Blatant forms of Bigotry permeate the media!

View Clip First: Billy O'Reilly's Response To Gay Asylum

The scoop: In L.A. immigration judge John D. Taylor who previously denied homosexual Jorge Sota Vega 's 2004 asylum bid on the grounds that he could conceal his sexual orientation if he returned to his native Mexico reversed his decision on January 31, 2006. Judge Taylor allowed Vega to remain in the U.S. stating that gays shouldn't be required to dress or act a certain way to avoid persecution. Based on evidence provided by Vega's attorney, Taylor determined he would be at risk if he was deported. Previously Judge Taylor had denied Vega's application for asylum, saying that Vega could live safely in Mexico because he did not look gay and could hide it.

My critique: Bill O'Reilly and Megyn Kelly’s commentary on the February 14 episode of the O'Reilly Factor.

Before I even begin my analysis I recognize that Bill O'Reilly's commentary is regularly laced with bigotry, misogyny and homophobia. Yet I can't help but fall into a pattern of constantly critiquing his incessant ignorance. Additionally, I think the way this commentary is staged is manipulative because Megyn and Bill are presented as if they are going to give a valid debate on the subject, yet the entire video clip shows Bill in an aggressive position with Megyn staged as if she is attempting to dispute his opinion, when in reality she refutes it in blatantly passive manner, mocking the court’s decision . It’s setup up to tell the audience from the very beginning that Bill’s points are more valid then the alternative.

O'REILLY: OK. Does this have any merit? It's a 9th Circuit Court of Appeal again trying to impose its wacky view of the world on us.

O'Reilly is implying that liberal equality driven values are absurd--which if he didn't occupy so many positions of privilege he might think twice about.

KELLY: Amazingly, it does have merit. And this guy Soto Vega is not the only one. This has been happening for years. There are hundreds of people who have gotten asylum in the United States based on the fact that they are homosexual.

Wait Megyn, why is it amazing? Is she suggesting that someone being persecuted for being gay in their own country and seeking refuge in a land where their sexuality would be less discriminated against is not worthy of the courts consideration?

KELLY: What happened in this case was this guy grew up in Mexico. He immigrated -- well, he was an illegal immigrant here in '88 --

Megyn is othering here, be rephrasing her initial statement of his immigration into a language of criminality—making it a point that Vega was “an illegal” immigrant

O'REILLY: Right.

KELLY: -- went back home. Came back to the United States and said, "You know what? I'm going to try to do it legally this time and I'm going to ask for asylum because I was persecuted for being gay while I lived in Mexico."

So, the immigration judge said, "Nice try, but no." And the -- his reasoning was, "You don't look gay. You don't sound gay. You can pass for being straight. So, go back to Mexico and do that." Well, he appealed to the 9th Circuit, saying, "What? What kind of standard is that? Why should I have to act heterosexual in order to get asylum?"

This last statement is confusing to me, I am not sure if Megyn misspoke and should have said “homosexual.”

Well, he -- the 9th Circuit agreed and said, "That's not the standard." They said the standard is if you were persecuted in the past, then you have a reasonable likelihood of being persecuted in the future.

O'REILLY: Well, what happened to the guy in the past? What did he bring in to prove he was persecuted?

Bill is reframing the direction of the discussion in order to deny the credibility of someone he obviously considers unreliable on the basis that he is 1) Mexican 2) gay and 3) a non-citizen

KELLY: He says that the police beat him with a flashlight because he was gay.

O'REILLY: OK, does he -- does he have any proof of that?

Proof? Why would someone go through all the trouble if they hadn’t been persecuted or if they didn’t have a valid testimony?

KELLY: Yeah, the -- even the immigration judge said his testimony was fairly credible on the persecution he had suffered.

Kelly is mocking the court by using the words “even” and “fairly”, if she had said “the immigration judge said his testimony was credible on the persecution he had suffered” her blatant bias would have been removed.

O'REILLY: But it's just his testimony.

Bill implies that a testimony doesn’t count as evidence. Yeah Bill, because his testimony is valid, it’s just his testimony.

KELLY: Just his testimony.

O'REILLY: I didn't see a shot of the policeman beating him. Did you?

Yeah, because there are always an abundance of camera’s filming during violent hate crimes. Rodney King’s testimony probably wouldn’t have been valid then if there weren’t camera’s filming his violent beating using this logic.

KELLY: No. No.

O'REILLY: Did you see bruises?

What kind of a question is this? When did the violence take place? I know whenever I’ve experienced violence the bruise has gone down in a matter of days. Is Bill suggesting that if there were not bruises at the time of the court hearing then Vega must not have been beaten up?

KELLY: No, I saw nothing.

And yet Megyn does nothing to argue with Bill’s irrational questions. She just validates Bill’s implications that Vega had no real proof.

O'REILLY: Did you see doctors' testimony?

KELLY: Just the guy's testimony.

Again, use of words changes the statement... using “Just” affirms that the testimony shouldn’t have any merit.

O'REILLY: OK. So he comes in and goes, "Hey, somebody beat me up." Now, if this is the standard, then every gay person in the world –

KELLY: Yes.

O'REILLY: -- can come in and do this.

Bill is missing the larger point here that people are being persecuted for their sexuality. Then he implies that every “gay person in the world” will now try and use this excuse to try and force themselves into the country, as if that’s the goal of all gay people in the world. By using this language he is reaffirming and institution of fear for the homophobic and anti-immigration community.

KELLY: Yes, and it's happened. People from Iran, people from Lebanon, people from all over the world have sought –

O'REILLY: But you'll get beheaded -- you'll get beheaded in Iran. And I'm serious --

KELLY: Yeah, yes. Right. That's true.

O'REILLY: -- because you can get killed. It's a different thing when you're a homosexual and you get killed –

Wait Bill, you’re saying the threat of being killed is a completely different thing then threat of being ostracized and violently attacked. Both the threat of ones livelihood and the threat of serious bodily harm seems should be a consideration.

KELLY: Well, that's true.

O'REILLY: -- than this guy, because, with all due respect to this guy, he might have spit on the cop. He might have done anything to the cop. Look, if you go to Mexico -- have you been?

1) Spit on the cop? Why would Vega have spit on the cop? In general, I don’t think people spit on policemen, in any country. Bill is dehumanizing Vega into an unclassed, uncivilized and repulsive being.

KELLY: Yes.

O'REILLY: All right. If you go to any of the resort areas, Cancún or Acapulco, as I mentioned, Puerto Vallarta, any of them -- come on, it's gay parade time. Don't tell me they're being persecuted.

2) And then to essentialize all of Mexico as being like the resort areas is ludicrous because those areas are set up as tourist zones that welcome everyone with money. They don’t resemble all of Mexican culture.

3) A Gay Parade? Okay Bill, that’s going too far.

4) And then to assert that gay citizens of Mexico aren’t being persecuted based on that fact that resort areas appear accepting and open to gay tourists doesn’t even make sense.

KELLY: I don't recall that.

O'REILLY: There's gay bars; there's gay restaurants; there's gay everything.

Gay everything? What the hell does that mean Bill?

Megyn seems a little surprised by this assertion, but doesn’t aggressively dispute it.

KELLY: Well, Bill -- Bill --

O'REILLY: Don't give me this.

KELLY: Not just in Mexico. There are plenty of gay people here and anti-gay people here in the United States. That's the thing is that the United States is not just this, you know, welcoming country where there are no homophobes. I mean, there are anti-gay –

O'REILLY: No, that's right, he could get beat up here –

Good for you Bill for realizing that connection, yes, it’s very possible that he could get beat up here. Hate is rampant in the US, especially against homosexuality. Intolerance steers practical people into hysteria.

KELLY: -- there's anti-gay discrimination in this country, as well.

O'REILLY: -- but here's what I'm worried -- here's what I believe happened here. I think the immigration court made the right decision, basically saying, "Look, you could be anybody. Just go back there and don't wear a dress" –

Wear a dress? Is O’Reilly implying that all gay men dress in drag? Go back to where you belong he says, go and pretend to be something that you aren’t. Well I say Bill, go back to where you belong too then. What gives you the right to say that a man seeking refuge and reprieve from ideological persecution doesn’t belong here in the US. What if Native Americans had prevented Christians from getting in the country because they were Christian or because they were European, despite their hopes for a land where they could live free from persecution? Beliefs, sexual orientation, political beliefs, race…all of them should not be considered as reasons why someone shouldn’t be able to become a US citizen.

KELLY: Yeah, but to say you've got to --

O'REILLY: "and you'll be OK" --

Riigghht.

The message from Bill is, don’t wear a dress, don’t act gay, don’t sleep with the man that you love, deny who you are and "and you'll be OK," go back home to where you belong! Wow, what ignorant words from a supposedly intelligent man. Blatant forms of Bigotry permeate the media! It is hard for me to understand how Bill O'Reilly and Megyn Kelly are supported with their hate.