Connect with us

homepage news

Confronting racism in LGBT community

Black leaders speak out; inclusion in mainstream orgs called insufficient



racism, gay news, Washington Blade

‘I think what you’re seeing … is that folks are no longer waiting for these establishment or mainstream organizations to get it,” said Angela Peoples, executive director of Get Equal. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

Strong concerns raised earlier this month by a local LGBT group that D.C.’s Capital Pride Alliance, which organizes the city’s annual LGBT Pride parade and festival, has not adequately addressed issues of concern to people of color came as a surprise to some in the LGBT community.

During a May 8 meeting of the Capital Pride Alliance’s board of directors, members of a newly formed coalition called No Justice No Pride said the board included only a few token members who were people of color and the board as a whole, according to No Justice No Pride members, remains insensitive to the needs and issues of people of color, especially transgender people of color.

Capital Pride officials, who dispute that assessment, said they nevertheless welcome the views of everyone in the LGBT community and promised to redouble their efforts to be more inclusive and to better represent people of color and the full diversity of the community.

In interviews this week, the Washington Blade asked four prominent black LGBT leaders who head local and national LGBT organizations to talk about how they see the current state of race relations within the LGBT community and within LGBT organizations.

The Blade also interviewed a prominent African-American official who spoke on condition of anonymity because the activist is not authorized to speak to the media.

Do the concerns by people of color that surfaced at the Capital Pride Alliance meeting earlier this month go beyond Capital Pride and touch on other local and national LGBT organizations?

Guillaume Bagal, the recently elected president of D.C.’s Gay and Lesbian Activists Alliance, who’s black, said the answer is yes.

“While race-related issues are at the forefront of the Capital Pride dispute, it is simply a manifestation of what has been brewing for decades in local and national LGBTQ organizations,” Bagal said.

“Take the District for instance,” he told the Blade in a statement. “Despite our richness in both social and advocacy LGBTQ groups, there remains an air of segregation many have either grown accustomed to or continue to justify rather than addressing head on. The call to address Black and Brown issues within the LGBTQ community will only get louder, and I hope LGBTQ organizations at the local and national level begin to reflect the needs of people living at the intersection of multiple societally marginalized identities.”

He said local and national LGBT organizations “need to come to terms with the reality that unless race is specified, it’s white.”

“By this I mean that unless you are intentional in addressing the needs of people of color or other minority groups, you are likely catering to the same white, cisgender, middle and upper-class gay men,” he said. “Furthermore, using words like ‘diversity’ and ‘inclusivity’ is problematic when your leadership does not reflect the community you claim to serve, and your organizational decisions are perceived as shallow and tone-deaf by communities of color.”

GLAA President Guillaume Bagal (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

Earl Fowlkes is executive director of the Center for Black Equity, a national D.C.-based group that advocates for African-American LGBT people and helps organize Black Pride events in the U.S. and abroad. He is also president of D.C.’s Gertrude Stein Democratic Club and chair of the Democratic National Committee’s LGBT Caucus.

‘I think there are always issues of inclusion that have to be dealt with. And we have to struggle with those,’ said longtime advocate Earl Fowlkes.(Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

“The reality is in our community, the LGBTQ community, we still struggle with issues of race and class and age and gender identity, and they all intertwine,” he told the Blade. “It’s very complicated.”

He noted that while Capital Pride continues to encounter problems related to people of color he feels things have improved in recent years.

“I’ve noticed an increase in black participants in the parade of affinity groups and organizations,” he said in discussing the Capital Pride events. “And also people who were watching the parade – there are more people of color watching the parade,” Fowlkes said.

“But we have to look at this more holistically and understand that it’s not just the three days where we have to be better about race for Pride,” Fowlkes continued. “It should be the whole year. We don’t socialize together. There are very few places where black and white socialize together, which is the basis of relationships and friendships, the basis of understanding,” he said.

“And until we start doing that and creating those spaces to do that we’re going to have misunderstandings and a lack of sensitivity toward issues of race,” Fowlkes said.

He added, “It’s difficult because if you focus on three days of the year as opposed to looking at the entire year there are tensions as we have gentrification, where people of color, particularly blacks who lived in D.C. for many years are forced to move out because of the increase in housing costs. And a lot of those people are LGBT too.”

Angela Peoples, executive director of the national LGBT direct action group Get Equal and a member of the No Justice No Pride coalition, said she is surprised that members of the LGBT community would be asking at this time whether there are shortcomings among LGBT organizations and LGBT events pertaining to racial justice and people of color.

“I’m sorry – I’m a little taken aback by the question because this is part of the premise of the entire No Justice No Pride campaign,” she said. “It’s part of the reason that there is a Black Pride, Latino Pride, etc. in the first place,” Peoples said.

“It’s because the LGBT community historically and today has been racist and at best has encouraged people of color, particularly black folks, to fall in line.”

Most importantly, Peoples said, none of this is a new development in the LGBT community.

“So yes, there are issues. There have been issues for decades. This is not new. This is not the first time,” she said.

“And I think what you’re seeing, especially all across the country, is that folks are no longer waiting for these establishment or mainstream organizations or for the mainstream movement to get it,” she continued.

Among other things, Peoples said more LGBT organizations and advocates need to undertake a “serious conversation” about who the leadership should be, who we put our resources in,” and who should be involved in these conversations.

“And it seems to me that the mainstream movement time and time again is not willing to do that,” she said. “We’ve called on HRC to divest from Wells Fargo because of their treatment of black and brown communities. We’ve called on the Task Force and Creating Change to divest from Wells Fargo because of their relationship with the Dakota Access Pipeline and to private prisons.”

“And these groups don’t want to respond. They don’t want to hear truth,” Peoples said.

She was referring to the Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest LGBT civil rights group, and the National LGBTQ Task Force’s selection of Wells Fargo Bank as a corporate sponsor. Creating Change is a national LGBT conference organized by the Task Force.

“Wells Fargo has not been a direct sponsor of Creating Change in years and as of July 1, 2017 they will no longer be a national corporate sponsor of the National LGBTQ Task Force,” said Russell Roybal, the group’s deputy executive director.

“They remain the presenting sponsor of the Task Force Gala-Miami as they have for the last several years,” Roybal added.

A spokesperson for HRC couldn’t immediately be reached for comment. HRC has said Wells Fargo Bank has consistently received the HRC Foundation’s highest rating for a corporation on internal personnel policies for LGBT employees.

Isaiah Wilson, external affairs director for the National Black Justice Coalition, another D.C.-based group that advocates for the black LGBT community, said mainstream LGBT rights organizations have historically not focused on many of the issues deemed important for LGBT people of color.

“In thinking about the last decade, marriage equality was the fight,” said Wilson. “We were very much in support of that fight, but that was a very privileged fight,” he said. “It doesn’t take into consideration the most marginalized within the LGBTQ community and our issues. And when we look at those issues we’re just trying to survive. We’re just trying to get employment where we can be our authentic selves and that we’re protected and that we can’t be fired just because of who we are as LGBT people who happen to be LGBT people of color,” Wilson said.

“There has always been this issue around what are the issues we’re fighting for. And do those issues come from a place of privilege? It’s incumbent upon the movement to always center on the most marginalized, the most left behind,” he said.

In pointing to the issues that matter most to many LGBT people of color, Wilson added, “If you don’t have employment protections, if you don’t have housing protections, if you don’t have access to health care that is accessible and of quality then who cares about a marriage certificate when your quality of life is still marginalized, it’s still oppressed?”

When asked if what appears to be a large number of people of color in D.C., both LGBT and straight, who have jobs in professions such as law, medicine, business, and elective office is a sign of possible change, Wilson expressed caution.

“You’re speaking of individuals,” he said. “I’m talking about systemic issues. Racism is not – please quote me on this. Racism is not about only individuals. Racism is about institutions of a system that supports racist outcomes,” he continued.

“So yes, we might have a judge. We just had the first black president. But the state of black America some would argue is still horrible. We still have record unemployment rates. We still have the Affordable Care Act that gives us access to health care, but that is being taken away,” said Wilson.

“And so like everything else, the LGBT equality movement is continuing to have to deal with this notion of marginalization that really comes from a place of systemic oppression via racism.”

The activist who spoke on condition of anonymity agreed with many of the points raised by Peoples and Wilson.

“I would say that as with most things, what goes on in the LGBTQ community mirrors what goes on in the mainstream community when it comes to racism and patriarchy and socio-economic differences and oppression,” the activist said.

“So it’s never gone away and as long as it’s not addressed it’s not going to go away,” said the activist. “I think what you’re seeing is a lot of the racial tensions that are bubbling up to the surface have been there underneath.”

The activist added, “And I think while some of these organizations realize that changes have to be made, not everybody realizes the urgency. They think they can do it over the course of time. And I think what you’re seeing is young activists are saying they’re not going to wait anymore. They’re very vocal. They’re very impatient. And they’re coming from another era that most people my age aren’t used to.”

The activist said some of the issues raised by groups such as No Justice No Pride are valid while other issues being raised are not valid, such as banning police from the Capital Pride parade.

“But there seems to be no middle ground,” said the activist. “If the powers that be met the activists on some middle ground and say this is what we can do now and this is what we can do moving forward you would see some movement. But I think everybody’s in an all-or-nothing stance and that’s unfortunate.”

Fowlkes said while many hurdles remain in the quest for full inclusion of people of color in LGBT organizations and institutions he sees important progress being made on that front locally.

“Capital Pride is taking a great deal of energy into improving its relationship with different parts of our community, including Black Pride,” he said. “We work with them. We talk to them. We have a relationship with them. And we will be participating in their Pride and they participate in our Pride.”

Fowlkes, who has played a lead role in organizing D.C.’s Black Pride activities for over a decade, said the different Pride events held in D.C. each year such as Black Pride, Trans Pride, and Latino Pride are not mutually exclusive.

“People need to understand their communities and be proud of their communities, whatever part of the community they come from,” he said. “That doesn’t mean you can’t participate in Capital Pride or Capital Pride is evil,” he continued.

“I think there are always issues of inclusion that have to be dealt with. And we have to struggle with those,” said Fowlkes. “And there’s nothing wrong with that struggle. That struggle brings growth. And we have to always keep struggling and we have to be reminded of how important that struggle is.”

Continue Reading


  1. Will Kohler

    May 25, 2017 at 9:48 am

    Interestingly Peoples and others in her group have no problem taking scholarships to attend the LGBT portion of Netroots Nation which gets large chunk of money from HRC and Creating Change from The Task Force

    • Black Romulan

      July 26, 2017 at 12:32 pm

      So, your argument here is that if someone experiences discrimination from a group by which they identify that those “peoples and others in her group” have to return any benefits they receive from that group because they shouldn’t be allowed to complain AND be merited at the same time?

      Interesting bit of victim blaming, Will.

  2. dcnewsman

    May 25, 2017 at 1:05 pm

    Capital Pride by and large does a good job, except in the make up of its board. Half of the board are older, white men. The of the four officers are older, white men. Many who have been on the board for years. There should be a limit on the number of years someone can serve on the board as well as in an officer position. Bernie Delia is the biggest example of this. He has been either president or vice president of Pride since 2009. This only means that new, younger people cannot bring thieir ideas onto the board since, like carreer politicians, those holdovers get fat and lazy. They are comfortable doing things as they always have been and not embracing change that new voices and cultures would bring.

    • Culture Club Warrior

      May 31, 2017 at 12:58 pm

      I’d be interested in knowing if it’s a case of active exclusion, or if it’s more that very few people are stepping up to be on the board. Are the people with new perspectives being turned away?

      My experience with smaller groups is that people loved to complain, but, when it came time for Board elections, the candidates were running unopposed. In fact, some of the sitting members of the Board wanted to quit, but stayed on because somebody had to do it. I wound up being on the board of one organization for a while, and I wasn’t even a member. My partner was part of the organization, and they couldn’t find anyone to finish out the term of a someone who moved away, so they asked me to do it.

  3. Culture Club Warrior

    May 31, 2017 at 1:02 pm

    How are board members selected? Are they appointed, or are there elections?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

homepage news

Equality Act, contorted as a danger by anti-LGBTQ forces, is all but dead

No political willpower to force vote or reach a compromise



Despite having President Biden in the White House and Democratic majorities in both chambers of Congress, efforts to update federal civil rights laws to strengthen the prohibition on discrimination against LGBTQ people by passing the Equality Act are all but dead as opponents of the measure have contorted it beyond recognition.

Political willpower is lacking to find a compromise that would be acceptable to enough Republican senators to end a filibuster on the bill — a tall order in any event — nor is there the willpower to force a vote on the Equality Act as opponents stoke fears about transgender kids in sports and not even unanimity in the Democratic caucus in favor of the bill is present, stakeholders who spoke to the Blade on condition of anonymity said.

In fact, there are no imminent plans to hold a vote on the legislation even though Pride month is days away, which would be an opportune time for Congress to demonstrate solidarity with the LGBTQ community by holding a vote on the legislation.

If the Equality Act were to come up for a Senate vote in the next month, it would not have the support to pass. Continued assurances that bipartisan talks are continuing on the legislation have yielded no evidence of additional support, let alone the 10 Republicans needed to end a filibuster.

“I haven’t really heard an update either way, which is usually not good,” one Democratic insider said. “My understanding is that our side was entrenched in a no-compromise mindset and with [Sen. Joe] Manchin saying he didn’t like the bill, it doomed it this Congress. And the bullying of hundreds of trans athletes derailed our message and our arguments of why it was broadly needed.”

The only thing keeping the final nail from being hammered into the Equality Act’s coffin is the unwillingness of its supporters to admit defeat. Other stakeholders who spoke to the Blade continued to assert bipartisan talks are ongoing, strongly pushing back on any conclusion the legislation is dead.

Alphonso David, president of the Human Rights Campaign, said the Equality Act is “alive and well,” citing widespread public support he said includes “the majority of Democrats, Republicans and independents and a growing number of communities across the country engaging and mobilizing every day in support of the legislation.”

“They understand the urgent need to pass this bill and stand up for LGBTQ people across our country,” David added. “As we engage with elected officials, we have confidence that Congress will listen to the voices of their constituents and continue fighting for the Equality Act through the lengthy legislative process.  We will also continue our unprecedented campaign to grow the already-high public support for a popular bill that will save lives and make our country fairer and more equal for all. We will not stop until the Equality Act is passed.”

Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), chief sponsor of the Equality Act in the Senate, also signaled through a spokesperson work continues on the legislation, refusing to give up on expectations the legislation would soon become law.

“Sen. Merkley and his staff are in active discussions with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to try to get this done,” McLennan said. “We definitely see it as a key priority that we expect to become law.”

A spokesperson Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), who had promised to force a vote on the Equality Act in the Senate on the day the U.S. House approved it earlier this year, pointed to a March 25 “Dear Colleague” letter in which he identified the Equality Act as one of several bills he’d bring up for a vote.

Despite any assurances, the hold up on the bill is apparent. Although the U.S. House approved the legislation earlier this year, the Senate Judiciary Committee hasn’t even reported out the bill yet to the floor in the aftermath of the first-ever Senate hearing on the bill in March. A Senate Judiciary Committee Democratic aide, however, disputed that inaction as evidence the Equality Act is dead in its tracks: “Bipartisan efforts on a path forward are ongoing.”

Democrats are quick to blame Republicans for inaction on the Equality Act, but with Manchin withholding his support for the legislation they can’t even count on the entirety of their caucus to vote “yes” if it came to the floor. Progressives continue to advocate an end to the filibuster to advance legislation Biden has promised as part of his agenda, but even if they were to overcome headwinds and dismantle the institution needing 60 votes to advance legislation, the Equality Act would likely not have majority support to win approval in the Senate with a 50-50 party split.

The office of Manchin, who has previously said he couldn’t support the Equality Act over concerns about public schools having to implement the transgender protections applying to sports and bathrooms, hasn’t responded to multiple requests this year from the Blade on the legislation and didn’t respond to a request to comment for this article.

Meanwhile, Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), who declined to co-sponsor the Equality Act this year after having signed onto the legislation in the previous Congress, insisted through a spokesperson talks are still happening across the aisle despite the appearances the legislation is dead.

“There continues to be bipartisan support for passing a law that protects the civil rights of Americans, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity,” said Annie Clark, a Collins spokesperson. “The Equality Act was a starting point for negotiations, and in its current form, it cannot pass. That’s why there are ongoing discussions among senators and stakeholders about a path forward.”

Let’s face it: Anti-LGBTQ forces have railroaded the debate by making the Equality Act about an end to women’s sports by allowing transgender athletes and danger to women in sex-segregated places like bathrooms and prisons. That doesn’t even get into resolving the issue on drawing the line between civil rights for LGBTQ people and religious freedom, which continues to be litigated in the courts as the U.S. Supreme Court is expected any day now to issue a ruling in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia to determine if foster care agencies can reject same-sex couples over religious objections.

For transgender Americans, who continue to report discrimination and violence at high rates, the absence of the Equality Act may be most keenly felt.

Mara Keisling, outgoing executive director of the National Center for Transgender Equality, disputed any notion the Equality Act is dead and insisted the legislation is “very much alive.”

“We remain optimistic despite misinformation from the opposition,” Keisling said. “NCTE and our movement partners are still working fruitfully on the Equality Act with senators. In fact, we are gaining momentum with all the field organizing we’re doing, like phone banking constituents to call their senators. Legislating takes time. Nothing ever gets through Congress quickly. We expect to see a vote during this Congress, and we are hopeful we can win.”

But one Democratic source said calls to members of Congress against the Equality Act, apparently coordinated by groups like the Heritage Foundation, have has outnumbered calls in favor of it by a substantial margin, with a particular emphasis on Manchin.

No stories are present in the media about same-sex couples being kicked out of a restaurant for holding hands or transgender people for using the restroom consistent with their gender identity, which would be perfectly legal in 25 states thanks to the patchwork of civil rights laws throughout the United States and inadequate protections under federal law.

Tyler Deaton, senior adviser for the American Unity Fund, which has bolstered the Republican-led Fairness for All Act as an alternative to the Equality Act, said he continues to believe the votes are present for a compromise form of the bill.

“I know for a fact there is a supermajority level of support in the Senate for a version of the Equality Act that is fully protective of both LGBTQ civil rights and religious freedom,” Deaton said. “There is interest on both sides of the aisle in getting something done this Congress.”

Deaton, however, didn’t respond to a follow-up inquiry on what evidence exists of agreeing on this compromise.

Biden has already missed the goal he campaigned on in the 2020 election to sign the Equality Act into law within his first 100 days in office. Although Biden renewed his call to pass the legislation in his speech to Congress last month, as things stand now that appears to be a goal he won’t realize for the remainder of this Congress.

Nor has the Biden administration made the Equality Act an issue for top officials within the administration as it pushes for an infrastructure package as a top priority. One Democratic insider said Louisa Terrell, legislative affairs director for the White House, delegated work on the Equality Act to a deputy as opposed to handling it herself.

To be sure, Biden has demonstrated support for the LGBTQ community through executive action at an unprecedented rate, signing an executive order on day one ordering federal agencies to implement the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision last year in Bostock v. Clayton County to the fullest extent possible and dismantling former President Trump’s transgender military ban. Biden also made historic LGBTQ appointments with the confirmation of Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg and Rachel Levine as assistant secretary of health.

A White House spokesperson insisted Biden’s team across the board remains committed to the Equality Act, pointing to his remarks to Congress.

“President Biden has urged Congress to get the Equality Act to his desk so he can sign it into law and provide long overdue civil rights protections to LGBTQ+ Americans, and he remains committed to seeing this legislation passed as quickly as possible,” the spokesperson said. “The White House and its entire legislative team remains in ongoing and close coordination with organizations, leaders, members of Congress, including the Equality Caucus, and staff to ensure we are working across the aisle to push the Equality Act forward.”

But at least in the near-term, that progress will fall short of fulfilling the promise of updating federal civil rights law with the Equality Act, which will mean LGBTQ people won’t be able to rely on those protections when faced with discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

Continue Reading

homepage news

D.C. bill to ban LGBTQ panic defense delayed by Capitol security

Delivery of bill to Congress was held up due to protocols related to Jan. 6 riots



New fencing around the Capitol following the Jan. 6 insurrection prevented some D.C. bills from being delivered to the Hill for a required congressional review. (Blade file photo by Michael K. Lavers)

A bill approved unanimously last December by the D.C. Council to ban the so-called LGBTQ panic defense has been delayed from taking effect as a city law because the fence installed around the U.S. Capitol following the Jan. 6 insurrection prevented the law from being delivered to Congress.

According to Eric Salmi, communications director for D.C. Council member Charles Allen (D-Ward 6), who guided the bill through the Council’s legislative process, all bills approved by the Council and signed by the D.C. mayor must be hand-delivered to Congress for a required congressional review.

“What happened was when the Capitol fence went up after the January insurrection, it created an issue where we physically could not deliver laws to Congress per the congressional review period,” Salmi told the Washington Blade.

Among the bills that could not immediately be delivered to Congress was the Bella Evangelista and Tony Hunter Panic Defense Prohibition and Hate Crimes Response Amendment Act of 2020, which was approved by the Council on a second and final vote on Dec. 15.

Between the time the bill was signed by Mayor Muriel Bowser and published in the D.C. Register under procedural requirements for all bills, it was not ready to be transmitted to Congress until Feb. 16, the Council’s legislative record for the bill shows.

Salmi said the impasse in delivering the bill to Congress due to the security fence prevented the bill from reaching Congress on that date and prevented the mandatory 60-day congressional review period for this bill from beginning at that time. He noted that most bills require a 30 legislative day review by Congress.

But the Evangelista-Hunter bill, named after a transgender woman and a gay man who died in violent attacks by perpetrators who attempted to use the trans and gay panic defense, includes a law enforcement related provision that under the city’s Home Rule Charter passed by Congress in the early 1970s requires a 60-day congressional review.

“There is a chance it goes into effect any day now, just given the timeline is close to being up,” Salmi said on Tuesday. “I don’t know the exact date it was delivered, but I do know the countdown is on,” said Salmi, who added, “I would expect any day now it should go into effect and there’s nothing stopping it other than an insurrection in January.”

If the delivery to Congress had not been delayed, the D.C. Council’s legislative office estimated the congressional review would have been completed by May 12.

A congressional source who spoke on condition of being identified only as a senior Democratic aide, said the holdup of D.C. bills because of the Capitol fence has been corrected.

“The House found an immediate workaround, when this issue first arose after the Jan. 6 insurrection,” the aide said.

“This is yet another reason why D.C. Council bills should not be subject to a congressional review period and why we need to grant D.C. statehood,” the aide said.

The aide added that while no disapproval resolution had been introduced in Congress to overturn the D.C. Evangelista-Hunter bill, House Democrats would have defeated such a resolution.

“House Democrats support D.C. home rule, statehood, and LGBTQ rights,” said the aide.

LGBTQ rights advocates have argued that a ban on using a gay or transgender panic defense in criminal trials is needed to prevent defense attorneys from inappropriately asking juries to find that a victim’s sexual orientation or gender identity or expression is to blame for a defendant’s criminal act, including murder.

Some attorneys have argued that their clients “panicked” after discovering the person against whom they committed a violent crime was gay or transgender, prompting them to act in a way they believed to be a form of self-defense.

In addition to its provision banning the LGBTQ panic defense, the Evangelista-Hunter bill includes a separate provision that strengthens the city’s existing hate crimes law by clarifying that hatred need not be the sole motivating factor for an underlying crime such as assault, murder, or threats to be prosecuted as a hate crime.

LGBTQ supportive prosecutors have said the clarification was needed because it is often difficult to prove to a jury that hatred is the only motive behind a violent crime. The prosecutors noted that juries have found defendants not guilty of committing a hate crime on grounds that they believed other motives were involved in a particular crime after defense lawyers argued that the law required “hate” to be the only motive in order to find someone guilty of a hate crime.

Salmi noted that while the hate crime clarification and panic defense prohibition provisions of the Evangelista-Hunter bill will become law as soon as the congressional review is completed, yet another provision in the bill will not become law after the congressional review because there are insufficient funds in the D.C. budget to cover the costs of implementing the provision.

The provision gives the D.C. Office of Human Rights and the Office of the D.C. Attorney General authority to investigate hate related discrimination at places of public accommodation. Salmi said the provision expands protections against discrimination to include web-based retailers or online delivery services that are not physically located in D.C.

“That is subject to appropriations,” Salmi said. “And until it is funded in the upcoming budget it cannot be legally enforced.”

He said that at Council member Allen’s request, the Council added language to the bill that ensures that all other provisions of the legislation that do not require additional funding – including the ban on use of the LGBTQ panic defense and the provision clarifying that hatred doesn’t have to be the sole motive for a hate crime – will take effect as soon as the congressional approval process is completed.

Continue Reading

homepage news

D.C. man charged with 2020 anti-gay death threat rearrested

Defendant implicated in three anti-LGBTQ incidents since 2011



shooting, DC Eagle, assault, hate crime, anti-gay attack, police discrimination, sex police, Sisson, gay news, Washington Blade

A D.C. man arrested in August 2020 for allegedly threatening to kill a gay man outside the victim’s apartment in the city’s Adams Morgan neighborhood and who was released while awaiting trial was arrested again two weeks ago for allegedly threatening to kill another man in an unrelated incident.

D.C. Superior Court records show that Jalal Malki, who was 37 at the time of his 2020 arrest on a charge of bias-related attempts to do bodily harm against the gay man, was charged on May 4, 2021 with unlawful entry, simple assault, threats to kidnap and injure a person, and attempted possession of a prohibited weapon against the owner of a vacant house at 4412 Georgia Ave., N.W.

Court charging documents state that Malki was allegedly staying at the house without permission as a squatter. An arrest affidavit filed in court by D.C. police says Malki allegedly threatened to kill the man who owns the house shortly after the man arrived at the house while Malki was inside.

According to the affidavit, Malki walked up to the owner of the house while the owner was sitting in his car after having called police and told him, “If you come back here, I’m going to kill you.” While making that threat Malki displayed what appeared to be a gun in his waistband, but which was later found to be a toy gun, the affidavit says.

Malki then walked back inside the house minutes before police arrived and arrested him. Court records show that similar to the court proceedings following his 2020 arrest for threatening the gay man, a judge in the latest case ordered Malki released while awaiting trial. In both cases, the judge ordered him to stay away from the two men he allegedly threatened to kill.

An arrest affidavit filed by D.C. police in the 2020 case states that Malki allegedly made the threats inside an apartment building where the victim lived on the 2300 block of Champlain Street, N.W. It says Malki was living in a nearby building but often visited the building where the victim lived.

“Victim 1 continued to state during an interview that it was not the first time that Defendant 1 had made threats to him, but this time Defendant 1 stated that if he caught him outside, he would ‘fucking kill him.’” the affidavit says. It quotes the victim as saying during this time Malki repeatedly called the victim a “fucking faggot.”

The affidavit, prepared by the arresting officers, says that after the officers arrested Malki and were leading him to a police transport vehicle to be booked for the arrest, he expressed an “excited utterance” that he was “in disbelief that officers sided with the ‘fucking faggot.’”

Court records show that Malki is scheduled to appear in court on June 4 for a status hearing for both the 2020 arrest and the arrest two weeks ago for allegedly threatening to kill the owner of the house in which police say he was illegally squatting.

Superior Court records show that Malki had been arrested three times between 2011 and 2015 in cases unrelated to the 2021 and 2020 cases for allegedly also making threats of violence against people. Two of the cases appear to be LGBTQ related, but prosecutors with the U.S. Attorney’s Office did not list the cases as hate crimes.

In the first of the three cases, filed in July 2011, Malki allegedly shoved a man inside Dupont Circle and threatened to kill him after asking the man why he was wearing a purple shirt.

“Victim 1 believes the assault occurred because Suspect 1 believes Victim 1 is a homosexual,” the police arrest affidavit says.

Court records show prosecutors charged Malki with simple assault and threats to do bodily harm in the case. But the court records show that on Sept. 13, 2011, D.C. Superior Court Judge Stephen F. Eilperin found Malki not guilty on both charges following a non-jury trial.

The online court records do not state why the judge rendered a not guilty verdict. With the courthouse currently closed to the public and the press due to COVID-related restrictions, the Washington Blade couldn’t immediately obtain the records to determine the judge’s reason for the verdict.

In the second case, court records show Malki was arrested by D.C. police outside the Townhouse Tavern bar and restaurant at 1637 R St., N.W. on Nov. 7, 2012 for allegedly threatening one or more people with a knife after employees ordered Malki to leave the establishment for “disorderly behavior.”

At the time, the Townhouse Tavern was located next door to the gay nightclub Cobalt, which before going out of business two years ago, was located at the corner of 17th and R Streets, N.W.

The police arrest affidavit in the case says Malki allegedly pointed a knife in a threatening way at two of the tavern’s employees who blocked his path when he attempted to re-enter the tavern. The affidavit says he was initially charged by D.C. police with assault with a dangerous weapon – knife. Court records, however, show that prosecutors with the U.S. Attorney’s Office lowered the charges to two counts of simple assault. The records show that on Jan. 15, 2013, Malki pleaded guilty to the two charges as part of a plea bargain arrangement.

The records show that Judge Marissa Demeo on that same day issued a sentence of 30 days for each of the two charges but suspended all 30 days for both counts. She then sentenced Malki to one year of supervised probation for both charges and ordered that he undergo alcohol and drug testing and undergo treatment if appropriate.

In the third case prior to the 2020 and 2021 cases, court records show Malki was arrested outside the Cobalt gay nightclub on March 14, 2015 on multiple counts of simple assault, attempted assault with a dangerous weapon – knife, possession of a prohibited weapon – knife, and unlawful entry.

The arrest affidavit says an altercation started on the sidewalk outside the bar when for unknown reasons, Malki grabbed a female customer who was outside smoking and attempted to pull her toward him. When her female friend came to her aid, Malki allegedly got “aggressive” by threatening the woman and “removed what appeared to be a knife from an unknown location” and pointed it at the woman’s friend in a threatening way, the affidavit says.

It says a Cobalt employee minutes later ordered Malki to leave the area and he appeared to do so. But others noticed that he walked toward another entrance door to Cobalt and attempted to enter the establishment knowing he had been ordered not to return because of previous problems with his behavior, the affidavit says. When he attempted to push away another employee to force his way into Cobalt, Malki fell to the ground during a scuffle and other employees held him on the ground while someone else called D.C. police.

Court records show that similar to all of Malki’s arrests, a judge released him while awaiting trial and ordered him to stay away from Cobalt and all of those he was charged with threatening and assaulting.

The records show that on Sept. 18, 2015, Malki agreed to a plea bargain offer by prosecutors in which all except two of the charges – attempted possession of a prohibited weapon and simple assault – were dropped. Judge Alfred S. Irving Jr. on Oct. 2, 2015 sentenced Malki to 60 days of incarnation for each of the two charges but suspended all but five days, which he allowed Malki to serve on weekends, the court records show.

The judge ordered that the two five-day jail terms could be served concurrently, meaning just five days total would be served, according to court records. The records also show that Judge Irving sentenced Malki to one year of supervised probation for each of the two counts and ordered that he enter an alcohol treatment program and stay away from Cobalt.

Continue Reading

Follow Us @washblade

Sign Up for Blade eBlasts