Black Representative Accosted by DC Police for Changing Hairstyle
Saturday April 1, 2006
Category: Law Enforcement, Crime, and Punishment | Race and Equal Opportunity
Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-GA) is not particularly beloved by the D.C. Capitol Police because of her refusal to wear her lapel pin, an act of civil disobedience that has led her to be detained by the Capitol Police five times since she first took office in 1993. Most members of Congress don't have to worry about wearing a lapel pin--and, in fact, many don't bother. But like two-thirds of Washington, D.C. residents, and unlike most members of Congress, Rep. McKinney is African-American. This means that if she doesn't wear a lapel pin, the Capitol Police are likely to mistake her for a member of the general D.C. population--something that she is apparently all too happy to see happen, as it highlights racial profiling on their part. To prevent these kinds of embarrassing incidents from occurring on a more regular basis, police were provided with a photograph of McKinney's face so that they might stand a better chance of recognizing her.
But McKinney committed a cardinal sin before entering the capitol building on Wednesday: She had her hair done. The new hairstyle confused officers who, noticing that she was also not wearing a lapel pin, forcefully restrained McKinney to prevent her from proceeding further. Unfortunately for McKinney, this time she reflexively bumped or struck an officer once while he was grabbing her--and is now being investigated on possible assault charges for the incident.
The Capitol Police aren't the only D.C. law enforcement officers who are apparently having some difficulty adapting to the concept of black legislators. In 1998, while on her way to a meeting with then-president Bill Clinton, McKinney was detained by his security detail while her white colleagues were allowed to proceed. She later received an apology for the incident.
McKinney's race is not the only factor that makes her an appealing political target. When she called for a full investigation into the 9/11 attacks in early 2002, critics falsely accused her of claiming that the attacks were part of a conspiracy orchestrated by Bush. Her Georgia district, which is moderate and more than 50 percent white, voted her out in the 9/11-focused 2002 elections. After being vindicated, she reclaimed her seat in November 2004.
Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-GA) is not particularly beloved by the D.C. Capitol Police because of her refusal to wear her lapel pin, an act of civil disobedience that has led her to be detained by the Capitol Police five times since she first took office in 1993. Most members of Congress don't have to worry about wearing a lapel pin--and, in fact, many don't bother. But like two-thirds of Washington, D.C. residents, and unlike most members of Congress, Rep. McKinney is African-American. This means that if she doesn't wear a lapel pin, the Capitol Police are likely to mistake her for a member of the general D.C. population--something that she is apparently all too happy to see happen, as it highlights racial profiling on their part. To prevent these kinds of embarrassing incidents from occurring on a more regular basis, police were provided with a photograph of McKinney's face so that they might stand a better chance of recognizing her.
But McKinney committed a cardinal sin before entering the capitol building on Wednesday: She had her hair done. The new hairstyle confused officers who, noticing that she was also not wearing a lapel pin, forcefully restrained McKinney to prevent her from proceeding further. Unfortunately for McKinney, this time she reflexively bumped or struck an officer once while he was grabbing her--and is now being investigated on possible assault charges for the incident.
The Capitol Police aren't the only D.C. law enforcement officers who are apparently having some difficulty adapting to the concept of black legislators. In 1998, while on her way to a meeting with then-president Bill Clinton, McKinney was detained by his security detail while her white colleagues were allowed to proceed. She later received an apology for the incident.
McKinney's race is not the only factor that makes her an appealing political target. When she called for a full investigation into the 9/11 attacks in early 2002, critics falsely accused her of claiming that the attacks were part of a conspiracy orchestrated by Bush. Her Georgia district, which is moderate and more than 50 percent white, voted her out in the 9/11-focused 2002 elections. After being vindicated, she reclaimed her seat in November 2004.
Comments
Your article is a BREATHTAKING snow job, from the headline to the last line. Don’t you owe people who even bother to look at your site the honesty of telling the truth? How can you begin to claim that you care about Civil Liberties when what you post in place of factual explanations is fatuous puff-pieces, heavy with the burden of egregious exaggerations and outright falsehoods?
She was not accosted for a hairstyle, except in National-Enquirer-Headline-Writer-land. Refusal to identify herself to the very people whose sole employment is to protect her does not constitute “civil disobedience”. The one constant thread connecting every definition of Civil Disobedience which I have ever read or heard of is that the practitioner intend to get caught and accepts whatever punishment may result. She obviously fails this test, and in the very first sentence your article fails an honesty check. Moving on to the second sentence, you conflate the lapel pin with a nametag. Most members of Congress don’t wear their nametags but they do wear their lapel pins. You finally let the other shoe drop on this halfway through the second paragraph; far enough that the connection is hard to see, and the truth effectively obscured. To say that you are lying requires only a trivial amount of interpretation, whereas to say that you are telling the truth requires a fantastic suspension of critical faculty.
You continue on this manner throughout the article, even finishing on an apallingly dishonest note: Rep. Cynthia McKinney was never “vindicated” of accusing President Bush of orchestrating the 9/11 attacks, and she only “reclaimed her seat” when it was vacated by the incumbent for a failed candidacy elsewhere.
I challenge you to respond to even the first of my arguments; I challenge you to back up your claim that her nametag and lapel pin lawlessness constitutes Civil Disobedience. And I expect you to do so fully versed in the finer points of Civil Liberties, rather than DNC talking points.
Haakon Dahl
revwatch.blogspot.com
Nice try. You wouldn’t know the truth if it jumped up and bit you on the ass
Haakon Dahl writes:
Your article is a BREATHTAKING snow job, from the headline to the last line. Don’t you owe people who even bother to look at your site the honesty of telling the truth? How can you begin to claim that you care about Civil Liberties when what you post in place of factual explanations is fatuous puff-pieces, heavy with the burden of egregious exaggerations and outright falsehoods?
Good morning to you, too!
The one constant thread connecting every definition of Civil Disobedience which I have ever read or heard of is that the practitioner intend to get caught and accepts whatever punishment may result.
If they’re forced to, yes. If they’re not forced to, no.
McKinney has been detained on five different occasions for refusing to wear a lapel pin. That indicates to me that this is a case of civil disobedience, not forgetfulness.
Moving on to the second sentence, you conflate the lapel pin with a nametag.
You know, you’re right about this part; my wording is unclear. I’ll correct the article to reflect this.
To say that you are lying requires only a trivial amount of interpretation, whereas to say that you are telling the truth requires a fantastic suspension of critical faculty.
I’ve read that sentence twice, and I still can’t tell whether it’s a criticism or a compliment.
You continue on this manner throughout the article, even finishing on an apallingly dishonest note: Rep. Cynthia McKinney was never “vindicated” of accusing President Bush of orchestrating the 9/11 attacks, and she only “reclaimed her seat” when it was vacated by the incumbent for a failed candidacy elsewhere.
So let me get this straight: You think she won her seat back in a majority-white Georgia district without being vindicated? Come on, chief, we both know that’s not how it works. If she said what she had been accused of saying, her political career would have been over in Georgia. Finished. Done.
I challenge you to respond to even the first of my arguments; I challenge you to back up your claim that her nametag and lapel pin lawlessness constitutes Civil Disobedience. And I expect you to do so fully versed in the finer points of Civil Liberties, rather than DNC talking points.
I’m not very well versed in DNC talking points, so I’m afraid I’m going to have to rely on you to tell me how much I do or don’t conform to them. But I make no apologies for being serious about the very real problem of racial profiling in this country.
Cheers,
TH
Good Morning to you as well! Let’s get right to it:
If they’re forced to, yes. If they’re not forced to, no. This makes no sense. You cannot claim any willingness when you are forced to do something. Willingniess to get caught and accept consequences is a hallmark of Civil Disobedience. If you disagree with this, then you are talking about something else and calling it Civil Disobedience. If you must be forced to do something, then you cannot say that you had any willingness. What you are talking about does not therefore meet the test for Civil Disobedience. It is merely a lawlessness of convenience, with a flimsy excuse tacked on after the fact.
McKinney has been detained on five different occasions for refusing to wear a lapel pin. That indicates to me that this is a case of civil disobedience, not forgetfulness.
So what? Many people have been arrested multiple times for repeat crimes. They are in JAIL. They are called repeat offenders. I never said she was forgetful. I said she was breaking the law.
I’ll correct the article to reflect this. Fair enough!
…criticism or a compliment… Most people consider lying less-than-praiseworthy.
If she said what she had been accused of saying…
Here is a selection from Rep. McKinney’s remarks on September 14, 2002, at the reception for the Congressional Black Caucus. If you can see the difference between Martin Luther King’s Civil Disobedience and the actions of, say, a guy who speeds through “opressive” red lights, then I submit that you can see the difference between actual questions and accusations couched as questions:
Cynthia McKinney: Goodbye to All That
“And after I’ve asked the tough questions, here’s what we now know:
* That President Bush was warned that terrorists were planning to hijack commercial aircraft and crash them into buildings in the US;
* That in the weeks prior to September 11, 24-hour fighter cover was placed over the President’s ranch in Crawford, Texas;
* That in the weeks prior to September 11, Attorney General Ashcroft stopped flying commercial aircraft and instead flew Government aircraft;
* That the US received numerous high level warnings from a wide range of foreign intelligence services warning of impending hijackings and terrorist attacks;
* That a number of FBI agents were pleading with their superiors to conduct intensive investigations into the suspicious activities of various men in US flight schools;
* That in the days prior to September 11, highly suspicious stock market activity in aviation and insurance stocks took place indicating that certain well-placed people had advance knowledge of the attacks.
And now this week we learn that the FBI had an informant living with two of the actual 9-1-1 hijackers. All of this has become public knowledge since I asked the simple question: What did the Bush Administration know and when did it know it.”
So on at least one instance, she really did “say what she had been accused of saying.”
I thank you for your response, and look forward to continuing this conversation. I’ll post it at my blog as well, but when I have more time. I would like you to consider this, however: If you are truly serious about the problem of racal profiling in ths country, you will not allow the issue to be kidnapped by the likes of Re. Cynthia McKinney as a weak sister for responsibility. She was wrong not to show ID, she was wrong to slug the cop, and she was wrong to desecrate the memories of those who have suffered and even died for non-violent resistance in order to, essentially, try to beat a ticket.
You Civil Liberties types should be throwing your shoes at the TV in disgust for what this miserable hate-monger is doing to you.
Haakon Dahl writes:
his makes no sense. You cannot claim any willingness when you are forced to do something. Willingniess to get caught and accept consequences is a hallmark of Civil Disobedience.
Willingness to get caught is part of it, but fighting the laws after you’re caught, petitioning for jury nullification, and so forth doesn’t alter the original act of civil disobedience. If it did, the history of the civil rights movement would look a lot different.
Civil disobedience is at its core a challenge: “Are you really going to do this?” If the answer is “no,” then the establishment blinked and the strategy worked.
So on at least one instance, she really did “say what she had been accused of saying.”
At no point did she say that the Bush administration ordered, or was complicit in, the 9/11 attacks. She was making a forceful case for further investigation, which did in fact eventually happen.
She was wrong not to show ID, she was wrong to slug the cop,
Actually, my understanding is that she swatted his most likely kevlar-protected chest with the back of the same hand she was carrying her cell phone in. Unless she’s a third-degree black belt, that really comes across as more of a reflexive act than a violent one.
and she was wrong to desecrate the memories of those who have suffered and even died for non-violent resistance in order to, essentially, try to beat a ticket.
The same could be said, and frequently is said, of virtually anyone who stands up to the police in similar cases. I can only admire the courage of people who are willing to face criminal charges to prove a point.
McKinney isn’t an idiot. She could have worn her lapel pin at any time if she wanted to. This was a calculated expose of racial profiling by the Capitol Police, and it did the job beautifully.
Cheers,
TH
Well, MR. H., we probably won’t see eye to eye, but thank you for responding; I appreciate you taking the time to argue with the rabble. Of course, you can’t argue the same post forever, so I will close with just one point:
If it is true that as you say, “This was a calculated expose of racial profiling…”, then why was the following quote her first statement, posted on her own website?
“I know that Capitol Hill Police are securing our safety, and I appreciate the work that they do. I have demonstrated my support for them in the past and I continue to support them now…”
These are not the words of a champion of civil liberties embarking upon the next phase of a campaign of Civil Disobedience. She was not challenging anything–she was trying to wriggle off the hook until smarter people suggested offense as the best defense.
Take Care,
Haakon B. Dahl
The Civil Disobedience angle is an ex post facto rationalization of lawlessness.
Was that a terrorist suicide vest the officer thought she was wearing, or is she gaining weight from christian leader donations?
Another mislead spoiled child taught that it is okay to misbehave because you are black.
Thank you rainbow coalition for the advertising that you so kindly twisted the arm of corporate America to support a minority group of black “religious” leaders that purport to represent a vast majority of well educated, well behaved black people who have willingly, lovingly, patriotically, spiritually, immersed themselves into the american society that cares not what their color is. I can only dislike the racist individuals of all colors that whine, whine, whine, they are uneducated, ineffectual intellectual wanabees.
Haakon,
Thanks for challenging me on this. I think you’ve just demonstrated a significant benefit of the Comments feature: It holds Guides accountable for their writing. In this case, I believe I’m right–but it’s nice to know I’ll need to be ready to make my case.
I suspect McKinney’s quote was her way of skirting the problem of attacking the Capitol Police as a whole, who for the most part do an amazing and largely thankless job. To highlight racial profiling is not to say that police officers, even the specific police officers who are guilty of the practice, are monsters. Racial profiling is easy to do. I’d go so far as to say that everyone, inevitably, ends up doing it in some way, at some time. But it still needs to be highlighted, and the only real way it can be is for well-known black folks to specifically make themselves vulnerable to it. That shocks the system. I’m not sure that many people realy care about racial profiling in the abstract, but when it affects the life of a known person, it opens a lot of eyes.
Cheers,
TH