The proponents of “racial” classifications have been reduced to bashing American citizens based solely on their ancestry or nation of origin in order to promote their collectivist classification schemes.
Having had many conversations with Kevin Nguyen over the last several years during his former tenure at ACRI, I can personally attest to the fact that Kevin is a genuinely nice guy and a serious-minded individual. Assemblyman Mervyn Dymally on the other hand…
Proposition 54 will pass and to Hell with Dymally and his bigoted collectivism.
August 28, 2003
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: Diane Schachterle (916) 444-2278
or ds@racialprivacy.org
CONNERLY AND NGUYEN CHASTISE LEGISLATORS FOR UNCIVIL DISCOURSE
Yesterday, the California Legislature convened a “hearing” to consider Proposition 54. As predicted, the hearing was nothing more than a sideshow orchestrated to allow the opponents of Proposition 54 to showcase their irresponsible fearmongering charges against the initiative. That is precisely why the chair of the American Civil Rights Coalition, Ward Connerly, refused to legitimize such an event by attending.
Connerly had this to say about Assemblyman Mervyn Dymally’s demeaning treatment of Kevin Nguyen, Proposition 54 proponent: “Kevin is a man of unparalleled dignity and character. He is a friend and a fellow American.
He is no more of an ‘immigrant’ than I or any other American who has sworn to honor the Constitution and the laws of our nation and our state, which is more than can be said of Dymally, who authored a bill (AB 703) to eviscerate Proposition 209.
Connerly added, “In this country, ‘Mr. Dymally,’ it doesn’t matter when we came or where we came from, only that we give our allegiance to this nation once we become a member of the American family. Kevin learned that valuable piece of American history and tradition quite some time ago. Unfortunately, ‘Mr. Dymally,’ you are still in training. May you learn the lesson soon.”
Following is the statement of Kevin Nguyen:
“It’s a disgrace for elected representatives such as Merv Dymally and Jerome Horton to conduct a public hearing and invite members of the public to testify, only to personally and viciously trash people such as Ward Connerly and me. An informational hearing should be devoid of ad hominem attacks. Personal insults and questioning of motives is a disservice to the kind of civil, informed discussion we should be fostering in this state. It is no wonder that Californians hold only the Legislature in lower esteem than they do our embattled and unpopular governor, Gray Davis.”
“When Assemblymember Dymally questioned my intelligence and integrity by dismissing me as an ‘immigrant’ who should ‘learn American history,’ he embarrassed himself for his lack of civility and decorum in a manner unbefitting his elected capacity in the People’s Building. He should be sensitive to the kind of attack he leveled at me, as he is a fellow immigrant who shouldn’t tolerate the kind of condescension and patronization he heaped on me. And, he made this potshot after my remarks had concluded so that I didn’t have a chance to respond and call him on his rude and arrogant remarks. I consider myself an American, not a Vietnamese-American, unlike so many who testified as African-American, Hispanic-American, and Asian-American.”
“Similarly, Assemblymember Horton had the gall to ridicule my credentials by asking what I was trained to do to enable me to be part of the drafting process for Proposition 54, the Racial Privacy Initiative. I did not ask him about what qualified him to sit in judgment of me and to pass laws that ‘he’ thought was best for his 450,000 constituents and the other 35 million Californians. The least he could have done is to respect my right as a public citizen to be involved in the democratic process. I did not surrender my dignity when I passed through the metal detectors in the State Capitol Building. I give credit to committee chair Martha Escutia for chastising Mr. Horton for such a reckless and ugly display.”
“The ad hominem attacks show how morally and intellectually bankrupt these RPI opponents are. Their failure to stick to substantive, factual arguments is a repeat of the fearmongering and bashing that characterized the anti-Proposition 209 campaign seven years ago. Just as the opponents are generally lining up against Prop. 54 in the same way as they did against Prop. 209, they apparently haven’t learned the futility of their failed tactics. Those tactics will once again backfire on them, most certainly on Election Day. I and the other proponents of Prop. 54 challenge them to stick to the issues and not fabricate ridiculous charges and personal attacks.”
YES ON PROPOSITION 54
THE RACIAL PRIVACY INITIATIVE
P.O. Box 189113
Sacramento, CA 95818 (916) 444-2278
(916) 444-2279 fax