiation suit to arrive in the mail.
Huh, I thought you got context and nuance
By adamg
Mon, 12/05/2016 - 11:53pm
You're saying you can't figure out why a neo-Nazi questioning whether Jews are white might be different than a Jew raising the same question? I guess that means you also might not understand people who are part of a group that has been persecuted and murdered for, oh, 2,000 years might be a bit sensitive to the question of whether their fellow countrymen are turning on them.
And yeah, yeah, yeah, Steve Bannon loves Israel so much. We've discussed that already.
I would note that, during WW2, the Baltic nations....
By Michael Kerpan
Tue, 12/06/2016 - 12:05am
... particularly Lithuania and Latvia collaborated quite enthusiastically with the Germans in exterminating virtually their entire Jewish populations.
Alright dude, you can delete my account at your convenience
By Roman
Tue, 12/06/2016 - 11:00am
I'm not going to play in your echo chamber any more. Have fun driving yourself nuts, giving yourself nightmares, and shaving years off of your lifespan.
See you in the funny pages
By Sock_Puppet
Tue, 12/06/2016 - 11:36am
Can you put fishy in the back of your car when you drive off? You two could open a cafe or something in Palookaville.
Do it, Adam! Be it a liberal
By anon
Tue, 12/06/2016 - 11:38am
Do it, Adam! Be it a liberal snowflake echo chamber, at least we won't have stupid in it.
Shut Up, Anon
By SwirlyGrrl
Tue, 12/06/2016 - 12:17pm
The grownups are talking.
Get yourself a log in or gtfo.
Context, Swirly
By lbb
Tue, 12/06/2016 - 8:55pm
Context, Swirly, my god, try to follow along.
Promise?
By o hai
Tue, 12/06/2016 - 12:12pm
nt
C'mon Adam
By anon
Tue, 12/06/2016 - 2:24am
This site is going to soon lose credibility. You're way to one sided & way to blatently obvious about it
Oh, that would be a shame, wouldn't it?
By adamg
Tue, 12/06/2016 - 7:51am
But I don't care. Bye, Felicia.
Yeah,
By erik g
Tue, 12/06/2016 - 11:27am
I'm sure Adam's feeling the financial pain of offending anonymous commenters who post at 2:24 AM by reporting on news of local protests. That's a demographic you just can't afford to lose, in this age of modern media.
Ban Anons First
By SwirlyGrrl
Tue, 12/06/2016 - 12:19pm
I mean, really, who the hell does this git think he or she is telling you how to run your site?
Well maybe if the account
By Ryan
Tue, 12/06/2016 - 1:42pm
Well maybe if the account login system worked, that would be possible. But I haven't been able to log into mine without doing a password reset every time for over a year. I contacted Adam about it once and he supposedly reset it, but it still doesn't work right. So I gave up on logging in and and don't even try anymore.
you are using a consistent pseud
By SwirlyGrrl
Tue, 12/06/2016 - 3:00pm
The problem is the "anon not verified" people who turn up at 3am and say stoopid things like OMG LIBRUHHHLLLL like it was an insult.
you are using a consistent pseud
By SwirlyGrrl
Tue, 12/06/2016 - 3:00pm
The problem is the "anon not verified" people who turn up at 3am and say stoopid things like OMG LIBRUHHHLLLL like it was an insult.
Hitler didn't campaign on genocide
By Nick L
Mon, 12/05/2016 - 9:49pm
He was definitely considered a far-right crazy and widely perceived as anti-Semitic - much like Trump - but it was mostly considered campaign rhetoric. Serious conservatives saw Hitler as somebody they could work with, andnobody in Germany saw the gas chambers coming in 1933. Not even the Nazis.
I don't think genocide will happen in America, largely because our federal institutions are stronger and only a small handful of Trump'a inner circle has the appetite. I think a de facto return to Jim Crow + banana republic is more likely.
But the thing about dictators is that nobody knows they're dictators until well after the dictatorship starts. And I think more centrist-minded people are vastly underestimating how much damage Trump can do, and vastly understating how much damage state-level Republicans have done in the past few years.
And genocide against Muslims is a pot that's been ready to boil over since 2009.
"considered campaign rhetoric"
By lbb
Mon, 12/05/2016 - 10:25pm
Our institutions are stronger than Germany's in the 30s, but not as much stronger as I'd like, nor as much stronger as I believed a few months ago. And they're vulnerable. For example, the judiciary: never mind the supremes, there's a backlog of unfilled positions in lower courts that the Republican Congress is going to give Trump a free hand with. Corruption of the judiciary was a crucial element in the SA's power in Germany: if you can bust heads and know that at worst you'll get a slap on the wrist, while leftists who do a fraction of what you did gets sent up for hard time, it does lead to a certain, shall we say, exuberance?
Must be a different Hitler you're thinking of
By Roman
Mon, 12/05/2016 - 10:29pm
The one I learned about in history class was always an open anti-Semite.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler%27s_r...
Just like Steve Bannon.
By ZachAndTired
Tue, 12/06/2016 - 12:25am
Just like Steve Bannon.
But who's to say that Jews would necessarily be the focus of a new Hitler anyway? Maybe the new Hitler would be Islamophobic instead of anti-Semitic. Maybe he'd suggest banning foreign Muslims from entering the country. Maybe he'd even suggest forcing all Muslim citizens to register as such...
Question: why am I responding to this?
By Nick L
Tue, 12/06/2016 - 1:18pm
Because I quite clearly stated that Germans knew he was an anti-Semite (indeed, so was the Weimar government, but Germans knew Hitler was particularly virulent).But Hitler did not promise genocide. He did not promise dictatorship.
There are scores of similarities between Trump's campaign and that of other dictators before they took power. And your shtick is, at best, embarrassingly naive, or, more likely, smarmy 'look how clever I am' apologism for the greatest threat to American democracy since World War 2.
Sigh
By Waquiot
Mon, 12/05/2016 - 10:32pm
Read Mein Kampf, then tell me what people were to think Hitler's ideas were.
Condescending sigh back atcha
By Lily
Tue, 12/06/2016 - 9:35am
Read Mein Kampf, you say, Waquiot? Read what Trump has said publicly for years . If you don't recognize the same sort of incendiary language in Trump's language as Hitler's then you are the problem here, not the people seeing Trump clearly for who he is. You are attempting to subvert the conversation to make Trump look not so bad as he is. That's me respecting you and assuming that you're not just too dumb to recognize patterns in human behavior and government. I'm respecting you and assuming that you do recognize these things and are still attempting to change the conversation because you have ulterior motives.
Your defense of Trump and, in weird ways, Hitler is personally offensive to me. Most of my family died in the Holocaust. Most arguments defending Trump and his supporters from comparisons to Hitler - including most on UHub - are whiny and just plain wrong.
Most of your family died in the Holocaust
By Waquiot
Tue, 12/06/2016 - 2:55pm
Yet you are cool with the Nazi comparison with Trump? Wow.
Sorry, Trump ain't Hitler. He's barely Mussolini. We will have Congressional elections in 2 years, and Presidential elections 2 years after that. The Constitution will still function, and the Supreme Court will have the power to ensure that the Constitution is obeyed. The worst abuses of civil liberties a la Hitler will be FDR like surveillance of Muslims. I don't support Trump, but comparing him to Hitler is way, way too much.
Trump does not yet have the full resources...
By Michael Kerpan
Tue, 12/06/2016 - 7:11pm
... of the US military and police and intelligence agencies at his beck and call. Some of us have a (reasonable, I think) fear of what use he might put these to (and the fact that these entities are chock-full of ardent Trump supporters doesn't ease our concerns).
Double Sigh.
By whyaduck
Tue, 12/06/2016 - 1:50pm
Naw. I don't need to read the raving rants of a twisted bastard. I know enough from reading WWII history to know and understand Hitler's "ideas".
You're missing the point
By Waquiot
Tue, 12/06/2016 - 3:10pm
When Adolph Hitler began to rise politically, his distain for the Jews was well known. He literally wrote a book espousing his ideology.
What do we know about Donald Trump's ideology from his campaign?
-he is opposed to illegal immigration. He thinks that the Mexican government is sending criminal elements into the United States illegally, along with some good people.
-he is worried about the increase in terrorism stemming from radical parts of Islam.
-he thinks that free trade has ruined the industrial base of the United States.
-he thinks that the United States shouldn't be the world's policeman, that NATO, Japan, and South Korea should be spending more for their defense rather than expecting the American taxpayers to be paying for it.
-he has a dislike of mainstream media.
Sure, there are a lot of other little things, but that would be the basis of "Trumpism."
But, but...
By bosguy22
Tue, 12/06/2016 - 4:14pm
Don't forget how racist, homophobic, xenophobic, sexist, and anti-Semitic he is.
Pages
Add comment