Human Rights and Candidate Forum at U of I

“Each person has certain unalienable rights and I think that covers everything,” Kelsey Berends said Tuesday night at the City Council candidate forum at the University of Idaho. The room was full with about 120 people in attendance. More people came after the event began and several had to stand along the walls because there wasn’t enough seating. 

Berends was responding to a question about a Moscow city ordinance that protects people groups based on gender identity and sexual orientation. Berends said she was cautious about that ordinance saying, “By nature of making that list you are going to be excluding people.” She also added, “I think that we as a community are a lot more diverse and a lot more inclusive than a list like that actually states.”

The forum was run by the Associated Students of the University of Idaho. The organizers reminded attendees that the Moscow City Council election is Tuesday, November 5. There is also early voting at the courthouse available until Friday, Nov 1. There are three open seats and there are six candidates running.

All six candidates were at the forum: Kelsey Berends, Sandra Kelly, Maureen Laflin, Brandon Mitchell, James Urquidez, and Anne Zabala. 

The two moderators for the event were Jacob Lockhart and Faustine Moulton, the president and vice president of ASUI. Candidates fielded questions on a number of issues: climate change, zoning issues, housing development, parking downtown, LGBTQ laws, and the 3rd St bridge. 

There was a question about zoning laws, specifically about one that prohibits liquor stores from being within 300 feet proximity of schools. The question stated that New Saint Andrews was granted an exception to this and then asked, “Do you believe that religious learning institutions should be granted future exemptions from the Idaho statute that prohibits schools from being 300 feet from a bar or liquor store in the future?”

Laflin explained that a question came to her mind. She said, “I am not sure why a religious educational institution should get a different exception than any other educational institution?” She went on to say that the city needs to be, “consistent and thoughtful and mindful in terms of why we do it so that when people make exceptions it doesn’t become a precedent.”

Mitchell answered the question saying that he is not opposed to exceptions but he would want to look at the data and weigh the positive and negative factors for a given exception. 

In answer to this question, Berends said that the city should not be “looking at whether they are religious or not religious. We should be looking at: are they good for the city or are they not good for the city?”

Another question asked about City Council passing an ordinance in 2013 that protects various groups based on gender identity and sexual orientation: “If elected to the council, will you prefer to remove, uphold, or expand these protections for LGBTQ+ people?

Urquidez said, “Laws will never change the hearts of people. Ever.” He went on to say that people need to look at what the ordinance accomplishes. “Does it work? Does it serve us?”

Zabala said that she strongly approved upholding the ordinance explaining her support as a no-brainer decision.

Berends said that she is hesitant to write a finite list that people cannot discriminate against because that list will leave people out. She explained that our country was founded with the idea that each person should be treated with respect and each person has these rights. She then said “I am in favor of removing that type of [ordinance] but not because I do not see the value but because I actually think that those additions devalue the people that they are listing.” Berends also added, “I think that we as a community are a lot more diverse and a lot more inclusive than a list like that actually states.”

Laflin said that she thinks the ordinance is great, but she said there is one flaw with it. “It has very minimal teeth.” She explained that there is a need to be able “to do litigation on behalf of people who feel like they have been discriminated against.” She then explained that these complaints go to the police department: “When I talked to the police department–they were great–but the answer was: was that a misdemeanor?” She then explained, “We are not talking about a criminal act here, unless they got beat up or something happened, but discriminating a person is not a criminal act.” She summarized her concern by saying, “We need an enforcement mechanism that is real when you look at the protections for LGBTQ people.”

In his answer to the question, Mitchell explained that he has concerns about this law, saying “There is no law that will change the heart.”