Ron Perlman has lashed out at Florida governor Ron DeSantis, calling him a “piece of s***” and a “Nazi” for signing the controversial Parental Rights in Education bill.
Florida’s Republican-controlled state legislature passed the widely criticised measure – which has been nicknamed the “Don’t Say Gay” bill – on 8 March after six hours of debate.
The bill forbids instruction on sexual orientation and gender identity in kindergarten through third grade. It has been met with a huge backlash from critics who argue it risks marginalising LGBTQ+ people.
Republican governor DeSantis signed the bill into law on Monday 28 March.
“Good morning Governor DeSantis, Ron here,” the Hellboy and Sons of Anarchy actor can be heard saying in a video tweeted on Tuesday (29 March).
“Don’t say gay? Don’t say?” he continues. “As the first two words in a sentence spoken by a political leader of a state in the United States of America. Don’t say? Don’t f***ing say you f***ing Nazi pig? Say! First amendment. Read about it. Then run for office. You piece of s***.”
Before signing the bill, DeSantis said: “We will make sure parents can send their kids to school to get an education, not an indoctrination.”
His move was criticised by US President Joe Biden, who said: “Our LGBTQI+ youth deserve to be affirmed and accepted just as they are.”
This is not the first time Perlman has hit out at a Republican politician.
Earlier this month, Perlman criticised Texas senator Ted Cruz for questioning Ketanji Brown Jackson, the first Black woman and the first former public defender to stand before the Senate Judiciary Committee as a Supreme Court justice nominee, on critical race theory.
zzxxccbbvn on March 30th, 2022 at 20:00 UTC »
Want to hear something horrifying? Ron DeSantis running for president and winning. The mere fact that the possibility exists makes me fucking sick
AcademicPublius on March 30th, 2022 at 17:51 UTC »
A few takes reading through the bill.
The bill affects ages K-3 only. Wrong. It affects any age at which it is, quote, "not age appropriate or developmentally appropriate" according to state standards. Though some portions of the bill are specifically limited to K-3, the instructive section re: sexual orientation and gender identity is not. Now, in a bill that expansive, you would expect that these standards are defined. And you would be wrong. Nowhere in the bill is this standard listed. That means that the bill can run up to 17/18. The bill affects schools. Sort of correct, but not really: it also lists "third party" education. Who does that consist of? Again, that's not specified. Mandatory reporting of "issues relating to his or her well-being" to parents, in order to "ensure the fundamental rights of parents... regarding the upbringing and control" of their children. A bit problematic. I'm not sure whether "Department of Education" refers to the US Department of Education or the Florida Department of Education. If the former, I'd say I'm confused as to why they weren't already adhering to those standards; if the latter, that's also troubling since those standards are nebulous and currently undefined. And, again, the bill does not define it--they're perfectly capable of defining the Florida Bar. The dangerous part really comes in at the injunctive relief section, where there's a fairly clear indication that the point is to get costs on the schools. The section states that the parents "shall [be] awarded reasonable attorney fees and court costs", which presumably would come out of the school budget. Even if the court case brought against a school has an extremely slim chance of success, the school is likely to take action to avoid overburdening their finances, which effectively, as critics of the bill note, makes it likely that banning discussion of gender identity and sexual orientation will result. Schools won't take the risk; neither will teachers. Even if you think you can win the case, it's not worth the money to get in the court battle.In summation, it's a bad law, poorly written and designed intentionally to create loopholes you can drive a truck through. Even if the overall intention wasn't to prevent talk of sexual orientation/gender identity at all, it would be a bad bill.
Edit: I'm having trouble copying. I noted this on the initial read, but it's worth noting in summary, as pointed out in my IMs, that they can also contact a "Magistrate", a political appointee, to arbitrate disputes. The school has to pay for the Magistrate, and the Magistrate can decide school policy in accordance with 'necessity'.
That might be the worse option, actually.
Ambugaton2020 on March 30th, 2022 at 16:44 UTC »
Always liked Perlman... I just wish he weren’t so subtle. Sometimes it’s hard to discern what he really thinks under the polite veneer