Court Releases Rights Lawyer Detained for Defending Falun Gong

Beijing rights defense lawyer Wang Quanzhang went to court to act as a defense counsel—but ending up being thrown into detention himself. The 10-day detention was cut short, however, after lawyers and citizens protested outside the court and detention center.
The case is the first of its kind where a judge, in open court, has ordered that a working lawyer be detained, according to analyses on Chinese dissident websites, and it has attracted widespread criticism from civil rights lawyers in China.
Wang was attempting to defend Zhu Yanian, a practitioner of Falun Gong, a spiritual practice that the Chinese Communist Party has persecuted for over 13 years. The persecution of the practice is one of the most politically sensitive topics in China.
 Wang was given a 10-day judicial detention on April 3 and was being held at the Jingjiang Detention Center in the eastern province of Jiangsu.
The Jingjiang City People’s Court issued a terse online statement the following day, saying Wang was being held for “serious violations of court procedure.” It said “the situation was serious,” though failed to specify what violations Wang had committed.
Wang’s client, Zhu Yanian, had been accused under a vaguely defined and legally questionable provision in the criminal code that speaks of using a religious organization to undermine the law. That provision does not mention Falun Gong by name.
He began his defense by requesting the judge be removed from the case, citing a conflict of interest, as Zhu had already filed a lawsuit against him for depriving Zhu of his right to hire his own defense attorney, according to a report by Botanwang, a U.S.-based Chinese language website.
Wang had his cell phone confiscated when he tried to use it to photograph evidence he was submitting in court, and was detained at the end of the trial–an unprecedented move by a Chinese court.
Several lawyers pointed out that Wang had the right to take a copy of evidence he brought into court. Beijing lawyer Cheng Hai told Botanwang that this was just an excuse for locking him up, and that the court had abused its power.
“Perhaps it’s because Wang presented powerful arguments in court, and worried those who have violated the law,” Cheng added.
Li Subin, Wang’s co-counsel at the law firm Qingshi, was refused entry to the court and his license to practice law has been confiscated, the firm said via its Weibo microblog.
A group of 35 lawyers left Beijing for Jingjiang that evening, and submitted a letter of protest Friday to the local authorities, calling for Wang to be released.
“If this case is not immediately set right, it will have a very serious impact nationally and internationally,” the lawyers wrote. “It will harm the image of the Chinese judiciary; it will undermine or destroy the people’s trust in the nation under the rule of law.”
Huang Jiede, Wang’s assistant, said in a blog post that Jingjiang officials, including the public security office and judge Miao Qinqi, telephoned Zhu’s daughter three times before the trial, to pressure Zhu into dismissing Wang. Judge Miao advised Zhu’s daughter to instead hire lawyers from Jingjiang, and added that the court would offer “legal assistance” to Zhu’s family.
According to his assistant, Wang argued that the court had seriously violated the Criminal Procedure Law, because it has presumed that Zhu was guilty for upholding his beliefs. On this basis the public security office had arrested and detained Zhu, ransacked his home, and interrogated him using torture, including holding the 68-year-old next to an air conditioner for three days and nights, Wang contended.
The news that Wang was released came from Beijing lawyer Wu Lei, who posted a message on his Sina Weibo at 2:30 a.m. Saturday Beijing time, saying he was with Wang.
The Falun Gong spiritual discipline has been persecuted by the Chinese Communist Party since 1999, and rights groups say that thousands of practitioners have died from torture and tens of thousands become victims of organ harvesting.
Wang is known for his dogged support of vulnerable groups in China, and for daring to take on sensitive cases. Last year he was dragged out of a court in northeastern China after he attempted to defend a Falun Gong practitioner.

Prominent lawyer had ‘profound effect’ on civil rights law

WASHINGTON — James Nabrit III, a civil rights lawyer who argued several prominent cases involving education and free speech before the Supreme Court from the 1960s to the 1980s, has died at 80.

He had lung cancer, said Elaine Jones, former president of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, where Nabrit worked for 30 years.

Nabrit, whose father was a leading civil rights lawyer who served as president of Howard University, died March 22 in Suburban Hospital in Bethesda, Md. He argued a dozen cases before the Supreme Court on such fundamental issues as education, free speech and access to public accommodations.

His most noteworthy case may have been Keyes v. School District No. 1, Denver (1973). It was the first school desegregation case to reach the Supreme Court from a state that did not have segregation laws.

The Supreme Court agreed with Nabrit's argument that de facto segregation in Denver left minority students with inferior facilities and staff members, denying students equal opportunity to a good education.

“He really was one of the greatest lawyers in the civil rights movement,” Ted Shaw, a former president and director general of the Legal Defense Fund, said on Tuesday. “Jim was part of the backbone of the legal team that defended civil rights and was partly responsible for bringing civil rights law out of the darkness. He had a profound effect on the law.”

In 1959, Nabrit was hired at the Legal Defense Fund by Thurgood Marshall, who in 1967 became the first black justice on the Supreme Court. Nabrit recalled working on cases with Marshall in Louisiana, where a guard was stationed outside their room at night with a shotgun.

Nabrit handled several sit-in cases in which black college students were denied service in restaurants and other public accommodations in the 1960s. He worked on school discrimination cases in Virginia, North Carolina, Arkansas and Louisiana, as well as death penalty cases in Alabama, Florida and other states.

“The Supreme Court was ahead of the other branches of government in opposing discrimination,” Nabrit said in a 2001 interview with Washington Lawyer magazine. “President Eisenhower and President Kennedy both supported some aspects of civil rights legislation, but the court was the leading institution.”

In 1965, after filing a lawsuit on behalf of civil rights leader Hosea Williams, Nabrit and LDF President Jack Greenberg wrote a plan approved by a federal judge that allowed the Selma-to-Montgomery march, led by the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., to go ahead.

Nabrit worked on the Supreme Court appeal of a case from Birmingham, Ala., in 1963 in which King and other marchers were jailed after they were denied permission to stage a march. While incarcerated, King wrote his celebrated “Letter From Birmingham Jail.”

“There are a lot of people who are heroes whose names are well-known,” Jones, who was president of the Legal Defense Fund from 1993 to 2004, said on Tuesday. “Jim Nabrit is one of those unsung heroes whose names were not known. The heroes we know of depended on his advice.”

Nabrit graduated from Yale Law School in 1955. He served in the Army and practiced in Washington before joining the Legal Defense Fund.

President Obama nominates Hispanic lawyer who heads Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division as Labor Secretary

JONATHAN ERNST/REUTERS

President Obama applauds after introducing his nominee for Labor Secretary, Assistant Attorney General Tom Perez, at the White House on Monday.

President Barack Obama nominated Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez to be the next secretary of labor, choosing a Hispanic lawyer with experience in civil rights and workplace issues to his second-term Cabinet. Obama called Perez a consensus builder whose story "reminds us of this country's promise."
"Tom's made protecting that promise for everybody the cause of his life," Obama said in an appearance with Perez in the White House East Room Monday.
If confirmed by the Senate, Perez, who has been head of the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division since 2009, would take over the Labor Department as Obama undertakes several worker-oriented initiatives, including an overhaul of immigration laws and an increase in the minimum wage.
Before taking the job as assistant attorney general, the 51-year-old Perez was secretary of Maryland's Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation, which enforces state consumer rights, workplace safety and wage and hour laws.
Perez has broad support from labor and from the Latino community. Among those at the White House ceremony Monday were AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka and NAACP President and CEO Benjamin Jealous.
Perez also has Republican congressional critics who can be expected to oppose his confirmation. Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., called the nomination "unfortunate and needlessly divisive."
In choosing Perez, the son of immigrants from the Dominican Republic, Obama would be nominating his first second-term Latino Cabinet member. Perez, a lawyer with a degree from Harvard Law School, would replace Hilda Solis, a former California congresswoman and the nation's first Hispanic labor secretary.
At the Justice Department, Perez has played a leading role in the agency's decision to challenge voter ID laws in Texas and South Carolina that could restrict minority voting rights. A federal court later struck down the Texas law and delayed implementation of the law in South Carolina until after the 2012 election.
RELATED: OBAMA PICKS NEW EPA, ENERGY AND BUDGET CHIEFS
Perez thanked Obama, interspersing some Spanish into his remarks.
"Our nation still faces critical economic challenges, and the department's mission is as important as ever," Perez said.
Citing his past work as a civil rights lawyer, a Senate aide and as a member of on the Montgomery County Council in Washington's Maryland suburbs, Obama said: "Tom fought for a level playing field where hard work and responsibility are rewarded and working families can get ahead."
Perez's nomination has been expected for weeks, and comes with vigorous support from labor unions and Latino groups.
But some GOP lawmakers have been critical. Sessions said Perez "has aggressively sought ways to allow the hiring of more illegal workers."
Other Republicans have cited his role in persuading the city of St. Paul, Minn., to withdraw a lending discrimination lawsuit from the Supreme Court. In exchange, the Justice Department declined to join two whistle-blower lawsuits against St. Paul that could have returned millions in damages to the federal government.
The St. Paul case had challenged the use of statistics to prove race discrimination under the 1968 Fair Housing Act, and Justice Department officials were concerned the court could strike down the practice.
Moreover, a newly released report by the Justice Department's inspector general is likely to provide more fodder for Republicans who say the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division has been too politicized.
RELATED: JACOB LEW CONFIRMED AS TREASURY SECRETARY
The report, released last week, said Perez gave incomplete testimony to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights when he said the department's political leadership was not involved in the decision to dismiss three of the four defendants in a lawsuit the Bush administration brought against the New Black Panther Party.
The report also concluded that Perez did not intentionally mislead the commission and that the department acted properly.
Republican Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa said Perez appeared to be "woefully unprepared to answer questions" from the Civil Rights Commission.
Lynn Rhinehart, general counsel at the AFL-CIO, said the report shows that Perez, who was first hired by the civil rights division as a career attorney under President George H.W. Bush, restored integrity to the voting rights program at the Justice Department.
"The DOL becomes a back-burner agency without a secretary who knows how move workplace issues through the administration, the Hill and the business and labor communities," said Steve Rosenthal, a longtime labor strategist and former associated deputy secretary of labor during the Clinton administration. "Those are difficult waters to navigate. But Tom Perez is guy who can do it."
Perez was confirmed by a vote of 72-22 when Obama nominated him for the Civil Rights Division job.
Carl Tobias, an expert on the confirmation process and the Justice Department, said Perez' confirmation vote might be more difficult this time around because the Senate is more partisan, it is Obama's second term and the job is for a Cabinet level.
"Heading CRD means that he had to address many difficult, contentious issues," said Tobias, a professor at the University of Richmond School of Law

Libya: Ensure Abdallah Sanussi Access to Lawyer

(Tripoli)–  Abdallah Sanussi, the long-time intelligence chief for Muammar Gaddafi, told Human Rights Watch in a prison visit on April 15, 2013, that he has not had access to a lawyer or been informed of the formal charges against him during almost eight months in Libyan detention. He did not complain of physical abuse and said his conditions in custody have been “reasonable.”

Libyan authorities have accused Sanussi of serious crimes during his many years as Gaddafi’s senior security official, including involvement in the 1996 Abu Salim prison massacre in which roughly 1,200 prisoners were killed. He is also wanted by the International Criminal Court (ICC) for crimes against humanity for his alleged role in trying to suppress the 2011 uprising that led to Gaddafi’s overthrow.

“Libya’s wish to put the people they hold responsible for gross human rights violations on trial is fully understandable,” said Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East and North Africa director at Human Rights Watch. “But to achieve true justice, they need to give Sanussi the rights that the previous government denied Libyans for so long. To start, that means making sure he can consult a lawyer.”

The Libyan government should immediately ensure that Sanussi has full access to a lawyer of his own choosing, whether a Libyan lawyer or one from abroad, and formally notify him of the charges he faces in Libya, Human Rights Watch said. The authorities should also allow visits by lawyers authorized to represent Sanussi before the International Criminal Court.

Human Rights Watch interviewed Sanussi in the al-Hadhba Corrections Facility in Tripoli, a newly renovated facility holding several senior Gaddafi-era officials, where he has been held since his extradition from Mauritania in September 2012. The visit, the first to Sanussi by an international human rights group, was facilitated by Justice Minister Salah Marghani and the acting head of the detention facility.

Prison authorities permitted Human Rights Watch to interview Sanussi privately, with no prison staff or other officials in the room.

Justice Minister Marghani told Human Rights Watch after the visit that “Sanussi has the right to a defense lawyer of his choice like any other person standing trial.” He said that so far no Libyan lawyer had taken on the case. A foreign lawyer with permission to practice in Libya could also represent Sanussi, Marghani said.

Marghani assured Human Rights Watch that “Libya is committed to provide a fair trial,” adding that Libyan law says that “no trial should take place without the presence of a defense lawyer.”

Despite the challenges, the Libyan government should facilitate immediate and ongoing access to a lawyer of Sanussi's choosing, including a government-appointed lawyer if Sanussi fails to appoint one on his own, Human Rights Watch said.

On June 27, 2011, during the Libya conflict, the ICC judges issued arrest warrants for Sanussi, Muammar Gaddafi and Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, Muammar Gaddafi’s son, who is currently detained in Zintan. The three were wanted for crimes against humanity for attacks on civilians, including peaceful demonstrators, in Tripoli, Benghazi, Misrata, and other locations in Libya. The ICC warrants apply only to events in Libya beginning on February 15, 2011. While the ICC's proceeding against Muammar Gaddafi was terminated following his death in October 2011, the arrest warrants for Sanussi and Saif al-Islam Gaddafi remain in force.

If a concerned country wishes to try an ICC suspect domestically for crimes in an ICC arrest warrant, the authorities may challenge the court's jurisdiction over the case through a legal submission called an “admissibility challenge.” On May 1, 2012, Libya challenged the admissibility of the ICC's case against Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, and on April 2, 2013, it challenged the admissibility of Sanussi’s case. It will be up to ICC judges to decide if national proceedings exist that meet the criteria for a successful challenge.

Libya should cooperate fully with the ICC, as required by UN Security Council resolution 1970, which authorized the ICC investigation, Human Rights Watch said.This cooperation includes abiding by the ICC’s decisions and requests, as well as adhering to the court's procedures.

In any domestic proceedings, Libya will face steep challenges in ensuring security for the judges, prosecutors, lawyers and witnesses involved in the case, especially those supporting the accused, Human Rights Watch said. A vigorous and effective defense is a crucial fair trial right.

At all times Libya is required by human rights standards to respect the basic rights of detainees, and anyone facing a criminal trial, including the right of access to a lawyer.

International standards, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, and the United Nations Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, require providing defendants with prompt access to a lawyer, meaning no later than 48 hours after their arrest. The Basic Principles state that detainees shall have “adequate opportunities, time and facilities to be visited by and to communicate and consult with a lawyer, without delay, interception, or censorship and in full confidentiality. Such consultations may be within sight, but not within the hearing, of law enforcement officials.” Libya’s Constitutional Declaration acknowledges the central role of international human rights treaties.

Human Rights Watch has previously reported on the challenges facing the Libyan judicial system, including abuse in custody, denied access to lawyers, and the lack of judicial reviews.

Sanussi was the brother-in-law of Muammar Gaddafi and his long-time head of intelligence. He is accused of involvement in serious human rights violations during Gaddafi’s rule, most prominently the June 1996 Abu Salim prison killings. Prisoners who were at the prison at that time but who survived told Human Rights Watch that Sanussi was the government’s chief negotiator with the inmates, and that he promised them safe treatment prior to the killings.

In 1999, Sanussi was convicted in absentia and sentenced to life in prison in France for his part in the 1989 bombing of a passenger jet over Niger.

“The treatment of Sanussi is a major test for the new Libya,” Whitson said. “Will the new Libyan state treat him fairly and show that it is now committed to and governed by the rule of law?”

 Prison Visit to Sanussi

Legal Counsel
The April 15 visit to Sanussi took place in the director’s office of the al-Hadhba Corrections Facility, without any officials present, and lasted 30 minutes. The facility is in the al-Hadhba military academy in Tripoli and is administered by the judicial police under the authority of the Justice Ministry.

Sanussi, who wore a long white tunic over white trousers, a traditional Libyan garment, said he had no complaints about his treatment and conditions except that authorities did not permit him to leave his cell to exercise. The acting head of the facility, Mohamed Gweider, subsequently told Human Rights Watch that he would allow Sanussi to exercise in the open air for one hour each day.

Sanussi’s main complaint was lack of access to a lawyer since his extradition in September 2012. “I asked for a lawyer on the second or third day after my arrival here in Libya,” he told Human Rights Watch, adding “I haven’t seen or spoken with a lawyer yet.”

Under Libya’s code of criminal procedure, the state must allow a detainee access to a lawyer during an investigation if the person asks for one. If the detainee does not have or cannot find a lawyer, the Libyan authorities are required under international law to assign him a lawyer, without fee if the person cannot afford it.

Sanussi also complained that authorities had not told him the precise charges that he faces in Libya. He said he is aware that he is wanted for serious crimes at the ICC from media reports he saw prior to his arrest. “I am ready to face these charges,” he told Human Rights Watch.

International law requires anyone facing a criminal proceeding “to be informed promptly and in detail in a language he understands of the nature and cause of the charge against him,” so that the person can prepare a defense.

Sanussi said he was not aware of having legal representation for the proceedings against him at the ICC. “I don’t know about a lawyer who represents me in The Hague,” he said. “I haven’t seen or spoken to anyone.”

On January 15, the ICC provisionally acknowledged the appointment of a London-based lawyer as counsel for Sanussi. On February 6, the ICC judges asked Libya to arrange a privileged visit between Sanussi and his defense team before the ICC but, as of April 16, no meeting had taken place.

Regarding access to a lawyer, Gweider said that Sanussi is “free to bring a lawyer if he wants,” although he said that it will probably be difficult to find a Libyan lawyer to represent him.

In its submission to the ICC on April 2, Libya said it “remains keen to facilitate a privileged legal visit to Abdullah al‑Sanussi by his lawyer and wishes to conclude a Memorandum of Understanding with the ICC as soon as possible for this purpose.” Libya attributed the delay to its recent replacement of the general prosecutor and said it would address the issue of legal access for Sanussi “as a matter of priority.” Sanussi’s lawyers before the ICC, however, argue that Libya has ignored the ICC judges’ order requiring arrangements to be made for a visit by the lawyers engaged to represent him.

On March 20, Abdul Qader Juma Radwanreplaced Abdelaziz al-Hasadias Libya’s General Prosecutor.

Sanussi said that he has been taken before a judge about once a month to review his detention. Each time the judge has extended the detention, he said. “During these sessions, I have asked the judge to let me see my family and I have asked for a lawyer,” Sanussi said.

The former intelligence chief said that Libyan investigators had questioned him mainly during the first five months of his detention, and that their treatment of him had been “reasonable.”

Sanussi also complained about limited family visits. He said he had received only one family visit during his almost eight months in detention, by his daughter Anoud, who is also detained in Libya. Asked about this, Gweider confirmed that he had denied two family visits on security grounds.

Arrest Details
Sanussi provided hitherto unknown details of his arrest and transfer to Libya. He said Moroccan authorities had arrested him in March 2012 and then detained him for about 12 days before putting him on a plane to Mauritania, where he was handed over to Mauritanian authorities upon arrival, on March 17.

He said the Mauritanian authorities held him in a military academy and also a house in the capital, Nouakchott, where they interrogated him and also allowed officials from Saudi Arabia, Lebanon and the United States to question him. US officials, who Sanussi said were from the FBI, had access to him twice. He said his treatment throughout was “reasonable” and that the Mauritanian authorities allowed him access to lawyers, as well as some family visits.

On September 5, Mauritanian authorities transferred Sanussi to Libya. He said they woke him around 7 a.m. and told him he was meeting Mauritania’s head of intelligence, but instead took him to the airport and flew him to Tripoli. He has been held at the al-Hadhba facility since his return.

Human Rights Watch is unable to independently verify Sanussi’s account of his detention in Morocco or Mauritania, or his transfer to Libya.

Detention Conditions
Human Rights Watch viewed Sanussi’s cell, measuring approximately three by four meters. It had one small window high up on a wall, which was closed. The cell contained a small bathroom with toilet, sink and shower, and there was a mattress on the floor for sleeping, with blankets and pillow. Plastic bags propped against the wall contained Sanussi’s clothes and foodstuffs.

The al-Hadhba correctional facility currently has 144 inmates, all of them men, including Sanussi and a number of other former high-ranking officials, Gweider told Human Rights Watch. Roughly half the detainees are alleged to have been involved in the 1996 Abu Salim prison massacre, but the cases of those accused of those crimes have not yet reached the prosecution stage. They are being held in an adjacent facility under the authority of the National Guard and supervised by Gweider.

Gweider said he and other officials face great pressure from Libyans who harbor intense anger at Sanussi and other former Gaddafi officials for the killings, disappearances and torture committed by the previous government during its four decades in power. “Despite this, we want to be different,” he said. “We want to show them that we are not like them, so we try to treat them better.”

Gweider said that he had ordered the removal of several guards from the al-Hadhba facility after upholding a prisoner’s complaint against them.

Security is a major concern at the prison, Gweider told Human Rights Watch. “There is always the fear that we could be targeted because of whom we’re safeguarding,” he said. “We are exposed to danger at all times.”

Bill 101 should not be subject to tinkering, civil rights lawyer says

QUEBEC — The Charter of the French Language is not the kind of law politicians should tinker with every few years for political reasons, respected civil rights lawyer Julius Grey says.
And one of the newly minted minority rights groups — this one including former Equality Party leader and MNA Robert Libman — has urged Quebec to reconsider Bill 14 in the name of social peace and linguistic harmony.
“I have adopted the slogan the nationalists had in the 1990s, ‘Ne touchez pas à la loi 101,’ ” Grey quipped as he opened his presentation to the National Assembly committee studying the bill.
“It cannot be changed every four years. I have come to accept over the years it’s a fundamental and basic law. If that is so, it cannot be an issue in every election campaign.
“Let it do its work and not try and change it.”
Grey — who has fought many language and human rights issues in the courts over the years — nevertheless made a number of comments:
Unlike some groups, Grey said he believes French still needs protection in the North American context, but he notes that for the charter to be effective it has to be accepted “by all elements of society.”
He took particular issue with the clause that would give Quebec the right to take away official bilingual status from a municipality. He said nobody can show how French is in danger if places like Westmount, Hampstead or Greenfield Park send out English as well as French pamphlets to taxpayers.
“There’s no effect on French whatsoever therefore it’s a gratuitous change,” Grey said.
Basing the decision on census data and a 50 per cent threshold is “simplistic,” he added, because people increasingly consider themselves anglophone and francophone at the same time.
Grey says the concern some minority groups have that replacing the term “ethnic minorities” with “cultural communities” in the charter weakens their rights is unfounded.
“There is no danger,” Grey said. “This is not the Sudan. Nobody needs help from the United Nations to maintain their rights. They’re worrying for nothing.”
Grey is concerned with the proliferation of new inspections the bill foresees. He said they don’t pose a danger for the majority or linguistic minorities but “the rights and freedoms of everyone.”
Instead of reducing the bureaucratization of the law and curbing arbitrary powers, “we are witnessing an expansion.
Despite strong opposition by the business lobby to new francization measures in shops and stores, the proposed new rules do not impose a too heavy burden as long as businesses are helped by the government to adjust, he said.
Unlike the more aggressive tone at Tuesday’s hearings, Grey’s presentation went off without a hitch with a number of committee members saying they were honoured he appeared.
Everyone shook his hand.
The mood was equally relaxed an hour earlier when the group, Canadian Rights in Quebec (CRITIQ), presented its brief and that despite the fact the group’s document blasts the bill to smithereens.
Group members included Libman, an architect who was the MNA for D’Arcy McGee from 1989-1994, Richard Yufe, a Montreal lawyer, and newspaper publisher Beryl Wajsman.

“We think the adoption of Bill 14 threatens social peace and risks opening old wounds,” Libman told the committee. He said his goal was to convince the Liberals and Coalition Avenir Québec MNA to vote down the bill.
The Liberals plan to vote against the bill; the CAQ will unless there are radical changes.
And earlier, the association representing Quebec’s 300 manufacturers and exporters added their name to the long list of business groups coming out against Bill 14.
“Bill 14 is a solution in search of a problem,” Simon Prévost, president of the Manufacturiers et exportateurs du Québec, told the committee.
“When we look at the linguistic situation, we do not see any necessity to intervene now. We don’t see anything very alarming in the numbers right now.”
Not only does the proposed legislation add red tape and costs, it sends a negative message that could hamper foreign investment here, the association said.
And it implies that having a working knowledge of English and using it to communicate in the workplace is somehow a bad thing in Quebec, the group said.

What would be a major victory or advance for you on the path towards greater justice for trans people?

I’ll name a few of the things people in the US are working on that would be a significant benefit to trans people’s well-being: decriminalizing prostitution, stopping federal programs where local police forces turn immigrants they arrest over to the immigration authorities, ending exclusion of trans health care from health insurance programs, getting rid of surgery requirements for changing gender on ID, decriminalizing drugs, ending “3 strikes” laws, getting rid of sex offender registries. These are all vitally important efforts to address the violence trans people are facing, and they are part of broader trans political visions of a world without prisons, border, or poverty.

In your organizing and activism, you follow a different approach. Tell us about that.

I’m part of trans activism and organizing that centers poverty and racism. This work aims to analyze what is actually shortening trans people’s lives and work on changing those material conditions, so it centers trans people experiencing imprisonment, poverty, immigration enforcement and other life and death issues. It seeks to provide immediate support to people in those conditions, to dismantle systems that create those dangers, and to build systems and ways of being together that actually give people what they need.