Suicide, San Francisco Homosexuals & Stephen Fry



The organizers from the Gay Men's Community Initiative who put on the May 29 forum on suicide in the San Francisco gay community videotaped the event and they've now posted it, so folks who want to watch and listen to what transpired can do so. My report and pix on the forum are here.

I've requested that the organizers also prepare a short report on the forum, key points made, lessons learned and any steps to be taken in the future to address the factors that lead gays to kill themselves. Such a report would be an excellent supplement to the terrific video.

Over at the Bay Area Reporter site, there's a short story by Seth Hemmelgarn that skims a few highlights of the forum. An excerpt:

At one point, [Veronika] Fimbres, 60, asked how many in the room had ever thought about suicide. Almost everyone raised their hand.

Lewis Nightingale, 63, talked about the challenges of aging with HIV, including financial concerns, with a lack of support. "This is not my beautiful life," he said.

Tell us about it Lewis! An impetus for the forum was the suicide of longtime Castro district resident Jonathan Klein, who owned the Now Voyager travel agency and has lived with AIDS for many years. He was facing eviction from his apartment and the sale of the building where his business was located, in addition to grappling with being over 50 and dealing with HIV.

The current paper edition of the Castro Courier contains a remembrance by George Woyames about Jonathan and his travel agency associate Peter Greene offered these honest thoughts in the aftermath of his friend's suicide and the larger Castro community issues:

"We are not just spaces, contracts, leases and commodities to be traded away in exchange for money. We have a history with the neighborhood. We're living and contributing human beings. Some people don't know the faces they're displacing [through gentrification] because their own faces are buried in their cell phones. Jonathan's death is a cautionary tale for gay people who are dependent on their good looks for social reasons. One must look below the skin and embrace people as they are, and not put so much emphasis on youth and beauty. There needs to be more expression for people at any age, for what they are at their core and Jonathan's heart was as beautiful as it gets."

Let's cross the pond and get up to speed with our honorary gay San Francisco resident actor and political advocate Stephen Fry, and his disclosure this week about a suicide attempt he made in 2012. Thankfully, he didn't succeed.



Here's the description of the clip from the Guardian:

Stephen Fry tells how he attempted to kill himself last year, and was found unconscious in a hotel room by his producer. Fry has bipolar disorder, and tells comedian Richard Herring during an interview on his Leicester Square Theatre podcast how without medication he can veer between exuberance and depression. Fry, president of mental health charity Mind, says people should talk about suicide and mood disorders.

Tell us about it, Stephen! I'm in total agreement with his promotion of bringing light to suicide and expect that we gays will continue to talk about and address suicide in our community.

8 Months & Counting: Court Hearing on June 7th

Tomorrow, Friday, June 7, I'll be back in front of Superior Court Judge Sam Feng along with my defense attorney Derek St. Pierre at 1:45 PM at the Hall of Justice in Department 17.

My legal trouble involving an elected official is now in its eighth month and the estimated cost to taxpayers is above $26,000.

We may find out tomorrow if the matter is resolved, or will continue to clog the court calender with more negotiations and hearings or if we're moving toward trial. More info later. Some background is at the We Like Mike support site.

I Have Major Nice Things to Say About SF Pride

(Members of the board.)

Last night was the monthly board meeting of SF Pride, which is open to the public, and I attended it as did Joey Cain. Both of us are part of the ad hoc coalition to hold the board accountable for its decision to rescind a grand marshal honor to WikiLeaks hero Bradley Manning.

During general public comment, I effusively praised the board for last week (quietly) posting their three latest IRS 990s on their About page. In May, I nudged SF Pride to get with the transparency agenda and they apparently agreed to do that, which is why I complimented the board.

From SF Pride's site:

Download SF Pride's 2011 IRS Form 990 (PDF)
Download SF Pride's 2010 IRS Form 990 (PDF)
Download SF Pride's 2009 IRS Form 990 (PDF)

(Members of the general public.)

The board members seemed amused when I suggested they issue a release heralding the posting of the IRS 990, in the context of how they listened to constructive criticism from this community member with a transparency suggestion and acted on it. Why shouldn't they toot their own horn about this transparency development?

It was also good to see SF Pride had plenty of paper copies of their May financial report and minutes from the May 7 board meeting available, and the board members appeared receptive to my suggestion that they build upon their IRS 990 transparency and post their paper reports and minutes on their site.

(Members of the staff. Joe is in the middle, wearing a white shirt.)

During the reports from SF Pride staffers, we were told by the man, Joe whose last name I didn't catch, in charge of security for Pride weekend that they've been in touch with the police department regarding safety matters in the aftermath of the Boston bombing.

Joe said that they were meeting today with police officials at the Northern Station to discuss new security measures to keep everyone safe from harm during Pride weekend. There will be additional meetings about these measures as the month progresses.

Many thanks to the SF Pride board for posting their three most current IRS 990s and for keeping their commitment of holding open meetings. Let's hope the posting of the tax returns is an indication that when their 2012 tax report is filed in early August that SF Pride posts it on their site within days of filing with the IRS.

SF Appeal: Examiner Owner Will Soon Buy 49% of the BAR 

 (Citizen Vogt holding a print edition of one his publications. Credit: Mike Koozman, SFNC.)

Back in May, I had several interesting phone chats with independent journalist Max A. Cherney about the state of San Francisco's mainstream, alternative and queer weekly print media and the pending sale of a minority stake in the Bay Area Reporter to wealthy businessman and budding publisher Todd Vogt.

As a news consumer and media watchdog, I told Cherney of my longstanding ethical questions related to the BAR's owner and City Hall power-broker Thomas E. Horn, and the matter of media consolidation in the local market.

Cherney's article is now up at the SF Appeal and the online news site reports that the deal between Vogt and the BAR should be completed in the next 60 days, and here are key excerpts:

Hot on the heels of the San Francisco Newspaper Company’s acquisition of the SF Weekly, two principals at the SFNC are within days of closing on an agreement to purchase 49% of venerable LGBTQ publication the Bay Area Reporter. The SFNC presently owns the San Francisco Examiner,SF Weekly, and Bay Guardian [...]

In a letter of intent, inked in April, SFNC CEO Todd Vogt and CFO Patrick Brown made clear their plan to acquire a minority stake in the BAR – independently of the SFNC [...] Talks to purchase 49% of the paper began early this year, said B.A.R. general manager Michael Yamashita. “Our publisher Tom Horn met with Todd and discussed ways we could cooperate, and possibly acquire the Bay Area Reporter, or at least most of it,” Yamashita said [...]

Putting questions of financial collapse [of print news] aside, lingering concerns about editorial direction remain in the community. For example, outspoken local activist and LGBT blogger Michael Petrelis is concerned with the purchase’s implications for print media. “It’s setting off alarms for me because I fear competition will be diminished,” Petrelis told The Appeal [...]

Yamashita said the BAR strives to be conscious of any conflict of interest. He also noted that people are under the misperception that the Bob Ross Foundation funds the paper. However, while the Foundation owns the BAR, it does not fund the newspaper directly, Yamashita said. Instead, the BAR relies on revenue from ads and newspaper sales.

Many thanks to Cherney and the SF Appeal's editor Eve Batey for shedding more light on the plans of Vogt and his company for a healthy chunk of the city's media outlets. 

Campos City Hall Hearing Needed: SF Pride's $169K in City Cash

(Supervisor Campos preaching to the choir, so to speak, on May 31 at MCC. Credit: Clinton Fein.)

The SF Pride board of directors held a raucous three-hour forum on Friday, May 31, at the Metropolitan Community Church in Castro and heard just over fifty people speak against their heavy-handed rescinding of a grand marshal slot to WikiLeaks hero and gay man Bradley Manning. By the way, there were three community members who used mike time to praise the board for that rescission.

Over at the Castro Biscuit site, independent journalist Liz Highleyman provides the community with an excellent report back on the meeting along with photos.

One of the attendees was Supervisor David Campos, who represents District 9 and the Mission, who said that as an individual and not as an elected official (I'm not sure why he made such a distinction), that he supported Manning and asked the board to create a method of honoring the whistle-blower for the June 30 Pride Parade.

(The John L. Taylor Committee Hearing Room at City Hall, where Campos needs to schedule an official meeting about SF Pride, with him sitting in the center chair wielding his gavel, before June 30.)

Let's go over a number of reasons why Supervisor Campos, who has his hands on the levers of much power via his vote on the City's budget and other means, need to hold a hearing as an elected official and not be given a free ride because he comes to the gay left segment of the community at MCC and literally preaches to a choir of Milk Club members/queer and allied progressives and his friends.

Sure, nice of him to make an appearance at SF Pride forum but he needs to also deliver answers at City Hall. Why Campos must organize a hearing:

1) Since 2010, SF Pride has received $169,000 in City money from the Grants for the Arts program, whose budget is set by Campos and his colleague, and those are one-hundred-sixty-nine-hundred-thousand reasons to hold a City Hall hearing.

Are LGBT taxpayers satisfied with how SF Pride uses City dollars?

2) The Human Rights Commission has rejected a complaint lodged by attorney David Waggoner and numerous LGBT luminaries requesting an investigation into how SF Pride allegedly violated municipal anti-discrimination laws, while the director of the commission, Theresa Sparks, has recused herself from any substantive role regarding the complaint because as a member of SF Pride's Electoral College she voted in choosing grand marshals for this year.

Are LGBT taxpayers satisfied with HRC rejecting calls for an investigation?

3) During SF Pride's financial meltdown in 2011, Campos had this to say to Joe Eskenazi over at the SF Weekly for its cover story about the latest troubles at the organization: "Pride is an organization that is no longer viable. We have tried to be helpful. We've given them the benefit of the doubt. But you do reach a point where you have to fish or cut bait." 

Powerful and critical words that didn't lead to a City Hall hearing, among other things like a long-range plan to right the management and fiscal problems at SF Pride, and here we are two years later with yet another loud and vexing SF Pride crisis roiling the community.

Maybe if Campos had played hardball in 2011 with SF Pride and given us a hearing at the Board of Supervisors, we might have avoided this current crisis and its divisiveness. He can make up for that failure with a hearing before June 30.

4) The May 31 MCC forum attracted around 100 persons over its three-hour running time, and a smattering of press, blogger, photo streams and Twitter attention. The Bay Area Reporter blog ran a story, NBC11 aired a story that omitted Campos and KPFA mistakenly called him John Avalos.

All well and good, that varied attention, but the entire affair should have been live streamed by SF Pride, so that anyone could listen in and through archiving watch it at a later date. Campos holding a City Hall hearing and airing and streaming it via SFGovTV's platforms, live as it happens and archived at the City's site, would deliver the transparency we need about these matters.

5) Let's have an update from all the City agencies - police, public works, health department, traffic and parking, etc - involved with making SF Pride happen, regarding their permitting processes and creating a safety plan that uses fewer metal barricades so folks on the sidewalks can join a contingent as it passes by.

6) Last item on the City Hall hearing agenda is the economic impact on the City's coffers, sponsoring corporations and the hundreds of local businesses that benefit from SF Pride.

Since Campos is a go-along-to-get-along gay Democrat, he'll need copious amounts of pushing to get him to deliver from his place of employment, the seat of local government, a much-needed hearing. Let him know you support a hearing on SF Pride at City Hall prior to June 30. Call him at: 415-554-5144, or send email to: David.Campos@sfgov.org.

Castro Mugging, Tagging Pix from Sunday Night

(Top photo shows a utility pole inked with blight under the words "Man Francisco" that was scribbled before the bigger tagging occurred on Sunday. Next is the tree that was tagged, as scrubbed as free as possible of the spray paint. Credit: The Petrelis Files.)

A resident of the Castro district who wishes to remain anonymous has tipped me off to some crime news and shared these photos with me, all of which I'm passing along to make folks aware of what this resident and his neighbors are saying happened on Sunday night.

They allege a multiracial group of three or four young males were in a car on Sunday evening after dark and mugged someone near the Mollie Stone's store at the corner of 18th Street and Collingwood.

The group then drove up to Collingwood and 19th Street, near where the Harvey Milk Civil Rights Academy.

A few of the males got out of the car and tagged four spaces - a utility pole, a tree, a sidewalk and the side of a private residence - with jet-black paint, in the section of 19th Street between Collingwood and Castro. It does not appear that the graffiti was anti-gay.

On Monday morning, neighbors and business owners awoke to the tagging blighting the area, began to clean up the mess and the San Francisco police were alerted to the problem. An officer was dispatched to investigate but I don't know if a report was made.

When I get more info, I write a new post.

Castro Gay Man Dies After Senseless Beating

My condolences go out to the friends and family of Jim Cunningham, after learning about his passing away today. My friend Patrick Connors, who Tweets as Uppity Fag, made me and his followers aware of this tragic situation and he pointed me to this note and photo that are posted at the SF Bay Times' Facebook page. I expect we'll have more details about Jim Cunningham, the crime against him that led to his demise and related matters. Rest in peace, Jim Cunningham.

(This photo shows the deceased with friends, but no identifying info was included.)

From the SF Bay Times post: What a tragedy, and right in our own Castro. As a community, we need to work together to help put an end to the rising crime and violence. 

Sharing from Steve Freitag: "Our friend Jim Cunningham passed away this morning, after being beaten senseless in the Castro last week while out walking his dog and never regaining consciousness. We'll remember Jim as a sweet, smart and funny guy who loved country music, the Monkees and Prince. One of our fondest memories of him is when we vacationed together in Las Vegas with our friend Gregg, and had one of the best meals of our life at a very fancy steakhouse in the MGM Grand. Rest in peace, Jim."

Number of Trans Inmates in Federal Prisons on Hormone Therapy?

The good folks at the Government Attic site describe their mission as providing "electronic copies of thousands of interesting Federal Government documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act. Fascinating historical documents, reports on items in the news, oddities and fun stuff and government bloopers, they're all here". I would add that they also perform a valuable service to taxpayers and open government advocates.

This week, the Government Attic posted this four-page response to a Freedom of Information Act request for statistics on trans prisoners currently incarcerated in Federal Bureau of Prisons' facilities. An excerpt from the BOP response:

This is in response to your Freedom of Information Act request for "The number of BOP inmates identified as transvestite, cross dresser or sex change (as noted in BOP Directive 5040.05, excluding names and other identifying information)". In response to your request we are providing the Gender Identification Disorder list.

All names and register numbers of the inmates were redacted. The release of this information could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of the personal privacy of third parties and also possibly endanger the life of an individual [...] 

Also, the program statement (5040.05) you reference in your request is no longer in use and the terminology used in 1998 in that program statement has since changed. The Gender Identification Disorder list provided is the most responsive to your request.

The second column on the left is blank after number 63 because there are only 63 inmates applicable. Third column is the abbreviation for the BOP facility where the inmate is incarcerated. The fifth column, "On HRT", pertains to those on hormone replacement therapy and all 63 inmates on the GID list appear to be receiving hormones. I do not know what the sixth column, "NFR", is for and if you do, please let me know.

Many thanks to the Government Attic site for obtaining this information.

Rights Commission Rejects SF Pride/Bradley Manning Complaint

[Correction appended. See below.]

Back on May 7, local civil rights attorney David Waggoner and a host of activists submitted a written complaint to the San Francisco Human Rights Commission over the SF Pride board's vote rescinding a grand marshal slot to queer WikiLeaks whistleblower Bradley Manning. That five-page complaint is here.

The gist of the complaint, as I understand it, is that since SF Pride is subject to City anti-discrimination codes because it receives $58,000 annually in City funds for general operating expenses, the nonprofit board's rescission vote trampled on Manning's First Amendment rights and that the HRC should investigate.

A few days ago, David was informed that the HRC was rejecting his claims of discrimination because the conduct of the Pride board does not fall under the reach of City anti-discrimination codes. David has graciously shared the two-page letter from the commission with me which is posted above.

The HRC has offered him and the Pride board mediation services and the parties have until June 6 to accept that offer.

Theresa Sparks, the executive director of the HRC who is also a member of the Pride Electoral College and as such voted in picking this year's grand marshals, has recused herself from the matter before her commission even though she believes she would be able to perform her official duties with impartiality.

We'll find out in the coming days how David and his cohorts will respond to these developments at the HRC.

CORRECTION: David has informed me that his complaint is not about the trampling of Manning's First Amendment rights. Why I thought it was stemmed from this key paragraph in his complaint, in which David writes about free speech issues pertaining to SF Pride and not Manning. I regret the error. From the complaint:

Williams’ statement also forbids any member of Pride’s leadership from supporting, or even hinting at supporting Manning. Such a boldfaced declaration presuming to ban First Amendment protected speech is itself chilling. Turning the First Amendment on its head, Williams then claims that those who feel differently may "show up, participate and voice their opinions at Pride this year" because Manning will no longer be grand marshal. Thus, the Board is violating the First Amendment in order to protect it.

SF Pride Guide Mentions: Marriage 29 v. Housing, ENDA Zero

The queer landscape of San Francisco is littered with thousands of copies of the Inside Pride Guide 2013, which is also available at the publisher Via Media's site.

As in previous years, the glossy guide pushes consumerism through ads from SF Pride corporate sponsors and is pretty apolitical over all. The political component, light and skimpy as it is, focuses on a single Gay Agenda issue: marriage.

When did we San Francisco queers get the chance to vote on omitting every social and economic justice issue from Pride, such as affordable housing in the City or access to healthcare or federal employment protection, except for gay marriage? My invitation to that election never hit my email in-box.

Poring over the editorial content of the guide - everything from Pride board leaders' bios to welcome letters from elected officials to celebrity profiles - I counted 29 mentions of Prop 8, the Defense of Marriage Act, gay marriage or gay weddings.

There were zero mentions I could find for the affordable housing needs of moderate and low income community members, or the displacement of lots of LGBT folks from San Francisco due to gentrification and greed of real estate developers.

The bio for Speaker of the Assembly John A. Perez makes passing reference to "equal access to health care and that LGBT people can be protected from losing their jobs to fear and discrimination", but otherwise I found nothing about ENDA, the Employment Non Discrimination Act.

So much for a diverse Gay Agenda as an integral component to SF Pride. Is it demanding too much for a broader and more encompassing political component to SF Pride's Parade and Celebration?