Anti-feminist attorney Roy Den Hollander served a complaint today, Aug. 20, with the N.Y.C. Commission on Human Rights against the Commission’s Executive Director of Law Enforcement—Carlos Velez (212 306 7765) for discriminating against Den Hollander, in part, because he is a Euro-American. (Then again, maybe Velez discriminated against him for being an African-America. After all, everyone’s ancestors originated in Africa.)
Anyway, on July 27, 2012, Velez issued a Determination and Order that Den Hollander charges was motivated by Velez’s prejudice against Euro-Americans of protestant ancestry,divorced husbands who criticize their ex-wives, and men who choose not to meekly submit to feminist and political correctionalist totalitarianism by prosecuting anti-feminist lawsuits of which Den Hollander has done a few times.
“Totalitarianism!” That’s a little strong, or is it? “To exalt as an absolute is the mark of totalitarianism, and it is possible to have an atmosphere of totalitarianism in a society that has many of the attributes of democracy.” ~ Howard Zinn.
Believing that certain political beliefs are the only “correct” ones sounds absolute. Not good enough, how about a feminist and PCer “tyranny.”
“The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands . . . may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” ~ James Madison, Federalist Paper 47.
So what ideology rules over the actions of most government officials—feminism and PC.
Velez’s Order dismissed Den Hollander’s age discrimination complaint against the nightclub Amnesia based on various extra-legal and bigoted reasons that expose a discriminatory intent by Velez in investigating, writing, and issuing the Order.
Amnesia refused to admit Den Hollander and his equally older attorney friend and former Democratic State Committeeman unless they bought a $350 bottle of watered down, brandless vodka. They declined. Den Hollander then filed a sex discrimination complaint with the State Human Rights Division. The State said no sex discrimination but looks like age discrimination. The State, however, lacks jurisdiction over nightclubs for age discrimination but NYC Human Rights has such jurisdiction, so off Den Hollander righteously went to complain.
At NYC Human Rights, Velez refused to accept Den Hollander’s complaint by communicating through another employee that there was no discrimination because had Den Hollander and his friend agreed to buy a $350 bottle, they could have entered. Duh, that can’t be right; otherwise years ago in the Deep South it would have been okay to require people with relatively darker skin color to enter a public bus so long as they sat in the back. The U.S. Supreme Court kicked that looney-tune reasoning out of the law in Browder v. Gayle, 352 U.S. 903 (1956).
A letter to the Commissioner forced Velez to accept the case but didn’t reign in the prejudice that colored his investigation, reasoning, and Order. Among the reasons for dismissing the age discrimination complaint Velez wrote:
Complainant [Den Hollander] is a self-professed advocate for men’s rights who identifies himself as an ‘anti-feminist lawyer’ on his website. He has filed a number of lawsuits against bars and clubs that have ‘Ladies Nights,’ and admits in several online publications that he is ‘bitter’ from an ex-wife who used him for his US citizenship and money. Complainant’s description of himself is consistent with his pattern of filing several gender discrimination suits.” Velez Determination and Order, Ex A. at p. Tres.
So what’s that got to do with an age-discrimination complaint? Sounds like the typical feminist and PC’er tactic of discrediting someone by pegging them as a member of a currently disfavored group. In Den Hollander’s case, a member of the last remaining 200 men in this country willing to fight for their constitutional rights against the feminists and PCers. Although some, such as Marc Rudov, think that number is too high.
“Discrimination itself, by perpetuating ‘archaic and stereotypic notions’ or by stigmatizing members of the disfavored group as ‘innately inferior’ and therefore as less worthy participants in the political community, … can cause serious noneconomic injuries to those persons who are personally denied equal treatment….” ~Heckler v. Mathews, 465 U.S. 728, 739-740 (1984).
Roy's complaint here
Source:click here
Give him hell,Roy. Roast his hide royally,bro. This Velez asshole looks like another UN twerp to me. Fuck you,Velez.
No comments:
Post a Comment