vision2020
Re: Don't make us call you chicken: take the public debate challenge!
You keep invoking the Taliban when you want some really nasty way to dispose
of those who disagree with you. How you put me in that category after I
called for a rich celebration of the truly feminine is beyond me. The
Taliban oppresses women because it does not understand truth, beauty,
goodness, male or female. Because they do not understand, they cover women
from head to toe. Because you don't understand, you flaunt their bare
breasts. The only difference I can see between the two is the amount of
cloth.
To clarify my position on The Ordinance, I don't support it. It is a sad
commentary on our culture that we need policemen with guns enforcing dress
codes. But it was not brought about because people are squeamish about
breasts. It was brought about because some people are inconsiderate slobs.
As long as some people think it is acceptable to wear skateboard pants to a
wedding, we will have prudes who throw them out. As long as some people
think the female birthday suit is acceptable attire for window shopping, we
will have nudity ordinances.
If you want to debate or discuss what truly matters here, how rich
masculinity and feminity interact with each other in all their glorious
difference, I am all for it. But if all you want to do is parade your tired,
crass notion that women are only equal to men if they can be just as boorish
as any frat boy, then no thanks.
Still licensed to practice law and think out loud,
Gregory C. Dickison
Lawyer & Counselor at Law
Post Office Box 8846
312 South Main Street
Moscow, Idaho 83843
(208) 882-4009
----- Original Message -----
From: "Muscovites for Equal Rights" <idahomer@hotmail.com>
To: <gdickison@moscow.com>; <johnguy@moscow.com>; <peg_hamlett@msn.com>;
<jmack@turbonet.com>; <steveb@moscow.com>; <comstock@moscow.com>;
<jmhill@moscow.com>; <mtethoma@moscow.com>; <vision2020@moscow.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2002 2:45 PM
Subject: Re: Don't make us call you chicken: take the public debate
challenge!
> Gregory et al,
> Have you read the ordinance 2002-13?
> The fact is this ordinance does more than restrict women from walking
> downtown topfree. It sweeps onto private property. Women who enjoy
> sunbathing, gardening or whatever on their property now must cover their
> breasts if they are in public view. Even if they are in their home, if
> someone can see in from a public space, they face a $500 or 6 months in
jail
> if their breasts are exposed.
> On top of that, certain bikinis and other apparel are now banned from
public
> view. As well as the infamous "plumber's butt." If you bend over and
> expose the cleft of your buttocks, you are now breaking the law.
>
> Perhaps Attorney Dickison does not think this law is extreme because he is
> exposed to extreme laws during his work, but for me and many others, this
> law represents another attempt to regulate women in order to prevent the
> corruption of men. This is no different than the Taliban's motive for
> forcing women to cover themselves completely. Most men, perhaps even
> Gregory, would admit that men can be turned on by legaly exposed parts of
a
> woman. Why not cover those parts as well?
>
> I would assume that Attorny Dickison knows about the nudity ordinance
Moscow
> had that was thrown out by the courts a few years ago. I would assume he
> knows about the ordinance in Boise that was thrown out because it banned
> mainstream apparel. I would assume he knows that New York state found all
> their topfree laws to be unconstitutional.
>
> Perhaps Gregory doesn't think this law will be challenged in court. The
> fact is, there are so many holes in it that our city will end up spending
> our money trying to defend it, when in the process we could have drafted
> something more acceptable and saved our money.
>
> Our campaign is in the best interest for Moscow. We want laws that don't
> test the constitution. We want laws that are thoughtful. We want to use
> our tax dollars for something more useful.
>
> We do not feel this law is necessary. We feel the city council could have
> addressed the issue more thoughtfully. Thus our attempt to hold the city
> council accountable for passing this law.
>
> As far as I know, there has not been a real public debate about this
issue.
> We feel that if our city is going to pass laws that test the 14th
amendment,
> we should at least debate about it.
>
> Gregory's response still did not indicate why this ordinance is necessary.
> This points to the fact that no one can come up with a good reason. If
so,
> let us hear it. Let us debate this. This is what community is: being
able
> to discuss controversial issues openly.
>
> Perhaps people are bored with us. That is your right. There are people
> still concerned, however, and we would like to get all the facts out in
the
> open. Our challenge to debate is in the spirit of being honest about the
> issue.
>
> If someone doesn't except our challenge, we can only assume that is
because
> no one has a good response to our arguments. If someone does, don't be
> chicken, come down to the park and debate this with us. It'll be fun:)
>
> We have no intent of oppressing Gregory Dickison with our "narrow and
> confining vision of equality." Just as long as he gives a good reason why
> he feels this narrow and confining ordinance as written is necessary for
> Moscow.
>
> At the very least, let's put this to a public vote so that the people of
> Moscow can decide if they want to restrict themselves with this law.
>
> Garrett Clevenger
>
> >From: "Gregory Dickison" <gdickison@moscow.com>
> >To: "Muscovites for Equal Rights" <idahomer@hotmail.com>,
> ><vision2020@moscow.com>
> >Subject: Re: Don't make us call you chicken: take the public debate
> >challenge!
> >Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 05:58:13 -0700
> >
> >Chicken? Maybe just bored. Your shallow and utilitarian notions of
equality
> >are getting tiresome. Saying that men and women are equal in the manner
you
> >do is like saying that the saprano and the tenor parts are equal. Of
> >course,
> >there is always some fool who sees two different things and wants to say
> >that one is better. But to respond by asserting that they are just the
same
> >is to answer the fool according to his folly and consequently be just
like
> >him.
> >
> >In the real world, men and women are free to be men and women, masculine
> >and
> >feminine, interacting with each other in the harmonic and mutually
> >enriching
> >way that God intended. Men and women are different, radically so. A real,
> >rich culture recognizes, celebrates and protects the differences and the
> >interaction. Saying that women should be able to do everything men do
> >completely misses the point, and squishes both men and women into an
> >amorphous mold that gives freedom, equality and justice to neither.
> >
> >Please, stop trying to oppress us with your narrow and confining vision
of
> >equality. We prefer the freedom of true sexual diversity.
> >
> >Gregory C. Dickison
> >Lawyer & Counselor at Law
> >Post Office Box 8846
> >312 South Main Street
> >Moscow, Idaho 83843
> >(208) 882-4009
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Join the world's largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
> http://www.hotmail.com
>
Back to TOC