PRUDEN: Into the twilight zone

Yesterday, I decided to call Rep. John Garamendi’s (CA-10) office in Washington, D.C. He’s my representative and I wanted to voice my opposition to the Senate Health Care Bill. I spoke with a female staffer and politely told her that, while I support health care reform, I oppose the Senate Bill because it wasn’t true “reform.” She said the Congressman thinks it’s a good bill and that he campaigned on health care reform. I told her I knew that. I also mentioned that I voted for him. When I tried to give her specific reasons why the Senate Bill would harm our system rather than reform it, she refused to listen. She said she was very busy and hung up on me. Being the persistent person that I am, I kept calling back. Each time I tried to finish my point, she hung up.

I called one more time. This time she said, “If you call one more time, we will notify Capital Police.” I asked why my conduct warranted involving federal law enforcement agents. She said I was “harassing” her. I tried to explain that trying to convince a representative to change his or her vote didn’t constitute “harassment.” Before I could fully explain, she hung up again.

I called back. This time, I asked to speak to her supervisor in order to report her repeated hanging up as well as the threat she made. I was placed on hold. Thinking I was holding for her supervisor, I was shocked when a Federal Agent with the Capital Police picked-up the telephone.

At first, the Agent was curt with me. He claimed I was harassing Mr. Garamendi’s staff by continually calling after being told to stop calling. I asked him when it became a federal crime to lobby a congressman. He said that it wasn’t but it was a crime to “harass” congressional members and staff pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 223. I told him I was an attorney (which I am) and that I would research the statute he had cited.

After researching 47 U.S.C. 223, I called Mr. Garamendi’s office again and asked to be transferred back to the Capital Police Agent. The Agent picked up the phone and I explained to him that the statute he cited was not controlling since it only prohibits people from calling with the specific intent to harass. I further explained that I was simply trying to voice my concerns with the intent of getting Mr. Garamendi to change his mind, not to harass his staff. The Agent eventually agreed with my position and said he would call Mr. Garamendi’s office and instruct his staff that I was within my rights to call my congressman and voice my concerns.

After I hung up, I realized that this story should be told. Besides being an attorney, I’ve also had the privilege of serving this great country in the United States Marine Corps. Having seen the ugly legislative process the Senate Bill had been through, I saw this as not just another tactic to pass the Senate Bill at all costs, but also as an affront to our liberties.

While I’m fortunate enough to be able to legally challenge what happened today, others aren’t. The sad part is the democrats know this. They know that Americans unfamiliar with federal jurisprudence can easily be silenced when threats to involve federal agents are made. They know that most Americans don’t want trouble and they’ll go away rather than face the possibility of having to explain themselves to federal agents. That’s why I found this tactic appalling, as a Marine, as an attorney and as a proud American.

During my final contact with Mr. Garamendi’s staff, it was confirmed to me that he would vote for the Senate Bill no matter what. I was told that I was wasting my time by calling. Mr. Garamendi is a junior member of the House of Representatives. He was just elected via a special election last November. He has made it clear that he is willing to forsake his constituents in order to please the Speaker of the House.

Speaker Pelosi has said that she will stop at nothing to get the Senate Bill passed. She publicly stated that she would “pole vault over a wall” if barriers stood in her way. While that may be an amusing spectacle, it is indicative of what happened to me today. Apparently, threatening Americans with federal crimes to silence them is the latest tool in Speaker Pelosi’s dirty bag of tricks.

In the coming days, I’m sure more stories will develop illustrating the “win at all costs” tactics being employed by democrats. It’s these tactics that have appalled a majority of Americans to the point that the Senate Bill has overwhelmingly been rejected by the American people. When we try to explain that to Speaker Pelosi’s Caucus, we are threatened with criminal sanctions. We are told to shut up or face federal agents. Such treatment may be acceptable in the former Soviet Union, but it’s repulsive in the country I love and served. Is this hope and change?

Mail Online, Friday, March 19, 2010 By Rebecca Camber

Police officers have been banned from asking for 'Christian' names for fear of offending other religions.

Officers taking down a suspect's particulars must now refer to their 'personal' or 'family name' as the word 'Christian' could offend Muslims, Sikhs and other faiths, according to new diversity guidelines.

They state bobbies on the beat should refrain from using phrases such as 'my dear' or 'love', when addressing women for fear it may cause embarrassment or offence.

Well-meaning gestures like handshakes or putting a comforting arm around a victim or grieving family member are also prohibited as it could be deemed 'unprofessional'.

Police officers in Kent have been given strict guidelines on how to address members of the public, including a ban on saying 'my dear' or 'Evening all'

The handbook produced by Kent Police, which aims to 'promote clearer communication' and 'break down barriers' with diverse communities, advises officers to avoid language like 'Christian' name or surname.

They are also warned not to use terms like afternoon or evening as it could confuse people of 'different cultural backgrounds' about the time of day.

The 62-page 'Faith and Culture Resource' booklet produced by the force's diversity support group sets out customs and practices in a number of religions and beliefs including paganism and rastafarianism.

In it, officers are told to offer to remove their shoes on entering people's homes as some religions frown upon shoes being worn inside the home.

Other handy tips for police include wiping their feet to get rid of mud when entering a gypsy's trailer and not to put a cup of proffered tea on the floor as this could offend their standards of cleanliness.

The booklet also contains a section on appropriate terms to describe ethnic origin, suggesting 'mixed parentage' or 'mixed cultural heritage' should be used instead of 'mixed race'.

Staff are warned that when speaking to someone from Africa or Asia, they should refer to their specific country rather than the continent as a whole.

The rulebook has been described by Kent Police Federation secretary Peter Harman as a 'useful and educational reference guide to dealing with different communities'.

But it has angered some rank and file officers who say it is politically correct nonsense.

One officer said: 'Most of us are fully aware of how to treat people from different cultural backgrounds, but being told we can't even ask what their Christian name is just plain ridiculous.

'That is what we are brought up with - Christian name and surname - and to be honest if you had an officer ask for your personal name and family name it's just going to confuse people.

'It's just the latest in a long line of annoying PC-related nonsense that we keep getting shoved down our throats.'

It follows a raft of PC directives from other forces.

Legendary TV show Dixon of Dock Green, starring Jack Warner, made famous the phrase 'Evenin' all', which has now been banned from use

Last year officers in Warwickshire were told not to say 'Evenin' all' - a phrase made famous by classic police drama Dixon of Dock Green - because times of day could meant different things to various cultures.

Scotland Yard recently instructed officers not to use the phrase 'gang rape', because the term was considered too emotive.

Instead they were told to refer to the crime as 'multi-perpetrator rapes'.

A Freedom of Information request to police forces and fire services has also revealed that a number of organisations, including Essex Police and Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service, instruct staff to avoid the words 'child, youth or youngster'.

Addressing someone as a 'girl' or a 'boy' could have 'connotations of inexperience, impetuosity and unreliability, or even dishonesty', according to official guidance.

The same guide also warns against the phrases 'manning the phones', 'layman's terms' and 'the tax man', for 'making women invisible'.

Today, Marie Clair, of the Plain English Campaign, said: 'It's so sad that rather than using common sense, we are taking away all sense of respect from the way police deal with the public.

'If people can't be asked for their Christian name as a matter of common courtesy- something we all identify with- then where are we?

'This sort of politically correct nonsense helps no one.'

Kent Police defended the guidelines.

Assistant Chief Constable Gary Beautridge said: 'It is important that Kent Police recognises and values fundamental human rights and provides services that meet the changing and diverse needs of Kent's communities, visitors and our workforce.

'One of our core values is that we will treat everyone with fairness, respect and dignity.

'As such we need to ensure officers and staff have an understanding and awareness of some of the faiths and ethnicities found in Kent so that they can engage more sensitively with, and have more confidence in, the various cultural and faith backgrounds.

'In doing so it will help provide the most appropriate and professional services to those people.'