Leah Eames, 32, is a teacher and swim team coach at Sycamore High School in Dekalb, Illinois. On the night of August 10, a police officer checking on the YMCA “after hours found Eames working out with a student.” The circumstances were suspicious; when police checked surveillance video at the YMCA, it showed Eames and the teenage girl holding hands. Upon further investigation “police said detectives were able to identify the student and later interview her, and later discovered that Eames and the student had an ongoing sexual relationship.”
Eames was charged last week with criminal sexual assault and aggravated criminal sexual abuse. She could face up to 15 years in prison if convicted. She was placed on paid leave from her teaching job.
RECENTLY:
- July 25: Police: Lesbian Molester’s ‘Multiple Acts of Digital Penetration’ of Girl, 8
- June 16: Police: Arkansas Teacher, 57, Admits ‘Inappropriate’ Lesbian Sex With Girl, 16
- June 12: Police Arrest Teacher, Accused of Four-Year Lesbian Affair With Teen Student
- June 10: ‘The Child Within Me Is Truly Gone … I Hate You, But I Loved You’
I am not asking you to judge and define people by group labels. I was asking you the implication and application of your principle of non-judgment by group labels when it comes to certain person being granted access to children in certain scenarios. If your principle of refusal to judge based upon group labels applies categorically even in those cases, then nobody is forcing you to break it. They are just questioning and testing your principle.
And here is a friendly note for you:
When you make a pretense of rejecting conventional wisdom and presumptions and being some contrarian maverick, you probably should not take umbrage that other people do not scrupulously obey your own supposed rules of courtesy and conduct. As far as somebody else may be concerned, your notions of “respect” may just be quaint and silly.
“As far as somebody else may be concerned, your notions of “respect” may just be quaint and silly.”
Unless of course, you want me to answer a question.
You’re not a prosecutor. This isn’t a courtroom. And I’m under no obligation to answer questions repeatedly. Especially if I find the questions tedious.
You’re extrapolating without sufficient data, just as you did last time. What’s more, you’re trying to overcomplicate the issue.
You were evading the question from the start, so this claim that you now refuse to answer in protest of supposedly being ill-treated just seems like an after-the-fact justification for your prior and continued evasions.
You are correct that this is not a courtroom and you are under no obligation to answer any question at all. However, because this is not a courtroom, we also do not have to be agnostic or neutral about your strategic decisions to remain silent or refuse to answer, as a jury would have to be. In this informal discussion, we can hold your refusal to answer against you and draw pejorative inferences from that.
Any problem of insufficient data can be attributed to your tendency to retreat into generalities whenever someone asks for specific data about how your principles would be practiced in specific, empirical contexts. If you do not want to answer, that is fine. But we are not therefore required to count your refusal to answer as presumption in your favor.
Anyway, I do not think I am “extrapolating without sufficient data” because you yourself qualified your remarks by saying “that is probably why I am not in charge” which indicates that you probably do not take your own proposals seriously, and nor should we.
You were the one who overcomplicated the issue by obfuscating your supposed response with some stipulation about how castration and mutilation should be punishments for sexual offenses and some general digression about responsibility.
Except I haven’t refused to answer.
Sort of. When asked about the specific application of your principal to a situation, you repeat some mantra about how people should not be considered dangerous because of whatever sexuality and people are responsible for their actions. From those premises, a person could discern that you think that adult heterosexual males should be eligible to sleep in tents with girl scouts and admitted pedophiles should be eligible to be teachers and camp counselors. Though for some reason, you cannot bring yourself to say that.
Still watching closely I see.
This is what I mean by complications. You spin these elaborate scenarios based on what you think my “evasive” answers mean.
You never take it at face value. I told you that before. I can tell you the exact truth and you won’t believe it. You won’t accept it. You’ll look for the hidden meanings and the qualifications and the bits you think I am concealing.
And so that is exactly what I did.
I will give you three sentences and it will undo everything you have said on this thread and leave no doubt that I say what I mean.
People are responsible for their own actions and must accept the consequences for those actions.
I don’t care what anyone’s sexual taste is as long as they confine it to consenting adults.
Mess with kids sexually and it’s time to start chopping off your body parts.
Nobody here denies your premises about how people are responsible for their actions, and most people here agree that those who abuse children should be punished severely. Unfortunately, due to liberal jurisprudence, chopping off body parts has fallen out of favor as punishment.
However, you repeating your mantra does not actually answer the question, and requires us to infer or discern an answer based upon what you do not say. If we are only going by what you repeat, then we might assume that so long as we have no evidence that an adult has abused children, he should be eligible to sleep in tents with scouts, whether it be an adult heterosexual man who wants to sleep in tents with girl scouts or an adult homosexual man who wants to sleep in tents with boy scouts.
However, your latest response seems to qualify your standard. You say “I don’t care what anyone’s sexual taste is as long as they confine it to consenting adults.” Well, then what about an adult who admits that he is sexually attracted to children and wants to be a teacher or camp counselor? His “sexual taste” is not “confined to consenting adults” but he may promise that he will not sexually target children even though he is attracted to them, and we may have no evidence that he has ever abused a child. Should he be allowed to be a teacher or camp counselor, even though his “sexual taste” includes children?
You have stated a general principle. It is not meaningless, but it is still general, and persons may want to know how it applies to specific and controversial situations that rile ideological fronts on all sides. When you refuse to answer and simply restate the general principle, it requires others to interpret or extrapolate in the absence of information from you.
You: People are responsible for their own actions and must accept the consequences for those actions.
Should an adult homosexual male be allowed to sleep in tents with boy scouts, so long as there is no evidence he ever abused anybody?
You: People are responsible for their own actions and must accept the consequences for those actions.
Should an adult heterosexual male be allowed to sleep in tents with girl scouts, so long as there is no evidence that he ever abused anybody?
You: People are responsible for their own actions and must accept the consequences for those actions.
Should a person who openly admits he is sexually attracted to children be allowed to be a teacher or counselor, so long as there is no evidence that he ever abused anybody?
You: People are responsible for their own actions and must accept the consequences for those actions.
If that is the only answer you will provide, interpretation and assumptions will be necessary on part of others to determine how your principle should apply to the controversy at hand. If that is the only answer you wish to provide, such is your right. But then you should not complain that others construe and interpret your general answer when you refuse to make it more specific.
Still the complications.
You don’t understand the difference between “responsible” and “allowed.”
That might be a good place to start.
“…infer or discern…”
Riiiiiight.
You do know you read like a bad HR handbook, don’t you? You’d be more fun to read it you toned down the law-speak by two or three notches.
While your busy worrying about thought-crime and pre-crime and if-crime, I think I’ll make myself some tea and get some other things done.
You refuse to speak to question of “allowed,” and only default to the question of “responsible” once a person has committed a certain action.
Since you keep repeating that we should not be suspicious or make presumptions about somebody until they have actually harmed or targeted children, then we may presume that you think that any adult should be “allowed” to be a teacher, counselor, or scoutmaster unless and until he abuses those children and we hold him “responsible” for that abuse. But until then, he is free and clear and “allowed.”
If you do not find my statements fun to read, then you do not have to read them or respond to them, as you yourself have pointed out.
Nobody is advocating punishment for “pre-crime” or “thought-crime.” However, when certain persons confess to having certain thoughts and predilections, we may take care to avoid them or exclude them from certain areas, even though we would not criminally punish them for such things. If a person admits that he is sexually attracted to children, I do not think he should be jailed just for his thoughts. However, parents would be fully sensible in not letting that man babysit or teach their children, even if he has never touched a child so far as we know.
Because I don’t think government should be based on what is “allowed.”
Obviously you do.
That’s what I meant about treating men as if they are fallen or not.
“Nobody is advocating punishment for “pre-crime” or “thought-crime.” However…
Innocent until proven guilty, remember? You’re tossing in qualifications all over the place.
You’re focusing on what they might do instead of what they have done. If-crime, pre-crime, thought-crime, it’s not a crime.
Complications.
Innocent until proven guilty is a standard for criminal punishment, not a standard for determining what persons are admitted into positions of power over vulnerable groups.
Yes, I am focusing on “what they might do” for the purpose of determining what persons will be allowed to have access and authority over children or other vulnerable parties, for positions like teacher, counselor, scout master, etc. The fact that a person who applies for such positions has never committed a crime so far as we know does not therefore mean he/she is entitled to apply for such a position.
That is not the same as determining what persons will be criminally punished with things like incarceration or execution (or as you suggest, castration and mutilation). When determining those penalties, then yes, we focus upon what the person actually did and evidence to prove what they did.
If a man says he is sexually attracted to children, that is not reason to incarcerate him on its own. If he is to be punished, we need evidence that he committed a crime and act accordingly. However, even if he has never committed a crime, the fact that he is sexually attracted to children may be a good reason to bar him from being a teacher, babysitter, or camp counselor.
If applying suspicion to certain persons and barring them from certain positions (even without evidence of a crime) constitutes “treating men as if they are fallen” and that is something you think we should avoid, then I think my summary of your position is accurate.
If a man says he is sexually attracted to children, then under your standard, that should not count against him if he applies to be a teacher or babysitter, because we should not treat him as “fallen” unless and until he actually abuses a child. But until then, his sexual attraction to children should not otherwise be held against him.
Though when you say that we should not treat people as “fallen,” are you saying that suggestion only applies to government entities? You did not seem to limit your admonition to only government matters. So private individuals and institutions can treat people as “fallen” in their private transactions even though the “fallen” person has never committed a crime?
Still you complicate it.
I suggest you take a look at what happens when those “in charge” decide what is “allowed.”
It never stops with just one person or one group. And it’s always for the “greater good.”
It could be sex. It could be banning anything but low flow toilets. It could be mandating insurance purchased through government approved vendors.
The government “allowed” replaces responsibility.
And it starts when someone decides that someone else is too free and will probably cause problems.
“I am focusing on “what they might do” for the purpose of determining what persons will be allowed to have access and authority over children or other vulnerable parties…”
Without evidence of a crime, you’ve no business doing so. Even if it’s “for the children.” Even if you think you’re doing it for the very best of purposes.
Once that door is opened, it’s very hard to close again.
Harder still to escape when accusations are brought against you.
This is not just an issue of governmental imposition or prohibition. Private individuals and private groups and private schools may all wish to exercise their private standards in choosing or excluding people from certain positions and professions based on whatever criteria. If religious schools can choose or exclude people based on their adherence to beliefs, it is kind of absurd that they cannot exclude somebody because they openly admit to being sexually attracted to children. If only more churches and schools would be at least that scrupulous.
Part of “being free” is being free to disassociate and avoid people and things, as well as to exclude them from private spaces. The way which you categorically demand that nobody should be barred or prohibited from anything unless he commits a crime does not sound like a libertarian principle, if you are saying that this mandate of yours should apply even within private, non-governmental transactions, like parents refusing to hire an admitted pedophile as a babysitter or a private school refusing to hire him as a teacher.
And spare us the “slippery slope” argument, which seems to go something like “schools should not bar an admitted pedophile from being a teacher because then it could lead to Obamacare!” Obamacare is already here in all its horror and the door is opened. We are not obliged to give every pedophile application the benefit of all doubts just for the sake of possibly closing the lid on the anti-libertarian Pandora’s box.
No business doing so? Really? So if some parents are interviewing applicants to babysit their children and one of them admits he is sexually attracted to children, then those parents have “no business” using his admission as a reason to reject him as an applicant? As long as there is not yet evidence that he has molested any children, they have to give him fair consideration as a babysitter?
Now it seems that you have come closer to honestly answering the question.
And actually, if an admitted pedophile is eligible to be hired as a teacher or babysitter, that would only seem to increase the risk of accusations being brought against him because it would increase the plausible situations in which he would have access and opportunity to abuse children (even though he may choose not to do so). If a pedophile is excluded from being hired for such positions in proximity to children, it would make accusations against him less plausible, because he would have less opportunity to offend.
Complications.
You’ve built this up based on desires and no crime.
In all your scenarios up to now, qualifications never entered into it.
For you, the desire was going to trump no matter how disciplined the person might be. The man couldn’t be trusted if tempted.
Oh, and before you say I went off on another tangent, if you’ll check above I talked about screening for personalities.
It took you this long to get to qualifications.
As I said way way above, I don’t think a drunk should pilot a plane and I don’t think an abusive personality belongs in a school.
But you weren’t talking about professional qualifications. You were talking about letting someone sleep in a tent full of kids based on that person’s sexuality and what might happen.
It’s a step in the right direction.
There is not usually an official governmental licensing board which determines what people can or cannot babysit. It is often an informal employment arrangement with candidates chosen at the sole discretion of the parents.
Likewise, there may be organized bodies like the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts which may determine what adults will be permitted to sleep in tents with children. Or, it could just be an informal camping trip among family and friends for the weekend. In either case, if a person announces that he/she is sexually attracted to children, I think that is a compelling reason not to permit them to sleep in tents with children, whether it is some organized scout trip or just a family camping trip.
If abusive personality is grounds to disqualify somebody from being a teacher or some other job with authority over children, then that seems to be a retreat from your line that only committing a crime should count as a bar or prohibition against somebody. One is limiting or denying access to somebody based upon something they might do, not something they have done. It is possible that a drunkard may stay sober for every flight. If he has never crashed a plane before, denying him a pilot position because of his drunkenness is all based on what bad things he might do.
And good luck ever defining “abusive personality” in some contained, coherent way. Yes, the person says he is sexually attracted to children, but he promises he will never act on it, even if he is around them unsupervised. Guess we’ll just have to take his word for it until he actually molests somebody.
Come to think of it, schools might not let an alcoholic be a teacher or a bus driver either, and lots of parents probably would not like drunkards taking their kids on camping trips either.
Qualifications did not seem to enter into your scenarios when you were proclaiming that without evidence of crime, we have “no business” excluding or barring people. Now you bring up your supposed allowance of “personality” (without a crime) to be a valid excluding factor.
If you can disqualify people based upon “personalities” without them ever having committed a crime, then it seems you never really meant your bright line standard of not barring a person short of evidence of crime on their part.
Your standard about basing exclusions upon possible “personalities” has this assumption that there is some clean separation between “desires” and “personalities.” A person may claim to be a reformed drug addict who is now sober. He still desires to use drugs but maybe he has adequate self-discipline. But the fact that he was once a drug user is something that counts against him and may disqualify him from a position as a medical professional, or a teacher, or as an adopted parent. Some persons may think his pretense of self-control is convincing and hire him anyway. Others may reasonably think his past drug use is just too much of a risk.
And so if a person says he desires to do sexual things to children, we may decide that this aspect of his personality is just too much of a risk to permit him to have unsupervised authority over children, no matter how disciplined or controlled the rest of his personality seems.
Up until your previous posts, sexuality and temptation was all you considered.
It was one salient example of many things people could consider when determining whether a person is fit to be allowed unsupervised authority over children or other vulnerable entities.
But for the record, they should be able to consider a whole bunch of aspects, like previous drug use, mental illness, etc. Not letting an admitted pedophile be a teacher or camp counselor just seemed like the most obvious possible example among those scenarios. Why should sexual disposition be given some more favorable presumption than something like alcohol use?
And another thing, it seems strange that a person concerned about liberty and reducing regulation would be fine with the concept of “screening for personalities.” It bothers that you that an admitted pedophile would be barred from a position on that basis, but you think it would just be fine to impose psychiatric assessments on job applicants as a customary measure? I’m sure it has its uses, but that seems like a less than libertarian policy.
Everything you said before was framed in terms of the adult’s sexuality and whether they could be trusted to resist temptation.
I could plug in the “Sure Warning Signs of a Serial Killer” and it would be just as effective. As in blaming people for something they haven’t done yet and may not do at all.
You’re still focusing on the pre-crime. Has it never even occurred to you that one BIG qualification should be “do the parents trust the individual?” Not because of sexuality or shoe size or because they really like peppermint ice cream.
Here’s a hint. If it’s not my kid, I’m not related, and I don’t know the family, It’s None Of My Business telling them how to raise the child or who to trust.
Remember when I told you it was all about trust?
“Not letting an admitted pedophile be a teacher or camp counselor…
If they didn’t do it, then there is not a crime.
Why is that so hard for you to understand?
I didn’t say anything about government doing the screening, did I?
No regulation then, it’s personal choice.
I’d say then that the insurance companies could probably do the best job screening as long as no politico tried to interfere.
Small “L” libertarian writer L. Neil Smith suggested in a novel that insurance companies could do a better job with driver’s licenses. I imagine they’d do a great job “licensing” risky professions, just because they’re paying for it if something goes screwy.
Unlike most government licensing agencies.
I do not deny that lots of serial killers and child molesters successfully conceal their desires so that nobody suspects they could be capable of such things, while they are operating rampantly. However, I do not think parents or schools are obliged to ignore and excuse known attributes of a person simply because other persons with the same attributes are successful at concealing them. Because some people are capable of hiding their sexual desire for children or their violent desires toward children, then that means we should just let people who admit to having such desires into roles of authority and power over children?
I agree that it is not your role to tell parents who to trust, though some parents have earned some well-deserved condemnation for letting certain people watch their kids with disastrous results. However, your prior statements seemed to indicate that this requirement to give everyone the benefit of the doubt and presume everyone as trustworthy until they committed a crime was some kind of universal, non-discriminating obligation towards government and private parties alike.
Yes, it does involve trust, though I do not think that is the only aspect. I and many others think that if we know certain things about certain people, then that may constitute a valid reason not to trust them with certain things. And that can include sexual dispositions and proclivities. You seemed to keep on saying that such aspects should never constitute a reason not to trust anybody, and that we should all strike it from our consideration forever.
Well, if a public school is going to be doing the “screening for personalities,” then the government or some public body will be involved with this “screening” in one way or another, even if they outsource it to some private vendor or insurance company.
And if “personal choice” is something that calms your objections, then I presume that means it should not bother your libertarian principles when private individuals and private institutions like private schools or boy scouts decide to exclude people on the basis of their sexuality. After all, these are private groups who have the right to decide whom they will or will not admit into their fold for any reason they wish.
When I say “admitted pedophile,” I refer to a person who is sexually attracted to children, not necessarily an active molester. They do not have to “do” anything in order to be a pedophile. A person may be sexually fixated upon children, but might not have offended or committed a crime, so far as we know. He may just have the sexual disposition but might not have acted upon it (yet).
But the fact that he has that disposition and we know about it may be a good and compelling reason to exclude him from certain professions and positions, like being a teacher, counselor, or babysitter. Certainly private parties have the right to exclude somebody for that reason should they become aware of it.
As I said:
“And it starts when someone decides that someone else is too free and will probably cause problems.”
So you are adding “lust-crimes” to the list. That should fit with the “pre-crimes,” “thought-crimes,” and “if-crimes.”
I’m curious. If someone really loved cookies, would you ban them from a bakery? Purely for their good, of course.
*grins*
I don’t think public schools are a good idea. I believe they’ve done terrible things to American education. I don’t think there should be any. Not to mention the small fact that the politicos always argue over what should be taught in the schools. That almost always makes things worse, especially when they centralize.
The point that you keep missing is that unless it’s your kids, you as an individual really shouldn’t be involved.
But it’s not your kids. It’s not my kids. And since that’s true, we shouldn’t tell the parents how to raise their kids.
You keep trying to make the general case based on sexuality. I keep telling you that is wrong, just as it was with skin color, religion, income, and ethnic background.
Specific cases. Specific behaviors. Not specific thoughts.
Otherwise it really is about thought-crime. And chances are you will be found guilty of one.
Any kind of “hypen-crime” does not apply here because these persons are not being criminally punished with anything like incarceration, execution, or castration. I do not think a person should be criminally punished for having whatever sexual predilection. However, if other persons become aware of it, those other persons are entitled to keep their distance and exclude this person from certain spaces.
As for cookie lovers, that is up to the baker or proprietor in question. Myself, I would give them the benefit of the doubt until they start pilfering confections. However, I think a few lost cookies is an acceptable loss compared to some molested children.
In a way, you are the one deciding that “someone else is too free” when you take issue with schools and private individuals excluding certain people from their spaces based on their own criteria. When they say, “Because of this person’s sexual preference, I do not want my children around him and I do not want him in my organization” it seems to bother you that they may be free to exclude and disassociate from whoever for whatever reason. You’re the one telling them that they have “no business” excluding people for such reasons.
And you said that we should be allowed to psychologically profile people in order to “screen for personalities.” It gets you in a tizzy if a known pedophile is barred from a job, but you have no issue with people requiring and creating psychological dossiers on applicants.
So no problem if private schools do it? Of course, if whatever private school determines that one applicant is a pedophile, they may want to save themselves the trouble of determining how strong his vows of temperance will be against his urges.
Sadly, public schools do exist and will continue to exist for a period of time. And they remain one of the primary places that certain persons may seek to enter as a way to access children. If people are allowed to screen for “abusive personalities,” then public school would be one of the most important places to do so, which means the government would in some way be involved in these psychological screenings that you suggest, therefore setting off your libertarian alarm bells.
If you are going to make good faith or serious suggestions, then they should not be predicated upon your assumption for some prior libertarian revolution abolishing whatever institutions you find distasteful.
You have been telling me and every other person here how to raise their kids and what methods they may or may not use to protect them.
When I suggested that many persons and parents may use certain criteria for determining what persons will be allowed near their children, you responded by saying “Without evidence of a crime, you’ve no business doing so.” Now, did you actually mean that? Or do you mean that parents are allowed to bar and prohibit people from being near their kids for any reason they want, and you don’t have a problem with that?
So please clarify. When you keep saying things like “without evidence of a crime, you’ve no business doing so,” do you mean that applies to the government, or do you mean that applies to everyone and everything, even to private schools and parents hiring babysitters? Are you saying that everyone and everything should only exclude or bar people in accordance with criteria you determine is valid and sufficient?
Anyway, unless children are all home-schooled, chances are they will be in the custody of other persons besides their parents during the course of their lives, so other persons besides their parents will sometimes have the responsibility of guarding their welfare and admitting or blocking certain people to their proximity for safety purposes. Though I suspect that if a school asks the parents of its students, “This man says he is attracted to children, so should we hire him as a teacher?” then they would get a resounding “NO!”
Any parents who disagree can try to get their children private lessons, except in states that require sex offenders to stay a certain distance from children.
It is not “though-crime” because they are not being criminally punished for thoughts. Once their thoughts become known, they may suffer some negative consequences and losses in life, but that does not mean they are being criminally punished. If a man says he has suicidal and violent thoughts when he applies to adopt a child, chances are his thoughts are going to count against him for adoption purposes. If a man says he fantasizes about raping people, chances are that may lose him certain jobs and make him unwelcome from many social spaces. The fact that we do not want to criminally punish people for thoughts does not mean that everybody is entitled to never suffer any negative consequences if they communicate their thoughts or their thoughts become known. Just look what happened to Donald Sterling.
No crime, no action, but you are all too willing to condemn.
In an earlier decade, maybe it would have been the Irish. Or the Roman Catholics.
Should we brand their foreheads with “Potential Child Molester?” Maybe we should keep lists and keep them thousands of feet from schools and parks, because that has just worked so well with the sex offender lists.
Or maybe we could let parents make up their own minds, instead of letting “society” dictate it for them?
I don’t “take issue with schools and private individuals excluding certain people.”
I take issue when you presume to do it for them.
I said that aggregate judgments about people based on their group membership still abound, and in some cases, it is still sensible. I am not doing it for them, or for anybody, nor would I force them to do so.
But when some people and places do it, I think it is sometimes sensible and prudent and I agree with it. And I do not think the institution or person in question should be sued or condemned for rank prejudice for doing so, nor should they be forced to adhere to some “benefit of the doubt” standard for any person who has not been convicted of a crime.
Actually I don’t think private schools should do it either.
I think the most workable system is an insurance company giving a rating. That way, the only thing that has to pass between a potential employee and an employer is the rating. It’s in the insurance company’s best interest to make sure that rating is valid and it still has enough customers. It’s in the employee’s best interest to get a high rating to get and keep employment. And it’s in the employers best interest to get customers, keep costs low, and reduce liability.
p.s. It’s called free market economics.
No, I haven’t been saying anything about how to raise kids.
I’ve pointed out that judging people by their sexuality when then haven’t committed a crime makes about as much sense as suing the Easter Bunny because you didn’t get all eggs you thought you should.
I would let the parents make up their own mind. If parents say, “this man says he is sexually attracted to children, so that is enough reason for us to not let him be a babysitter or be around our children,” I think that is a sensible decision. And I do not think they should be told that they must give the benefit of every doubt to anyone who has not committed a crime.
No, I would not brand or incarcerate any person based solely based upon their thoughts. However, just because they should not be physically mutilated or confined does not mean they have the same eligibility to become teachers and counselors or adoptive parents.
Anyway, why are you so bothered by the notion of people discriminating on the basis of ethnicity or religion. Libertarians think that private businesses and individuals should have the right to hire, fire, and disassociate for any reason they like, including sectarian or racist reasons.
“I am not doing it for them, or for anybody, nor would I force them to do so.”
“I think the thing that gives these self-appointed people power is when other people acknowledge the group they claim to represent.”
Me, earlier on this thread.
You did know that “However” is not only lawyer-speak but a Major Weasel Word, didn’t you?