Legislative forum Q&A gets answers on SWAT, trial boards, profiling, immigration enforcement, surveillance

A legislative forum hosted by Progressive Neighbors last Sunday, January 8, at Silver Spring Civic Center yielded insights into state and county civil rights and civil liberties issues during audience questions.

SWAT reporting, civilian trial board participation
Thomas Nephew (MCCRC) directed his question to Senator Will Smith, asking about (1) his thinking on reintroducing a SWAT team reporting bill Smith introduced as a delegate last year, and (2) whether the Senator was open to pursuing “Section 1”, legislatively created trial boards with voting civilian participation, via a Montgomery County Maryland delegation vote.

Senator Smith explained (1:23) that after passing the house his bill last year stalled in the Senate, in the very Judicial Proceedings Committee he’s joined this year.   Motivated in part by the apparent disproportionate deployment or SWAT team deployments in communities of color, the bill would have required police departments to report data about warrant, outcomes, and other data for each deployment.  Pointing to Delegate Moon, Smith said, “… we’ll be talking about stuff we’ll be working together on, maybe this is something he’ll be interested in.”   He added, “I’m going to work as hard as I can on the Senate side, but it came out of the House last time.” 

Regarding civilian trial board participation (2:58), Senator Smith called it a “critical piece of police reform.  […] The major point of contention wasn’t along party lines, it was really along whether you would open up something that had been collectively bargained for  … in the (what I view as) superseding interest of public safety, meaning that you’d have more civilians part of a review process when police officers get into some sort of trouble.”  But while civilians were added, “it isn’t enough, and we haven’t added enough civilians, and it isn’t strong enough.”  Smith concluded, “To answer your question very succinctly, yes, I would support that, I’m sure most of us from Montgomery County would support that, but that’s a delicate balance, it’s not along partisan… lines, you’ve got labor and folks that are interested in police reform on opposite sides here.  I think there’s a middle ground but I do think this piece, civilian review, is critical and something I’m looking forward to support.”

Profiling, immigrant enforcement, surveillance
A second questioner wanted to know what actions we might be “…taking affirmatively at the state level to ensure that over the next four years the Muslim American community are being guaranteed their civil liberties and civil rights, not just from things like hate crimes… but also government actions…  from surveillance… from registries, from deportation….  I know a lot of this stuff happens at the federal level, but if there are actions that can be taken at the state level to affirmatively declare that the state of Maryland will not cooperate with these efforts, I would like to hear what your ideas are and what your plans are.”

Continue reading

Posted in Post | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Jeff Sessions Would Be a Disastrous Attorney General

Jeff Sessions smirking

Photo Courtesy Gage Skidmore

MCCRC joins with a broad coalition of civil rights and civil liberties organizations in opposing the nomination of Jeff Sessions to be Attorney General. As AG, he will be our nation’s top law enforcement official responsible for protecting the Constitutional rights of every person in the US. But he has spent his career undermining the rights of people of color, women, LGBTQ people, immigrants, religious minorities, and people with disabilities. And he’s no friend of civil liberties either.

Please contact Senators Cardin and Van Hollen and tell them to staunchly oppose the nomination of Jeff Sessions to be Attorney General.

It’s essential that even Senators whom we believe will vote against this nominee hear from their constituents, so please call this toll free number: 877-959-6082

The above phone number is sponsored by the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, and will ask for your zip code, you will be connected with your Senator’s office. You can simply tell the person who answers that you are constituent and you want your Senator to oppose the nomination of Jeff Sessions to be Attorney General.

Senator Sessions’ record on civil rights and civil liberties is deplorable. Here are just a few examples:

Surveillance: Sessions has been a leading proponent of expanding the government’s surveillance of ordinary Americans at the expense civil rights and civil liberties. He has defended the USA PATRIOT Act, calling it a “restrained piece of legislation,” and recently voted to expand it to grant the FBI even more power to access our personal information without a warrant. He has spent his 20-year career in the Senate arguing for broad, often unchecked surveillance powers in intelligence investigations, even though those investigations pose unnecessarily invasive risks to privacy. 

Torture: Sessions has consistently failed to oppose torture. He was one of only nine members of the US Senate to vote against a 2005 amendment barring cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment of detainees in US custody. In 2015, Sessions again voted against torture prohibitions when he voted against holding the FBI and the CIA to the same standards of interrogation laid out in the US Army Field Manual (which forbids torture).

Criminal Justice: Sessions continues to embrace a number of antiquated views about criminal justice, and is a vociferous opponent of any criminal justice reform. He loves the death penalty, has voted against reducing the sentences of nonviolent drug offenders, and has continued to support civil asset forfeiture. He is also tight with the private prison industry.

Immigration: Sessions is right in line with Donald Trump on securing the borders, banning Muslims, and keeping Syrian refugees (especially Muslim ones) out of the United States.

Voting Rights:  He called called the Voting Rights Act “intrusive” for seeking to protect eligible minority voters.

Please make two phone calls today, to Senators Cardin and Van Hollen to tell them to oppose Sessions.

Call 877-959-6082

Sources and further reading:

Continue reading

Posted in Post | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

Police reform fight moves to counties – including ours

Montgomery County Council Building

Montgomery County Council Building

Police reform will be on the local civil rights agenda again this year — but unlike the past two years, the action will be moving from Annapolis to county seats such as Rockville.  That’s because of the passage of a state police reform bill last spring that made some civilian review of police misconduct a possibility – but by no means a foregone conclusion.

The Maryland 2016 legislative session last spring was dominated by police reform, with the Freddie Gray uprising in Baltimore in April 2015 lending urgency to the effort.  Democratic leadership submitted the recommendations of the so-called Maryland Public Safety and Policing Workgroup as the broad but flawed bill numbered HB1016 that police reform advocates in the Maryland Coalition for Justice and Police Accountability* had to work hard to improve.  Thanks in part to MCJPA advocacy — and flaws so obvious even police chiefs and sheriffs had to acknowledge them — a controversial “Recommendation #23” guaranteeing police unions undue influence over administrative trial boards was stripped from the bill, despite last-minute resistance by anti-police reform Democrats like House Judiciary Committee Chairman Joseph Vallario and Delegate Kathleen Dumais.

MCJPA call for civilian voting members on police trial boards

MCJPA call for civilian voting members on police trial boards

The momentum then shifted to including civilians on these trial boards.  Trial boards are the most significant way most police misconduct is likely to be penalized, since criminal convictions are exceedingly rare (as the failure to convict any police of wrongdoing in the Freddie Gray’s death showed).  But trial boards, too, all too rarely hand out significant penalties** — no surprise given they’ve only been composed of police until now.  Meaningful, voting civilian participation is crucial.

The final version of the bill passed last spring was a mixed bag in this respect:

  1. [Good:] Trial board hearings must be open to the public (unless witness or undercover agent safety is at stake).
  2. [Good]: Local jurisdictions are authorized to appoint 2 voting or non-voting civilians to “section 1” trial boards.
  3. [Bad:] But the reform law also provides for an alternative (“section 5”) trial board, developed under the collective bargaining process with the police union, in which trial board members would be appointed by the police chief — and might include no voting civilians at all.  Police union members facing a trial board could choose their preferred kind of board.***

The final two points obviously pose both challenges and opportunities for local civil rights advocates.  Authorizing the possibility of civilian review  was one of many major wins**** in HB1016 for police reform advocates in Maryland — thanks to the long, uphill battle waged by determined activists such as bereaved mother Marion Gray-Hopkins, organizers such as MCJPA’s Larry Stafford and Leaders of a Beautiful Struggle’s Dayvon Love, and lawyers such as the ACLU’s Sara Love and David Rocah.

But to profit from that win in Annapolis, it must be implemented county by county, with county legislation authorizing civilian participation in “section 1” trial boards.

It’s our job to demand that happens in Rockville.  Even when we succeed, citizens will have to remain vigilant to prevent a much weaker “section 5” trial board alternative from being negotiated during collective bargaining.  But first we have to get the strongest possible trial boards — ones with voting civilian participation — authorized by our county council.

* MCCRC is one member of the Maryland Coalition for Justice and Police Accountability; the coalition included 32BJ SEIU, 1199 SEIU, African American Democratic Club of Montgomery County, American Civil Liberties Union of Maryland, NAACP, Amnesty International USA, Hollaback! Baltimore, Beats, Rhymes, and Relief, Black Church Center for Justice and Equality, CASA, City Bloc, Color of Change, Communities United, Council on American Islamic Relations, Empowerment Temple, Freddie Gray Project, Jews United for Justice, Justice League, Leaders of a Beautiful Struggle, Making Change, Montgomery County Civil Rights Coalition, Montgomery County Young Democrats, Power Inside, Prince George’s People’s Coalition, Progressive Maryland, Showing Up for Racial Justice, Universal Zulu Nation, UUs for Liberation from Racism, and more.
** Data are hard to come by, but one study of 1995-1997 trial board results suggests only about 1 in 3 cases result in suspension or dismissal; see the first footnote to this MCCRC blog post.
*** 3-107.(c)(3)(II): “If authorized by local law, a hearing board formed under paragraph (1) of this subsection may include up to two voting or nonvoting members of the public who have received training administered by the Maryland Police Training and Standards Commission on the Law Enforcement Officers’ Bill of Rights and matters relating to police procedures…” The collective bargaining alternative is authorized in subsequent section (5) of 3-107.(c), using essentially identical language except that the police chief is the sole appointer of trial board members, including any civilian ones. While turning over all trial board appointments to the police chief is in itself less accountable than appointing some by the county, the main point is that no matter what the “local law section 1” trial board composition is, the all but certain “collective bargaining section 5” alternative negotiated by police unions could again feature only up to 2 (e.g., zero) voting or non-voting civilians.
**** The omnibus police reform bill had many other provisions to improve police-community relations and increase the odds of police accountability, including longer periods to file complaints, shorter periods for police to delay testimony, expanded data collection, transparent reporting of policies and collective bargaining agreements, and whistleblower protections.  A summary based on one shared by Kim Propeack (CASA) can be viewed here.

Posted in Post | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

Takoma Park Welcoming Committee explores local rental housing interest for refugees

Takoma Park Community Center

Takoma Park Community Center

The “Takoma Park Welcoming Committee” is a volunteer-led response to a Takoma Park city council resolution endorsing refugee settlement in November 2015.  It has been meeting monthly at the Takoma Park Community Center to explore ways to assist resettlement of refugees to the Takoma Park area.

In a message co-signed by Councilman Terry Seamens and committee member Shruti Bhatnagar, the group is now calling for interested individuals in Takoma Park to let the committee know they’re interested in housing Syrian refugees as tenants:

“Takoma Park welcoming committee for Syrian families” has been actively working since November 2015 to support resettlement of Syrian families in Takoma Park. We are working with resettlement agencies to meet this goal. Our top priority is to identify safe and affordable homes for new families in our wonderful neighborhood of Takoma Park.

If you are a home owner and interested in supporting this effort by offering your home / part of your home as a rental property, please review the federal requirements listed below to ensure that it meets the required criteria so housing is safe, sanitary and in good repair.

The full text of the flyer is embedded below, or can be downloaded here. As indicated in the flyer, if you live in Takoma Park and are interested, contact Councilman Seamens or Ms. Bhatnagar at TerryS@takomaparkmd.gov and Shruti_bhatnagar@yahoo.com, respectively.

We at MCCRC are proud to continue to help with this grassroots effort to ensure that refugees are welcome in Takoma Park and the county.

Posted in Post | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

[UPDATED: NSEERS is dead!] Report your phone calls to Congress about ending NSEERS here

U.S. Capitol[UPDATE, 12/22/16: CNN reports “Obama administration ending program once used to track mostly Arab and Muslim men: “President Barack Obama’s administration said Thursday it was ending a dormant program that once was used to track mostly Arab and Muslim men.”The Department of Homeland Security is removing outdated regulations pertaining to the National Security Entry-Exit Registration Systems (NSEERS) program, with an immediate effective date,” said Neema Hakim, a department spokesman.”]

On Saturday, speakers at the “Registries revived?” forum asked the audience to contact their Members of Congress to directly ask President Obama to end the NSEERS program.  You can read more about that forum here.

It’s helpful to collect information people gather during these phone calls; if you’re willing to share who you called and what you learned, please use the form embedded below.


A shortened link for the form itself is http://tinyurl.com/hjdtwst

Posted in Post | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Muslim registry teach-in advises calling Congressmembers *now*

On Saturday afternoon of December 17, over a hundred audience members attended an informative forum at St. Stephen and the Incarnation Church titled “Registration Revived? A Teach-In on Resisting Muslim Registries.” Speakers at the event — organized by the Muslim American Women’s Policy Forum (MAWPF) — included Deepa Iyer and Dr. Maha Hilal.

Speaker Deepa Iyer is introduced by Muslim Women's Policy Council spokeswoman X.

Speaker Deepa Iyer is introduced by MAWPF spokeswoman Ramah Kudaimi.

Deepa Iyer, an author and former executive director of South Asian Americans Leading Together (SAALT), led with remarks placing the current situation in its full post 9/11 context.  In 2003, Bush Justice Department appointee Kris Kobach devised NSEERS (National Security Entry-Exit Registration System) to compel male immigrants over the age of 16 who were from Muslim-majority countries (from Iraq to Saudi Arabia and from Afghanistan to Bangladesh) to appear for registration at immigration facilities in their region.

Ms. Iyer recommended and played an excerpt from “Whose Children Are These?“, a 2004 documentary about three young people affected by a program that registered 83,000 residents — and deported 13,000, none for terror-related acts or conspiracies.  Though bitterly opposed by American Muslim and civil rights activists, it took until 2011 to end registries under the program — but only by the ruse of whittling the list of countries of origin ‘qualifying’ for registry down to zero. NSEERS wasn’t so much dead as undead, ready to rise from its administrative grave when a different president came along — complete with documents ready to be dusted off.

And so here we are.  As the next speaker, Dr. Maha Hilal — executive director, National Coalition to Protect Civil Freedoms (NCPCF) — pointed out, there are direct connections between a government’s willingness to model racial and ethnic profiling of this kind on a mass scale, and a culture’s willingness to tolerate and embrace it on the personal level — ranging from indifference to acts of hate and bias, to applause for them or worse.  The theory — from federal offices to the street — becomes that Muslims are inherently predisposed to acts of violence, and should be treated with suspicion and hostility as a group.

Both speakers as well as local activists Noor Mir and Darakshan Raja urged the audience to help resist the revival of NSEERS in one or more of the following ways:

  • Call your Members of Congress and tell them to call the White House with the message that President Obama must dismantle NSEERS while there’s still time. Call…
    1. Congressman and Senator-elect Chris Van Hollen: (301) 424-3501; (202) 225-5341
    2. Congressman John Delaney: (301) 926-0300; (202) 225-2721
    3. Congressman John Sarbanes: (301) 421-4078; (202) 225-4016
    4. Congressman-elect Jamie Raskin: (301) 642-0668 (campaign office)
    5. Senator Ben Cardin: (301) 762-2974; (202) 224-4524
    6. Senator Barbara Mikulski: (410) 962-4510; (202) 224-4654
      (Report how each conversation went here.)
  • Educate others about the issue. Articles explaining NSEERS and how to stop its revival are linked throughout this blog post.
  • Prepare to shift the narrative if a terror attack implicates some Muslims.
  • Advocate briefings of local city and county councils on programs like NSEERS and “CVE” (countering violent extremism) programs that stigmatize Muslims.
  • Organize your professional community, especially lawyers and policy makers.
  • American Muslims should be ready to bring discussions to their friends, mosques, and communities.

Resources (compiled by MCCRC; input welcome):

Posted in Post, Video | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

Bystander Intervention Workshop equips participants to help targets of bullying, bias

ACLU Montgomery County's Darian Unger makes some introductory remarks.

ACLU Montgomery County’s Darian Unger greets participants.

What do you do when you see someone being hassled or worse because of their identity or views?

On Thursday evening, December 15, an audience of about eighty people attended a workshop led by MCCRC activist Kit Bonson at the Silver Spring Civic Center to find answers to that question together.  Among the takeaways:

  • focus on the target, not the harasser; de-escalate, don’t exacerbate
  • learn what the target wants: “how can I help?”
  • activating your smartphone camera is as simple as “double-clicking” the phone’s start button, for Androids, or “on + swipe left,” for iPhones.  (Kids may know this by heart, but a lot of parents don’t. 🙂 )

After explaining some of the concepts of nonviolence and intervention, the workshop broke up into groups of ten, where participants and facilitators acted out scenarios as “target,” “harasser/bully,” and “intervening bystander.”

Some of the scenarios participants worked through included a woman with a hijab being harassed on public transportation, a trans person being hassled on the way to the restroom, and a Latino store clerk being berated by a customer.  We learned to ignore or distract attackers, to recruit others as appropriate, and to check with the target to find out how (or whether) to help.  A “Know Your Rights” brochure from the Montgomery County Hate Violence Committee, detailing options for hate crime victims, was also distributed.

Materials from the workshop itself will be made available at a later date.  If you’re interested in hosting or participating in a workshop like this one, let us know using this workshop interest form

Nik Sushka checks in a participant. Name tags were color coded so groups of 10 could form up easily.

Nik Sushka checks in a participant. Name tags were color coded so groups of 10 could form up easily.

We thank our co-sponsors, particularly County Councilman Tom Hucker, and ACLU of Montgomery County who arranged the room, as well as Peace Action Montgomery, Jewish Voice for Peace-DC Metro, Progressive Democrats of Montgomery County, Peace Committee of Sandy Springs Friends Meeting, and Just Peace Circles, Inc.


Posted in Event, Post | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Local gang victim seeks help from PGPD – instead betrayed to ICE

On the evening of Sunday, December 4, a large “Takoma Park Mobilization”* assembly at Piney Branch Elementary School heard a moving request by resident Gabrielle Tayac on behalf of “Antonio” (not his actual name).  The undocumented 18 year old Honduran had fled a childhood pressed into service of gangs in 2014, made a home in Fort Washington, and had come to be part of her family and Piscataway tribe.

Unfortunately, Antonio got into a fight resulting in charges, a guilty plea, and then — unbeknownst to him — a deportation order marking him as a gang member.  Meanwhile, feeling menaced by *real* gang members in the area, Antonio sought guidance and protection from police.

What he got instead, on October 24, 2016, was a betrayal.  Ms. Tayac:

…around mid-October he had started to be feeling some threats, and he was told to make a report to the police who had interviewed him … he …and this advocate asked to me to have this meeting in my home, because there was a promise that he would be helped, that the report would be credible.  He told them what had happened, and they said, ‘yeah we can help you, you just need to come to Hyattsville and file a report.’

He went to Hyattsville, got to the police station, and they arrested him under the deportation law.  He is right now, he is in ICE detention in Worcester, Maryland.

[…] He was fleeing extremely brutal violence and abuse from gangs in Honduras.   The story that this boy has is almost unspeakable.  […] If he’s deported, he’s going to die.

As a petition on Antonio’s behalf by NDLON (National Day Laborer Organizing Network) puts it:

ICE is now claiming that Antonio is a deportation priority due to gang ties, when he has actually been actively trying to flee the gangs that run much of Honduras. “Antonio is doing everything right, and it seems like ICE is trying to undo that and put him in harms way!” says his friend Andrea.

When a young man turning his life around with art and deepening ties to friends and new family is imprisoned, and faced with deportation that is tantamount to a death sentence, it’s a human tragedy.

But the case illustrates even more than that. For one, it’s abysmally short sighted policing.  If fighting gangs with roots abroad is a priority, one thing *not* to do is help them out by delivering those who got away back into their clutches.  And if protecting and serving the community is a priority, another thing *not* to do is to abuse the trust of that community.

It also illustrates how limited the scope of city and county immigration and sanctuary policies can be.  In 2014, Prince George’s County was — rightly — praised by CASA de Maryland and the ACLU for to its decision not to hold jailed, undocumented immigrants beyond their scheduled release at federal request unless there was probable cause of another crime.  Yet observe how little good that did Antonio, or how little it seemed to change the policies on the ground of that county’s police — judging by the low cunning of the tawdry scheme described by Ms. Tayac.

We advocate strong, binding language by county government that would prevent our own police from ever betraying a young man the way the PG police department did.  A model ordinance developed by the Bill of Rights Defense Committee/Defending Dissent Foundation — the Model Ordinance to Protect Against Discriminatory Profiling and Limit Surveillance, Intelligence Collection, and Immigration Enforcement Activitieshas a Limits on Local Immigration Enforcement Activities section that leads with the simple declarative sentence:

A. Local law enforcement agencies shall not participate in activities related to enforcing federal immigration laws.

It goes on to specify:

1. Local immigration enforcement. Local law enforcement agencies shall not engage in agreements with Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) components, including Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”), to facilitate the enforcement of federal immigration law. Programs for which such engagement is prohibited include, but are not limited to: agreements under section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act; the Criminal Alien Program; and Next Generation Identification.

2. Detainers. Facilities under the jurisdiction of this body shall not be used to detain persons held for suspected immigration violations. Law enforcement agents shall not make arrests or detain persons based on administrative warrants or requests by federal agencies for removal, including those generated by the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE) or the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) database. Local officials shall not hold persons based on detainers requested by ICE.

3. Sharing Arrest Data. Local law enforcement agencies shall not share arrest data (including but not limited to fingerprints) with state or federal counterparts, including the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI), unless it relates to suspected violent felonies. Data pertaining to persons suspected of misdemeanors or nonviolent felonies shall not be shared with other law enforcement agencies absent an express duty under federal or state law.

Antonio would have been safer in a city or county where this law was on the books.  Just as much to the point, so would the rest of us.  When a young man goes to the police for help and safety, and is delivered into danger instead, trust in law enforcement is weakened, and gangs are strengthened.  That’s not the kind of city or county anyone needs.  We can and should do better.

* The “Takoma Park Mobilization” is a remarkable and evolving grassroots effort you can learn more about here.

Posted in Post | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Letter to the editor on sanctuary policy

On December 2, Emily Townsend, Jeremiah Nisbet, and Thomas Nephew drafted and sent the following letter to the Washington Post.  We haven’t heard back from them, and have decided to publish it here:

To the Editors,
The November 30th editorial, “Trump pledged to ‘end’ sanctuary cities. Common sense, not threats, should guide him”, suggested that local sanctuary policies expose communities to risks from dangerous criminals, and that local governments should resign themselves to cooperating with “reasonable” federal guidelines weakening sanctuary policies. 

We disagree, and believe that decisions about local law enforcement priorities are best left to local governments to decide.  Sanctuaries do far more to enhance safety and security than harm it, because they encourage an otherwise isolated community to talk with police rather than hide from them. City and county councils and the police departments they oversee are fully capable of balancing the great benefits of sanctuary against the risks.

Indeed, we think our own community in Montgomery County would benefit from strong ordinances guaranteeing the separation of local law enforcement from the unrelated realm of immigration law.  A model ordinance developed by the Bill of Rights Defense Committee/Defending Dissent Foundation proposes an end to local-federal immigration agreements such as 287gs, an end to the use of county jails as de facto immigration detention facilities, and an end to sharing data about local undocumented detainees unless related to suspected violent felonies.  We urge everyone to look at this ordinance at www.bordc.org and see if it is a good fit for their locality.

Its our right to make these decisions for ourselves.  We know our communities, we know what works, and we know what will keep us safer.  Let our sanctuary communities thrive in peace.

Thomas Nephew, Emily Townsend, Jeremiah Nisbet
(first two links added)

We drafted and sent this letter during an initial meeting of the “Civil Liberties/Civil Rights Committee of the “Takoma Park Mobilization.” (We didn’t say that in the letter, since we can’t speak for the whole group.)

Immigration Enforcement and Sanctuary Cities. Graphic by Catholic Legal Immigration Network, https://cliniclegal.org/programs/advocacy

Immigration Enforcement and Sanctuary Cities. Graphic by Catholic Legal Immigration Network, https://cliniclegal.org/programs/advocacy

The “mobilization” is a remarkable grass roots Takoma Park uprising — a recent meeting at Piney Branch ES had at least 300 in attendance.  Initiated by Nadine Bloch, Seth Grimes, and Jen Wofford, the mobilization aims to organize grass roots resistance to the Trump agenda in all its forms, whether the environment, health care, women’s rights, or other issues — like civil liberties, civil rights, or immigration policy — are at stake.  To learn more about “Takoma Park Mobilization“:

Posted in Post | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

MCCRC proposes model county ordinances defending *everyone’s* rights and civil liberties

Across Morental-ordinance-292x300ntgomery County, people are ready to challenge President-elect Trump’s worst proposals that target our most vulnerable neighbors. Montgomery County is a “sanctuary” county, which means our county police will play no role in enforcing federal immigration law, and that is significant. But the county can go much further than that, and pass local ordinances to prohibit or limit law enforcement engagement in:

  • discriminatory profiling
  • intelligence-sharing with federal authorities
  • undercover infiltration of activist groups and religious institutions
  • cooperation with military personnel
  • over-policing or restricting protests
  • prying into social media accounts

MCCRC will work with allies in the county to customize the model legislative proposals below, drafted by the Bill of Rights Defense Committee/Defending Dissent Foundation. For annotated, linkable views of each ordinance and its sections, visit either of our web site pages:

Posted in Post | Tagged , | 1 Comment