Not Just Another Right-Wing Hypocrite Sex Scandal
This one isn’t sitting right with me.
You’ve almost certainly heard about it: Senator Larry Craig; Republican from Idaho; massive anti-gay voting record; got caught trying to pick up a man in a public bathroom in the Minneapolis airport. By now you know the drill.
Now, I’m usually up for a good round of Schadenfreude when right-wing Republican politicians and Christian Right leaders get caught engaging in the exact sex acts they publicly railed against. And boy, is it happening a lot these days.
But this time, it isn’t sitting right with me. The gleeful Schadenfreude, the “holy shit, not again!” eye-rolling, the cackling over cosmic/ karmic/ poetic justice being served . . . it isn’t sitting right with me this time.
It isn’t sitting right with me because of the extremely dubious legal nature of Senator Craig’s arrest. And it isn’t sitting right with me because of the even more dubious ethical nature of police sting operations on cruising in public bathrooms.
Look at the police report. The guy was essentially arrested for fidgeting in front of an occupied bathroom stall, going into a stall next to it, putting down his bag, and shifting his hands and feet around. He not only didn’t do anything overtly sexual — he didn’t even say anything overtly sexual.
Now, don’t get me wrong. I’m not an idiot. I know what he was up to as well as anybody. The guy was cruising. I get that. And the fact that he pled guilty to make the charges quietly disappear confirms this rather obvious conclusion. A straight guy who wasn’t cruising the bathrooms wouldn’t be cowed into a guilty plea at the flash of a police badge. He’d be asking, “What the fuck am I under arrest for?” Senator Craig clearly knew exactly what he was under arrest for. That, just by itself, says volumes.
So yes, I know he was cruising. We all know he was cruising. But the standard of evidence needed to convince me personally that he was cruising, and the standard of evidence that should be required to convince a judge or jury or even a police officer, are rather different. And they should be different.
And rather more to the point — CRUISING IS NOT ILLEGAL.
Senator Craig did not have sex in a public bathroom — which would, in fact, have been against the law. Senator Craig gave a series of signals signifying his desire and intent to have sex in a public bathroom. That is not the same thing.
And in this country — in theory, anyway — we do not arrest people who haven’t done anything illegal, simply because we think it’s likely that they’re about to. That’s exactly what happened here, and it is not okay.
I think it’s important to remember the context for this arrest: the context, and the history, of undercover sting operations in cruisy public bathrooms. The cops didn’t think they were nabbing a scumbag hypocrite Republican Senator who consistently voted against gay rights. They thought they were nabbing a scumbag faggot. The purpose of these undercover sting operations in cruisy public bathrooms is not to protect public safety. Even if you think gay men cruising in public bathrooms is a threat to public safety and should be stopped, the presence of a uniformed officer would do the trick far more effectively. The purpose of these sting operations is to arrest faggots and make their lives a misery. That has always been the purpose, for the entire shameful history of these sorts of operations. And it will continue to be the purpose for as long as there are closeted queer men seeking each other out in these places . . . and cops who want to nab them and ruin their lives.
Do we really want to be cheering when they nab one we don’t like?
Look, I get it. The guy is an evil prick. He made a political career out of attacking queers while he was cruising for cock in the T-rooms. I’m as angry at his hypocrisy as the next person. And I completely understand the desire to see cosmic justice done.
But cosmic justice should not come at the expense of actual justice.
It troubles me greatly to hear people say that they don’t give a damn if Senator Craig’s civil rights were violated, he’s a scumbag hypocrite who got the tables turned on him and deserves what he gets. I give a damn that his civil rights were violated. I give a damn when anybody’s civil rights are violated. Civil rights and the fair rule of law are for everybody. That’s the whole point of them. They don’t work if they’re not for everybody. If we don’t fight for civil rights and the fair rule of law for our enemies, we have no reason to expect it for our friends and ourselves.
This entry was posted on Thursday, 30 August 2007 at 12:00 am and is filed under Culture. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
on Thursday, 30 August 2007 at 8:32 am Douglas Evett wrote:
I agree with the point of this article and approve of it. An the other hand, being a sinner, I cannnot resist a sense of unholy glee at the shock and outrage that must be running full-tilt in the holier than thou parts of Idaho.
on Thursday, 30 August 2007 at 6:29 pm yoyo wrote:
I agree, even tho I detest what Craig and his ilk stand for, I have good friends both out and closetted who have been targetted by the police in this way, and it is only about harrassing gays.
on Friday, 31 August 2007 at 1:33 pm Brother Yancy wrote:
I blame all of this mess this week on Andrew Sullivan. I want you all to know that Baptists all over this land are on their knees for Andrew right now:
http://baptistsforbrown2008.wordpress.com/2007/08/31/an-urgent-prayer-for-andrew-sullivan/
Glory! Whole of His Love!
on Friday, 31 August 2007 at 3:06 pm Dawn wrote:
While I understand that gay men feel targeted and persecuted when sting operations like this are conducted, there are a few things that need to be considered.
Larry Craig propositioned the guy in the next stall, who just happened to be a cop. He did it using non-verbal communication, commonly-known and widely used codes NOT UNLIKE AMERICAN SIGN LANGUAGE that men in such situations use to convey their intentions. As it happens, soliciting sex in a public restroom is against the law, so that is what he was arrested for.
I do not understand how or why anyone thinks it is appropriate, legal, or their inherent right to have sex in a public restroom. What I do know is that if I am traveling with my nephew (aged 9 and certainly too old to be dragged into the women’s room with me) and he needs to use a restroom ANYWHERE, I would like to think that I can send him in there without running the risk of having him encounter men having sex. Sex in public areas is illegal and for many reasons. Yes, some of those reasons can be traced back to the fact that this country was founded by Puritans, but some reasons go to common sense and old-fashioned respect for others.
I know that gay men cruise. I don’t get it, but I know it happens (I am a middle-aged lesbian, btw). When people talk about civil rights and civil liberties, one has to be careful to understand that no person has the right to do something that infringes upon the freedoms of others. Everyone is free to use the restrooms, but none is free to use them in such a way that it prevents the free and unmolested use of the facility by others. THAT is the basis for the law.
on Friday, 31 August 2007 at 3:07 pm Earl F. Parrish wrote:
Almost all the states have laws concerning solicitation for prostitution. It does not require that the suspect actually engage in sex or give money to another person for sex. They arrest women for standing in certain locations and approaching cars or pedestrians. They arrest men for driving around (cruising) the block. In DC they have even prohibited right turn in certain areas at night.
on Friday, 31 August 2007 at 4:00 pm pakaal wrote:
Blowfish Blog: “And in this country — in theory, anyway — we do not arrest people who haven’t done anything illegal, simply because we think it’s likely that they’re about to.”
Actuall, any situation where someone intends to do an illegal act, whether it’s blackmail, injury, murder, purchasing drugs, solicit sex for money, perform sexual acts in a public place, etc., is - provided the police can prove intent - prosecutable.
Not the best example, but the guys who said they wanted to attack Fort Dix - they didn’t do it, but were arrested anyway.
Don’t get me wrong - I can think of lots worse things than some guy getting head in a restroom (although I’d much rather not be in the next stall while that’s going on). But we certainly DO arrest people for things they are likely to do, when those things are illegal, even if they haven’t done them yet.
on Friday, 31 August 2007 at 6:11 pm baobei wrote:
Does anyone know how this was released? Why did this happen on June 11th, but it took this long for it to get out?
It certainly was under wraps for a while and it’s quite likely that the Republican leadership knew about it for all this time.
Could it be a warning shot to warn other Republican senators that, unless they tow the line on Iraq, the skeletons in their closets could be exposed as well?
Or perhaps, it’s a diversionary tactic to bury some other news that they don’t want covered too closely in the press.
Or maybe it’s not as nefarious as all this and some liberal-leaning fellow stumbled upon it and couldn’t resist letting the world know.
on Friday, 31 August 2007 at 6:37 pm Drew wrote:
I just hope he doesn’t pull a Bud Dwyer and off himself. It’s not inconcevable, who knows how he’s really taking all this.
on Friday, 31 August 2007 at 10:25 pm me wrote:
I am GLAD his civil rights got violated. Besides the fact that he deserves it, if that sort of thing happens only to non-politicians, how will the situation ever get changed?
on Saturday, 1 September 2007 at 4:59 am Ava Mae Lewis wrote:
I agree….what law was broken?
I also believe public restrooms cannot be allowed to become the meeting place for sex…regardless of preferences. The standard for arrest in MN are apparently so low and unstructured no tourist is safe there.
You’ed think they would take the doors off the stalls before they would risk bunches of cases failing in the light of court.
I understand Mr. Craig will resign today. I’m sorry that he has taken stances so harsh against gays that now enable others to deny him rights or privacy. I’m sorry that he has been pressured into resigning by holier than thou republicans who let Mr. Vitter skate, and who routinely turned a blind eye to the Karl Rove lies, and Tom DeLay’s machinations…. we have all noted that it was a lawsuit back in Texas that finally reined in DeLay, and not a single republican took any action against Gonzales’ lies and and dissembling. Senior republican senators have become complicit with their silence.
Just when we all hoped it could not get any worse…when this country desperately needed some republican to find an ounce of statesmanship somewhere in his makeup, they’ve proved once again to be shallow, spineless, and dishonest religious zealots.
on Saturday, 1 September 2007 at 7:45 am Chuck R. wrote:
I agree wholeheartedly with this article, and am relieved to see that my wife and I aren’t the only ones who felt this way. Especially since Craig was promised (in his interrogation tape, now public) that if he pled guilty and paid a fine that would be the end of it. Obviously, it wasn’t.
At the same time it was mostly Republican manipulation of the laws that sought to make such “thought crime” illegal. I need not list the “detainees” in Abu Gharib or Gitmo here. Nor do I have to repeat what other commenters have said about the very small amount of evidence to establish intent for other crimes.
So, while I feel that Craig has been an unfair victim of our government’s methods of criminal investigation, it has been mostly Republicans demanding the severe criminalization of intent to commit a crime. Especially in regards to behavior not acceptable to the mainstream public.
Lastly, why didn’t the Minnesota Airport - and others who have restrooms with similar reputations - just hire a guy to work for minimum wage as permanent custodian of the rest room and keep an eye out for that sort of thing? Or at the very least have the security personell already in place do regular sweeps of the lavatories? It seems like stings like this are just put in place to shame those already ashamed of themselves.
on Saturday, 1 September 2007 at 7:52 am Mike wrote:
Let’s be honest, this scummy excuse for a human (based only on his voting record) was actually arrested for misdemeanor flirting while not exclusively straight and if crime in Minneapolis is so low that they can assign police to stake out bathrooms, they might want to think about trimming that PD budget.
on Saturday, 1 September 2007 at 12:01 pm edweird wrote:
Good article with important points to consider. As a gay man, I have heard stories of entrapment and worse by cops, sometimes outright lies. I’ve learned if I need to take a whizz, to not make eye contact with anyone, do not speak to anyone, take a friend (witness), and leave promptly. No kidding!
on Saturday, 1 September 2007 at 12:47 pm Greta Christina wrote:
Dawn, I think the point Chuck R. made responds directly to yours. If you think gay men having sex in public bathrooms is a serious problem and one the police should be addressing, the way to address it is with the presence of a uniformed officer. Even an occasional one would do the trick. The sting operations do not serve as a deterrent. They serve one purpose, and one purpose only: to harass gay men and ruin their lives.
Also, while I understand your concerns about your son, you need to understand that men who cruise in public bathrooms don’t want to be seen by your son — or by anyone else — any more than you want your son to see them. They are very, very good at — as they say in the Monty Python sketch — the art of not being seen.
on Sunday, 2 September 2007 at 2:57 am yeranalyst wrote:
Almost all the states have laws concerning solicitation for prostitution. It does not require that the suspect actually engage in sex or give money to another person for sex. They arrest women for standing in certain locations and approaching cars or pedestrians. They arrest men for driving around (cruising) the block. In DC they have even prohibited right turn in certain areas at night.
Actually this could not be construed as solicitation unless he offered money for sexual services. Also, if the cop accepted his come on, there is nothing to indicate they would have sex in the restroom. Craig was not a known prostitute. They don’t arrest women for prostitution for standing in certain locations unless they are actually soliciting. They might be able to charge them with loitering.
on Sunday, 2 September 2007 at 9:47 am loosewasp wrote:
They can charge you whatever they feel like, prostitution, resisting arrest, insulting an officer, whatever, as long as they think they can get away with its not looking too trumped up. Since most people arrested for this type of crime want as little publicity as possible the charges rarely get challenged. The damage is in the arrest and subsequent infamy: even if the defendant is totally innocent and trumped-up charges are thrown out the defendant is going to go through an expensive legal and social nightmare.
on Monday, 3 September 2007 at 3:32 pm Jon Berger wrote:
Greta: in one of your responses above, you claim that undercover sting operations do nothing to reduce the incidence of cruising in public restrooms. Is there data to support that? Has anyone done a statistically meaningful survey where they ask gay men if they’d be more likely to cruise in restrooms if they knew for sure that, as long as they couldn’t see a uniformed policeman in the room, they couldn’t possibly get in any legal trouble?
Because the underlying theory here is that you can’t actually put a uniformed cop, 24 by 7, in each and every restroom where people are in the habit of cruising; it’s just not economically feasible. So instead, you bust a few people through sting operations, and the word gets out, and then people who might do that think better of it because they, too, might get caught in a sting operation. If you’re saying that this procedure absolutely doesn’t work, I’m willing to be persuaded, but I’d want to be persuaded by some actual data. In the absence of that, I have to say that the theory sounds pretty appealing.
I do understand that laws against soliciting sex in bathrooms target gay people. That’s because restrooms are segregated by sex, so you just don’t have a lot of people soliciting people of the opposite sex in them. But let’s do a little thought experiment: let’s say that it’s very common for straight men to sneak into women’s bathrooms, hang out in the stalls, and then start playing footsie and handsie with every woman who goes into an adjoining stall. Let’s say that there are some restrooms where this happens so frequently that you’re pretty predictably going to be confronted with this sort of thing every time you go in there. And let’s say that the state decides to run an undercover sting operation to enforce the law that says this isn’t ok. Any big outrage when some guy gets caught doing it? Would you say that the legal system should leave the poor guy alone and not ruin his life? If the cops can’t afford to put a uniformed officer in every bathroom where this goes on, no problem, women should just put up with it?
on Tuesday, 25 September 2007 at 5:56 am Cait wrote:
Craig publicly encouraged an environment which supports the harrassment of queers. Used his public office, in fact, shore up bigotry against us. Not to mention his whole-hearted support of the stripping of civil rights more general from anyone that the government thinks might be an “evil-doer’. The fact that this turned around and bit him in the ass doesn’t bother me in the slightest. Some good may yet come of it…..maybe he’ll reconsider his stance.