Aug 08, 2010
Just as civil rights groups rejoiced at the landmark Proposition 8
ruling in California, a more subdued legal advancement on the same
battlefront unfolded on the other side of the country. Two men
convicted of the 2008 beating death of an Ecuadorean immigrant were sentenced to more than 30 years in prison.
The bloody attack in Brooklyn was evidently driven by anti-Latino
and anti-gay rage. The two men spotted Jose Sucuzhanay and his brother
walking in an embrace after a night of drinking at a church party. They
represented two easy targets for brutality: Latino immigrants--lately
besieged by a wave of violence in the New York City area--and the LGBT
community--besieged by various right-wing assaults as they assert their
civil rights on the national stage.
The sensational story, as recounted in the Daily News,
displayed a twisted violent indulgence, girded by the irony that the
attacker was another person of color:
Phoenix, who is black, had shouted anti-Hispanic and gay
epithets at the 31-year-old victim before repeatedly whacking him over
the head with an aluminum baseball bat after Scott had jumped out of an
SUV and smashed him with a beer bottle.Sucuzhanay and his brother Romel were set upon as they boozily
walked, arm-in-arm, home from a church party.Phoenix was in such a frenzy he appeared to convulse as he
struck the defenseless victim with a bat, witnesses said.After leaving him mortally injured in the gutter, a
surveillance image taken at a bridge toll booth showed him laughing
maniacally as the pair drove to the Bronx for a night of more partying
and skirt-chasing.
The attack touched two dimensions of the country's civil rights
crisis. In a sense, Sucuzhanay's murder represents the other end of the
spectrum of the "right to marry" debate--the core issue wasn't merely
access to a civic institution; it was the right not to be killed. Yet
his death under a hail of anti-gay and racial epithets underscores that
senseless brutality stems from the marginalization of any group,
whether based on ethnicity or sexual orientation. The troubled term "hate crime," unfortunately, oversimplifies the
psychological subtext. In the end, it's more about the attacker's sense
of supremacy, than about the identity of the victim.
In light of Sucuzhanay's tragedy, the struggle to give LGBT people
the right to a marriage certificate may seem more trivial. But Judge Walker's ruling speaks to a spectrum of
inequality that dehumanizes people on many levels, at the county
courthouse or on the street. If we fail to hold the line on one tip of
our framework of civil rights, such as the equal dignity of a couple's
union, then we erode the foundation of a more basic freedom: the right
to be safe at night--no matter where we are, where we're from, or whom
we choose to hold.
No one is coming to save us. Join with us.
The world is a pretty dark place right now. Economic inequality off the charts. The climate emergency. Supreme Court corruption in the U.S. and corporate capture worldwide. Democracy in many nations coming apart at the seams. Fascism threatens. It’s enough to make you wish for some powerful being to come along and save us. But the truth is this: no heroes are coming to save us. The only path to real and progressive change is when well-informed, well-intentioned people—fed up with being kicked around by the rich, the powerful, and the wicked—get organized and fight for the better world we all deserve. That’s why we created Common Dreams. We cover the issues that corporate media never will and lift up voices others would rather keep silent. But this people-powered media model can only survive with the support of readers like you. Can you join with us and donate right now to Common Dreams’ Mid-Year Campaign? |
© 2023 ColorLines
Michelle Chen
Michelle Chen is a contributing editor at In These Times. She is a regular contributor to the labor rights blog Working In These Times, Colorlines.com, and Pacifica's WBAI. Her work has also appeared in Common Dreams, Alternet, Ms. Magazine, Newsday, and her old zine, cain.
Just as civil rights groups rejoiced at the landmark Proposition 8
ruling in California, a more subdued legal advancement on the same
battlefront unfolded on the other side of the country. Two men
convicted of the 2008 beating death of an Ecuadorean immigrant were sentenced to more than 30 years in prison.
The bloody attack in Brooklyn was evidently driven by anti-Latino
and anti-gay rage. The two men spotted Jose Sucuzhanay and his brother
walking in an embrace after a night of drinking at a church party. They
represented two easy targets for brutality: Latino immigrants--lately
besieged by a wave of violence in the New York City area--and the LGBT
community--besieged by various right-wing assaults as they assert their
civil rights on the national stage.
The sensational story, as recounted in the Daily News,
displayed a twisted violent indulgence, girded by the irony that the
attacker was another person of color:
Phoenix, who is black, had shouted anti-Hispanic and gay
epithets at the 31-year-old victim before repeatedly whacking him over
the head with an aluminum baseball bat after Scott had jumped out of an
SUV and smashed him with a beer bottle.Sucuzhanay and his brother Romel were set upon as they boozily
walked, arm-in-arm, home from a church party.Phoenix was in such a frenzy he appeared to convulse as he
struck the defenseless victim with a bat, witnesses said.After leaving him mortally injured in the gutter, a
surveillance image taken at a bridge toll booth showed him laughing
maniacally as the pair drove to the Bronx for a night of more partying
and skirt-chasing.
The attack touched two dimensions of the country's civil rights
crisis. In a sense, Sucuzhanay's murder represents the other end of the
spectrum of the "right to marry" debate--the core issue wasn't merely
access to a civic institution; it was the right not to be killed. Yet
his death under a hail of anti-gay and racial epithets underscores that
senseless brutality stems from the marginalization of any group,
whether based on ethnicity or sexual orientation. The troubled term "hate crime," unfortunately, oversimplifies the
psychological subtext. In the end, it's more about the attacker's sense
of supremacy, than about the identity of the victim.
In light of Sucuzhanay's tragedy, the struggle to give LGBT people
the right to a marriage certificate may seem more trivial. But Judge Walker's ruling speaks to a spectrum of
inequality that dehumanizes people on many levels, at the county
courthouse or on the street. If we fail to hold the line on one tip of
our framework of civil rights, such as the equal dignity of a couple's
union, then we erode the foundation of a more basic freedom: the right
to be safe at night--no matter where we are, where we're from, or whom
we choose to hold.
Michelle Chen
Michelle Chen is a contributing editor at In These Times. She is a regular contributor to the labor rights blog Working In These Times, Colorlines.com, and Pacifica's WBAI. Her work has also appeared in Common Dreams, Alternet, Ms. Magazine, Newsday, and her old zine, cain.
Just as civil rights groups rejoiced at the landmark Proposition 8
ruling in California, a more subdued legal advancement on the same
battlefront unfolded on the other side of the country. Two men
convicted of the 2008 beating death of an Ecuadorean immigrant were sentenced to more than 30 years in prison.
The bloody attack in Brooklyn was evidently driven by anti-Latino
and anti-gay rage. The two men spotted Jose Sucuzhanay and his brother
walking in an embrace after a night of drinking at a church party. They
represented two easy targets for brutality: Latino immigrants--lately
besieged by a wave of violence in the New York City area--and the LGBT
community--besieged by various right-wing assaults as they assert their
civil rights on the national stage.
The sensational story, as recounted in the Daily News,
displayed a twisted violent indulgence, girded by the irony that the
attacker was another person of color:
Phoenix, who is black, had shouted anti-Hispanic and gay
epithets at the 31-year-old victim before repeatedly whacking him over
the head with an aluminum baseball bat after Scott had jumped out of an
SUV and smashed him with a beer bottle.Sucuzhanay and his brother Romel were set upon as they boozily
walked, arm-in-arm, home from a church party.Phoenix was in such a frenzy he appeared to convulse as he
struck the defenseless victim with a bat, witnesses said.After leaving him mortally injured in the gutter, a
surveillance image taken at a bridge toll booth showed him laughing
maniacally as the pair drove to the Bronx for a night of more partying
and skirt-chasing.
The attack touched two dimensions of the country's civil rights
crisis. In a sense, Sucuzhanay's murder represents the other end of the
spectrum of the "right to marry" debate--the core issue wasn't merely
access to a civic institution; it was the right not to be killed. Yet
his death under a hail of anti-gay and racial epithets underscores that
senseless brutality stems from the marginalization of any group,
whether based on ethnicity or sexual orientation. The troubled term "hate crime," unfortunately, oversimplifies the
psychological subtext. In the end, it's more about the attacker's sense
of supremacy, than about the identity of the victim.
In light of Sucuzhanay's tragedy, the struggle to give LGBT people
the right to a marriage certificate may seem more trivial. But Judge Walker's ruling speaks to a spectrum of
inequality that dehumanizes people on many levels, at the county
courthouse or on the street. If we fail to hold the line on one tip of
our framework of civil rights, such as the equal dignity of a couple's
union, then we erode the foundation of a more basic freedom: the right
to be safe at night--no matter where we are, where we're from, or whom
we choose to hold.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.