Monday, September 28, 2015
Thank you Senator Lamar Alexander
Let's thank Senator Alexander for standing up to the Department of Education and for standing up to the abuses of the Civil Rights division of the Department of Education. His contact info is here.
UN Women want to censor the internet
In a report released yesterday, entitled “Cyber Violence Against Women And Girls: A Global Wake-up Call,” UN Women, the group behind last year’s risible “He for She” campaign, called on governments to use their “licensing prerogative” to ensure that “telecoms and search engines” are only “allowed to connect with the public” if they “supervise content and its dissemination.”
In other words, if search engines and ISPs don’t comply with a list of the UN’s censorship demands, the UN wants national governments to cut off their access to the public.
So, what sort of content does the UN want to censor? ISIS recruitment videos, perhaps, which lure women into lives of rape and servitude? Live-streamed executions from Syria? Revenge porn or snuff videos? There’s no shortage of dangerous and potentially traumatising content on the web, after all, much of it disproportionately affecting women.
Alas not. The UN is hung up on “cyber violence against women,” a Kafkaesque term that is apparently shorthand for “women being criticised on the internet.” At least, that’s how at least two attendees at the launch of the UN report, published by the United Nations Broadband Commission, explained it yesterday.
According to feminist culture critic Anita Sarkeesian, who spoke at the event, online “harassment” doesn’t simply consist of what is “legal and illegal,” but “also the day-to-day grind of ‘you’re a liar’ and ‘you suck,’ including all of these hate videos that attack us on a regular basis.”
Unable to prove that they are the victims of a wave of “misogynistic hate” – no bomb threat against a feminist critic of video games has ever been deemed credible and there are serious doubts about threats supposedly levelled at transsexual activist Brianna Wu – feminists are trying to redefine violence and harassment to include disobliging tweets and criticisms of their work.
In other words: someone said “you suck” to Anita Sarkeesian and now we have to censor the internet. Who could have predicted such a thing? It’s worth noting, by the way, that if Sarkeesian’s definition is correct, Donald Trump is the world’s greatest victim of “cyber-violence.” Someone should let him know.
Sarkeesian’s comments were echoed by former video game developer, feminist activist and professional victim Zoe Quinn, who told the United Nations: “There are individuals on YouTube who have made a living off of [sic] abusing Anita and I.” Quinn does not name any specific YouTubers, and we are left guessing as to who these mysterious “abusers” really are.
Hmm. Quinn makes more than $3,000 a month on donation site Patreon as she travels around the world talking about her “harassment” story. If anyone is turning a profit from alleged “online abuse,” it’s not the YouTubers.
The message from the UN seems to be: “cyber-violence” against women, at least according to their invited guests, is somehow equivalent to getting thumped, or bullied, or abused in real life, and it’s worth clamping down on basic free speech provisions to insulate these delicate first-world feminist wallflowers from the consequences of their own purposefully provocative statements.
The UN ignores the fact that both of their high-profile invitees are professional wind-up merchants who have capitalised on a media environment in which it has become acceptable to say almost anything about “straight white males” and which women, no matter how preposterous their opinions, can get column inches for saying they’ve been “threatened.” (No journalist will ever check their claims.)
Sarkeesian and Quinn are perhaps the finest living examples of what I call quantum superstate feminism, whose figureheads are at once aggressor and victim; trolling, provoking and ridiculing their ideological opponents while at the same time crying foul when their provocative language is returned in kind.
Somehow, I doubt women in actual peril outside Europe and the US will have much time for this self-regarding baloney.
The UN report itself contains a number of bizarre attempts to equate critical tweets on the internet with physical violence. “A cyber-touch is recognised as equally as harmful as a physical touch” says the report. In their press release, UN Women claim that “cyber violence … places a premium on emotional bandwidth.”
It doesn’t tell us what “emotional bandwidth” means, so we are left to guess. It sounds like “emotional quotient,” which girls say their boyfriends are lacking despite their higher IQs. Nonetheless, the concept of “emotional bandwidth” raises interesting questions. Is it a crime when Netflix starts buffering during a romantic comedy?
Inventing nebulous terms is a speciality of the UN. It allows them to “take action” (that is: issue reports no one reads) on something that doesn’t exist, which disguises their impotence when dealing with real human rights abuses. Needless to say, not everyone agrees that “cyber-violence” and “emotional bandwidth” are urgent humanitarian issues.
Tyler isn’t alone. As the Washington Post’s Caitlin Dewey points out, the UN’s grand plan to censor the web fights against the rising tide of cultural libertarianism. If UN Women think they have civil society on their side, they are mistaken. Everyone from academics and Hollywood actors to gamers and reddit users are sick of mendacious, sinister and profoundly anti-intellectual attempts to attack free expression with bizarre concepts like “cyber-violence” and “safe spaces.”
Even Dewey, a critic of unfettered free speech on the web, thinks the UN’s recommendations are “several steps too revolutionary.”
The UN report’s ham-fisted attempt to equate unwelcome words with violence isn’t its only problem. Its explicit focus on women is never justified, and runs contrary to the data. Research from the Pew Centre has found that “men and women are equally likely overall to have experienced “severe” [online] harassment.” (The research also found that women are twice as likely to be upset by online harassment, but that’s a separate question.) Yet the U.N. group appears to think women’s online harassment merits a special focus. Why?
The UN report’s explanation of the causes of “online cyber violence” echoes the tired language of 1990s moral panics, and in some cases even relies on outdated research from the same period. It blames the “mainstreaming of violence against women” on “popular music, movies, the gaming industry, and the general portrayal of women in popular culture.”
As an enterprising redditor has discovered, the UN’s source is an article from 2000, describing the theories of former Army psychologist Lt. Colonel David Grossman, which accuses Nintendo of manufacturing “equipment for satanic video games.” In the aftermath of the Columbine school shootings, Grossman appeared on TV alongside the evangelical moral crusader Jack Thompson, where he supported Thompson’s argument that video games “trained” school shooters.
The report also has a strange preoccupation with pornography, which it accuses of causing “aggressive behavioural tendencies” as well as “increased interest in coercing their partners into unwanted sex acts.” Their citation is a link to “Stop Porn Culture,” a campaign group chaired by the militantly sex-negative and widely criticised feminist Gail Dines.
Other citations in the report are dead links to old blog posts. One has to wonder if the UN expected anyone to fact-check it at all. Given that most of their “reports” are boondoggles, I suspect they’re surprised by all the attention.
You’d think UN Women would have more pressing concerns than porn, video games, and “cyber violence.” After all, Saudi Arabia, a country with a real violence against women problem, was recently selected to chair a key human rights panel elsewhere in the sprawling UN ecosystem. But ethical priorities don’t seem to be the UN’s strong suit.
It can be pointless and pedantic to play what some of us call “Oppression Olympics,” but in this case the discrepancy between this UN group’s complaints and the real suffering of women is too great to ignore. In a world afflicted by female genital mutilation, forced marriages and acid attacks on girls whose only crime is wanting an education, the UN has chosen to focus on the professional whinging of privileged and mendacious western activists.
The UN has always been a joke, but in this case, by providing a platform for such ludicrously entitled windbags, they have provided us all with the punchline themselves.
Source
The UN is a very dirty joke as far as I'm concerned and it is a major obscenity as well. Let's just defund this worthless organization and disband it too. It just sucks in American tax dollars and contributes nothing but its own excrement. It's time to just say good bye and good riddance to the UN. Write your Representative and Senators and tell them to defund and disband the UN.
In other words, if search engines and ISPs don’t comply with a list of the UN’s censorship demands, the UN wants national governments to cut off their access to the public.
So, what sort of content does the UN want to censor? ISIS recruitment videos, perhaps, which lure women into lives of rape and servitude? Live-streamed executions from Syria? Revenge porn or snuff videos? There’s no shortage of dangerous and potentially traumatising content on the web, after all, much of it disproportionately affecting women.
Alas not. The UN is hung up on “cyber violence against women,” a Kafkaesque term that is apparently shorthand for “women being criticised on the internet.” At least, that’s how at least two attendees at the launch of the UN report, published by the United Nations Broadband Commission, explained it yesterday.
According to feminist culture critic Anita Sarkeesian, who spoke at the event, online “harassment” doesn’t simply consist of what is “legal and illegal,” but “also the day-to-day grind of ‘you’re a liar’ and ‘you suck,’ including all of these hate videos that attack us on a regular basis.”
Unable to prove that they are the victims of a wave of “misogynistic hate” – no bomb threat against a feminist critic of video games has ever been deemed credible and there are serious doubts about threats supposedly levelled at transsexual activist Brianna Wu – feminists are trying to redefine violence and harassment to include disobliging tweets and criticisms of their work.
In other words: someone said “you suck” to Anita Sarkeesian and now we have to censor the internet. Who could have predicted such a thing? It’s worth noting, by the way, that if Sarkeesian’s definition is correct, Donald Trump is the world’s greatest victim of “cyber-violence.” Someone should let him know.
Sarkeesian’s comments were echoed by former video game developer, feminist activist and professional victim Zoe Quinn, who told the United Nations: “There are individuals on YouTube who have made a living off of [sic] abusing Anita and I.” Quinn does not name any specific YouTubers, and we are left guessing as to who these mysterious “abusers” really are.
Hmm. Quinn makes more than $3,000 a month on donation site Patreon as she travels around the world talking about her “harassment” story. If anyone is turning a profit from alleged “online abuse,” it’s not the YouTubers.
The message from the UN seems to be: “cyber-violence” against women, at least according to their invited guests, is somehow equivalent to getting thumped, or bullied, or abused in real life, and it’s worth clamping down on basic free speech provisions to insulate these delicate first-world feminist wallflowers from the consequences of their own purposefully provocative statements.
The UN ignores the fact that both of their high-profile invitees are professional wind-up merchants who have capitalised on a media environment in which it has become acceptable to say almost anything about “straight white males” and which women, no matter how preposterous their opinions, can get column inches for saying they’ve been “threatened.” (No journalist will ever check their claims.)
Sarkeesian and Quinn are perhaps the finest living examples of what I call quantum superstate feminism, whose figureheads are at once aggressor and victim; trolling, provoking and ridiculing their ideological opponents while at the same time crying foul when their provocative language is returned in kind.
Somehow, I doubt women in actual peril outside Europe and the US will have much time for this self-regarding baloney.
The UN report itself contains a number of bizarre attempts to equate critical tweets on the internet with physical violence. “A cyber-touch is recognised as equally as harmful as a physical touch” says the report. In their press release, UN Women claim that “cyber violence … places a premium on emotional bandwidth.”
It doesn’t tell us what “emotional bandwidth” means, so we are left to guess. It sounds like “emotional quotient,” which girls say their boyfriends are lacking despite their higher IQs. Nonetheless, the concept of “emotional bandwidth” raises interesting questions. Is it a crime when Netflix starts buffering during a romantic comedy?
Inventing nebulous terms is a speciality of the UN. It allows them to “take action” (that is: issue reports no one reads) on something that doesn’t exist, which disguises their impotence when dealing with real human rights abuses. Needless to say, not everyone agrees that “cyber-violence” and “emotional bandwidth” are urgent humanitarian issues.
Tyler isn’t alone. As the Washington Post’s Caitlin Dewey points out, the UN’s grand plan to censor the web fights against the rising tide of cultural libertarianism. If UN Women think they have civil society on their side, they are mistaken. Everyone from academics and Hollywood actors to gamers and reddit users are sick of mendacious, sinister and profoundly anti-intellectual attempts to attack free expression with bizarre concepts like “cyber-violence” and “safe spaces.”
Even Dewey, a critic of unfettered free speech on the web, thinks the UN’s recommendations are “several steps too revolutionary.”
The UN report’s ham-fisted attempt to equate unwelcome words with violence isn’t its only problem. Its explicit focus on women is never justified, and runs contrary to the data. Research from the Pew Centre has found that “men and women are equally likely overall to have experienced “severe” [online] harassment.” (The research also found that women are twice as likely to be upset by online harassment, but that’s a separate question.) Yet the U.N. group appears to think women’s online harassment merits a special focus. Why?
The UN report’s explanation of the causes of “online cyber violence” echoes the tired language of 1990s moral panics, and in some cases even relies on outdated research from the same period. It blames the “mainstreaming of violence against women” on “popular music, movies, the gaming industry, and the general portrayal of women in popular culture.”
As an enterprising redditor has discovered, the UN’s source is an article from 2000, describing the theories of former Army psychologist Lt. Colonel David Grossman, which accuses Nintendo of manufacturing “equipment for satanic video games.” In the aftermath of the Columbine school shootings, Grossman appeared on TV alongside the evangelical moral crusader Jack Thompson, where he supported Thompson’s argument that video games “trained” school shooters.
The report also has a strange preoccupation with pornography, which it accuses of causing “aggressive behavioural tendencies” as well as “increased interest in coercing their partners into unwanted sex acts.” Their citation is a link to “Stop Porn Culture,” a campaign group chaired by the militantly sex-negative and widely criticised feminist Gail Dines.
Other citations in the report are dead links to old blog posts. One has to wonder if the UN expected anyone to fact-check it at all. Given that most of their “reports” are boondoggles, I suspect they’re surprised by all the attention.
You’d think UN Women would have more pressing concerns than porn, video games, and “cyber violence.” After all, Saudi Arabia, a country with a real violence against women problem, was recently selected to chair a key human rights panel elsewhere in the sprawling UN ecosystem. But ethical priorities don’t seem to be the UN’s strong suit.
It can be pointless and pedantic to play what some of us call “Oppression Olympics,” but in this case the discrepancy between this UN group’s complaints and the real suffering of women is too great to ignore. In a world afflicted by female genital mutilation, forced marriages and acid attacks on girls whose only crime is wanting an education, the UN has chosen to focus on the professional whinging of privileged and mendacious western activists.
The UN has always been a joke, but in this case, by providing a platform for such ludicrously entitled windbags, they have provided us all with the punchline themselves.
Source
The UN is a very dirty joke as far as I'm concerned and it is a major obscenity as well. Let's just defund this worthless organization and disband it too. It just sucks in American tax dollars and contributes nothing but its own excrement. It's time to just say good bye and good riddance to the UN. Write your Representative and Senators and tell them to defund and disband the UN.
Wednesday, September 23, 2015
Support H.R. 3403 the Safe Campus Act
From SAVE Services:
The time has come.
Thanks to your hard work, a strong due process bill has been introduced to address campus sexual assault. SAVE formally endorses it, and we need your help to get it passed.
The bill is called the Safe Campus Act (H.R. 3403) and was introduced last week by Reps. Matt Salmon, Kay Granger, and Pete Sessions. The bill can be read here.
The bill will pass off most investigations to the police and restore many vital due process protections on campus, such as the right to a lawyer and to cross-examine.
Please contact your legislators today and tell them to co-sponsor the bill.
To reach your representatives, call the Capitol switchboard at (202) 224-3121, or find your U.S. Representative here.
The time has come.
Thanks to your hard work, a strong due process bill has been introduced to address campus sexual assault. SAVE formally endorses it, and we need your help to get it passed.
The bill is called the Safe Campus Act (H.R. 3403) and was introduced last week by Reps. Matt Salmon, Kay Granger, and Pete Sessions. The bill can be read here.
The bill will pass off most investigations to the police and restore many vital due process protections on campus, such as the right to a lawyer and to cross-examine.
Please contact your legislators today and tell them to co-sponsor the bill.
To reach your representatives, call the Capitol switchboard at (202) 224-3121, or find your U.S. Representative here.
Tuesday, September 22, 2015
Hockey player is blackmailed but doesn't care.
Hockey player Jaromir Jagr, who currently plays for the NHL’s Florida Panthers, has gotten himself involved in a sex scandal. But the reason it’s gone viral is that the 43-year-old simply does not care.
Jagr slept with an 18-year-old model, who took a selfie as he lay asleep in a bed.
Then she attempted to blackmail the hockey legend with the photo, saying that if he didn’t pay her $2,000, she would email it to the media.
His response, according to Yahoo!, was classic:
“I don’t care,” he said. “Do whatever.”
So, she sent the photo to media sources, who promptly published it.
It must be noted that Jagr is a single guy, so it doesn’t quite make sense why the model, purportedly named Kateřina Provazníková, would attempt to blackmail him with a post-coitus selfie.
However, the case thickens.
While Jagr may be unattached, the model is not. She is dating another hockey player, Domink Rudl.
While, Rudl has yet to respond, Jagr took to Instagram to comment on the matter.
Here is a translation, which was performed by a Reddit user:
“And here we have another photo from my privacy, except here nobody wanted to get paid for it, despite how good it is.”
“Maybe they couldn’t find out what her name is.”
“I forgot it too.”
“Who doesn’t know what this is about? Good.”
Provazníková has yet to comment on the matter.
Source
This is awesome. I love this guy's response. That "fuck you,bitch I don't care what you do" attitude is refreshing. In a age where we are bombarded by pussies that apologize for everything male it is good to see a man come back with an attitude I would have taken. I wonder if he is a regular reader of this blog. It wouldn't surprise me if he is.
Jagr slept with an 18-year-old model, who took a selfie as he lay asleep in a bed.
Then she attempted to blackmail the hockey legend with the photo, saying that if he didn’t pay her $2,000, she would email it to the media.
His response, according to Yahoo!, was classic:
“I don’t care,” he said. “Do whatever.”
So, she sent the photo to media sources, who promptly published it.
It must be noted that Jagr is a single guy, so it doesn’t quite make sense why the model, purportedly named Kateřina Provazníková, would attempt to blackmail him with a post-coitus selfie.
However, the case thickens.
While Jagr may be unattached, the model is not. She is dating another hockey player, Domink Rudl.
While, Rudl has yet to respond, Jagr took to Instagram to comment on the matter.
Here is a translation, which was performed by a Reddit user:
“And here we have another photo from my privacy, except here nobody wanted to get paid for it, despite how good it is.”
“Maybe they couldn’t find out what her name is.”
“I forgot it too.”
“Who doesn’t know what this is about? Good.”
Provazníková has yet to comment on the matter.
Source
This is awesome. I love this guy's response. That "fuck you,bitch I don't care what you do" attitude is refreshing. In a age where we are bombarded by pussies that apologize for everything male it is good to see a man come back with an attitude I would have taken. I wonder if he is a regular reader of this blog. It wouldn't surprise me if he is.
Saturday, September 19, 2015
Tell Congressman Jared Polis to use correct stats in "he said/she said" cases
From SAVE Services:
Thank you for telling U.S. Representative Jared Polis on Monday that it's wrong to expel innocence students.
As you may recall, Rep. Polis stated that a student should be expelled if there is only a 20% chance he is guilty.
He has since apologized! click here
In his apology, however, he states that 1 in 5 female students in the class of 2019 will be assaulted or raped. Perhaps Polis likes the number "20%," but we know this number has been debunked: click here
We want you to contact Rep. Polis again and tell him that he needs to look at facts before advocating for sexual assault policy changes. To do otherwise is dangerous and unprofessional.
Call: (202) 225-2161
Email: click here
Thank you for telling U.S. Representative Jared Polis on Monday that it's wrong to expel innocence students.
As you may recall, Rep. Polis stated that a student should be expelled if there is only a 20% chance he is guilty.
He has since apologized! click here
In his apology, however, he states that 1 in 5 female students in the class of 2019 will be assaulted or raped. Perhaps Polis likes the number "20%," but we know this number has been debunked: click here
We want you to contact Rep. Polis again and tell him that he needs to look at facts before advocating for sexual assault policy changes. To do otherwise is dangerous and unprofessional.
Call: (202) 225-2161
Email: click here
Wednesday, September 16, 2015
Congressman Jerod Polis apologizes for his misandric remarks
I misspoke
During a subcommittee hearing last week about sexual assault on college campuses, I committed a major gaffe during the back-and-forth exchange with a witness who was advocating for removing the authority of colleges to adjudicate sexual assault cases that happen on their campuses. My words did not convey my beliefs nor the policies I now or have ever supported
During that exchange I went too far by implying that I support expelling innocent students from college campuses, which is something neither I nor other advocates of justice for survivors of sexual assault support. That is not what I meant to say and I apologize for my poor choice of words.
Sexual assault on college campuses is a serious issue — one that shouldn't be whittled down to errant sound bites. For the incoming class of 2019 that arrived at college campuses earlier this month, nearly one in five female students will be assaulted or raped by the time she graduates .
Nor should this be seen strictly as a gender issue. Men also experience sexual assault and they face the same types of trauma as female survivors.
To most people who don't know much about this issue, it makes sense to solely adjudicate these cases in our criminal justice system, just like we do other crimes. The witness mentioned above who I was questioning was arguing for just such an approach.
However, this is a deeply dangerous idea that demonstrates a cursory and superficial understanding of the issue. Ask any sexual assault advocate and they'll tell you the same thing.
There are very important reasons why colleges and universities currently have jurisdiction over assaults that occur on their campuses, and why the process is separate from the criminal justice system. In my effort to defend this practice, I went too far, and I regret that my remarks have detracted from the substance of this debate and have reflected poorly on the good work being done by college offices across the country that investigate these cases, including two in my own backyard in Colorado (University of Colorado at Boulder and Colorado State University).
Decades of research and case histories show how woefully inadequate the criminal justice system can be for survivors of sexual assault. For starters, rape survivors are unlikely to report cases to police, citing things like not thinking it's important enough, not wanting others to know, not having proof, fearing retaliation, and being uncertain about whether what happened constitutes assault . According to a recent Department of Justice study, only 20 percent of campus sexual assault survivors report the assault to police .
Secondly, our criminal justice system moves slowly. Campus assault cases are designed to move efficiently so that survivors, as a basic matter of campus safety and to prevent additional trauma, don't have to cross paths with their assailant on campus for an extended period of time.
Third, colleges have a unique obligation to adjudicate these cases because of a landmark federal civil rights law, Title IX, which prohibits sex discrimination in any federally-funded educational institution. Sexual violence on college campuses creates a hostile learning environment, particularly for women, and is therefore a violation of civil rights. It's essential that colleges uphold the right of every student to a safe learning environment and colleges are uniquely equipped to provide that through accommodations that local police simply can't offer. For instance, helping a student switch classes or move dorms so she or he doesn't have to interact with their assailant on a daily basis are critical to survivors' ability to complete their education.
This is precisely why the Department of Education four years ago stepped in and required schools to use a "preponderance of evidence" standard to remove alleged assailants from campus, meaning the evidence shows it is more likely than not that the student is guilty of the assault.
This requirement doesn't discourage survivors from also pursuing criminal complains if they wish, but it allows schools to take more timely action against individuals who the evidence shows are guilty, so that assailants are not allowed to remain on campus and reoffend while their cases slowly make their way through criminal courts (if they ever do — only half of all sexual assault cases that are investigated by police are prosecuted ).
Our criminal courts weren't designed to decide who can safely be in the same classroom with your kids or mine; they were designed to set a high bar for depriving someone of their liberty and imprisoning them. In my comments last week I was attempting to make this point, though I went too far in making it. I regret that my gaffe is now being used by some to advocate for a dangerous and myopic policy that would make our college campuses less safe.
For those of us also concerned with the rights of the accused, dragging their name through the newspaper as an accused rapist through a criminal justice process will haunt them forever, even if they are found not guilty. So too, it damages the survivor of sexual assault even more to have their name and crimes against them in public, especially because a popular defense strategy is to attack the victim.
Yes, balancing the needs for campus safety and due process is not easy. But the answer is not simply to tell schools to wash their hands of all responsibility on the issue and refer every student to a court system in which justice is elusive (for every 100 rape cases reported, only three rapists will ever serve a day in prison ).
Instead, we should be working together toward the same goal: college campuses where survivors feel empowered to come forward and where administrators have the resources they need to handle these cases promptly, fairly and equitably.
click here
This is big. This is a gay, liberal Democrat apologizing to us for what he said. Usually it is a heterosexual conservative Republican that goes through the wringer. No more. We won't stand for it. We are tired of the misandry and now we know we've made at least one Democrat see the light. Way to go. Good work all.
During a subcommittee hearing last week about sexual assault on college campuses, I committed a major gaffe during the back-and-forth exchange with a witness who was advocating for removing the authority of colleges to adjudicate sexual assault cases that happen on their campuses. My words did not convey my beliefs nor the policies I now or have ever supported
During that exchange I went too far by implying that I support expelling innocent students from college campuses, which is something neither I nor other advocates of justice for survivors of sexual assault support. That is not what I meant to say and I apologize for my poor choice of words.
Sexual assault on college campuses is a serious issue — one that shouldn't be whittled down to errant sound bites. For the incoming class of 2019 that arrived at college campuses earlier this month, nearly one in five female students will be assaulted or raped by the time she graduates .
Nor should this be seen strictly as a gender issue. Men also experience sexual assault and they face the same types of trauma as female survivors.
To most people who don't know much about this issue, it makes sense to solely adjudicate these cases in our criminal justice system, just like we do other crimes. The witness mentioned above who I was questioning was arguing for just such an approach.
However, this is a deeply dangerous idea that demonstrates a cursory and superficial understanding of the issue. Ask any sexual assault advocate and they'll tell you the same thing.
There are very important reasons why colleges and universities currently have jurisdiction over assaults that occur on their campuses, and why the process is separate from the criminal justice system. In my effort to defend this practice, I went too far, and I regret that my remarks have detracted from the substance of this debate and have reflected poorly on the good work being done by college offices across the country that investigate these cases, including two in my own backyard in Colorado (University of Colorado at Boulder and Colorado State University).
Decades of research and case histories show how woefully inadequate the criminal justice system can be for survivors of sexual assault. For starters, rape survivors are unlikely to report cases to police, citing things like not thinking it's important enough, not wanting others to know, not having proof, fearing retaliation, and being uncertain about whether what happened constitutes assault . According to a recent Department of Justice study, only 20 percent of campus sexual assault survivors report the assault to police .
Secondly, our criminal justice system moves slowly. Campus assault cases are designed to move efficiently so that survivors, as a basic matter of campus safety and to prevent additional trauma, don't have to cross paths with their assailant on campus for an extended period of time.
Third, colleges have a unique obligation to adjudicate these cases because of a landmark federal civil rights law, Title IX, which prohibits sex discrimination in any federally-funded educational institution. Sexual violence on college campuses creates a hostile learning environment, particularly for women, and is therefore a violation of civil rights. It's essential that colleges uphold the right of every student to a safe learning environment and colleges are uniquely equipped to provide that through accommodations that local police simply can't offer. For instance, helping a student switch classes or move dorms so she or he doesn't have to interact with their assailant on a daily basis are critical to survivors' ability to complete their education.
This is precisely why the Department of Education four years ago stepped in and required schools to use a "preponderance of evidence" standard to remove alleged assailants from campus, meaning the evidence shows it is more likely than not that the student is guilty of the assault.
This requirement doesn't discourage survivors from also pursuing criminal complains if they wish, but it allows schools to take more timely action against individuals who the evidence shows are guilty, so that assailants are not allowed to remain on campus and reoffend while their cases slowly make their way through criminal courts (if they ever do — only half of all sexual assault cases that are investigated by police are prosecuted ).
Our criminal courts weren't designed to decide who can safely be in the same classroom with your kids or mine; they were designed to set a high bar for depriving someone of their liberty and imprisoning them. In my comments last week I was attempting to make this point, though I went too far in making it. I regret that my gaffe is now being used by some to advocate for a dangerous and myopic policy that would make our college campuses less safe.
For those of us also concerned with the rights of the accused, dragging their name through the newspaper as an accused rapist through a criminal justice process will haunt them forever, even if they are found not guilty. So too, it damages the survivor of sexual assault even more to have their name and crimes against them in public, especially because a popular defense strategy is to attack the victim.
Yes, balancing the needs for campus safety and due process is not easy. But the answer is not simply to tell schools to wash their hands of all responsibility on the issue and refer every student to a court system in which justice is elusive (for every 100 rape cases reported, only three rapists will ever serve a day in prison ).
Instead, we should be working together toward the same goal: college campuses where survivors feel empowered to come forward and where administrators have the resources they need to handle these cases promptly, fairly and equitably.
click here
This is big. This is a gay, liberal Democrat apologizing to us for what he said. Usually it is a heterosexual conservative Republican that goes through the wringer. No more. We won't stand for it. We are tired of the misandry and now we know we've made at least one Democrat see the light. Way to go. Good work all.
Monday, September 14, 2015
Tell Congressman Polis to apologize for his misandric remarks
Speaking of Congressman Jared Polis-D-Colorado. SAVE Services is taking him to task for his comments:
U.S. Rep. Jared Polis is 100% wrong. In a House hearing on campus sexual assault last week, Polis stated that a student should be expelled if there is a 20% chance he is guilty. Polis also stated that the standard used should be lower than "preponderance of the evidence."
Polis added, "If there are 10 people who have been accused, and under a reasonable likelihood standard maybe one or two did it, it seems better to get rid of all 10 people."
Tell Rep. Polis (CO-2) that expelling innocent students is unacceptable advice, and wrongful accusations are damaging. Our representatives should instead be advocating for more due process in the campus kangaroo courts.
Call: (202) 225-2161
Email: click here
Tell a Congressman that student rights matter.
U.S. Rep. Jared Polis is 100% wrong. In a House hearing on campus sexual assault last week, Polis stated that a student should be expelled if there is a 20% chance he is guilty. Polis also stated that the standard used should be lower than "preponderance of the evidence."
Polis added, "If there are 10 people who have been accused, and under a reasonable likelihood standard maybe one or two did it, it seems better to get rid of all 10 people."
Tell Rep. Polis (CO-2) that expelling innocent students is unacceptable advice, and wrongful accusations are damaging. Our representatives should instead be advocating for more due process in the campus kangaroo courts.
Call: (202) 225-2161
Email: click here
Tell a Congressman that student rights matter.
Gay Congressman persecutes hetero college men
Congressman Jared Polis
Colorado Congressman Jared Polis-D made a comment about throwing innocent college and university men out with those they deemed "guilty". Polis has no problem persecuting innocent college and university men yet if someone acts against homosexuals then he screams like the raging queen that he is. If he doesn't give a fuck about college and university men then fuck him and his faggot buddies too. This is what I am referring to: click here. If you are a constituent of Congressman Polis then let him know that you disapprove of his stance on false rape accusations. If he can't support falsely accused heterosexual men then we cannot/do not support members of LGBT community until Polis rescinds his anti-hetero stance.
Saturday, September 12, 2015
Only black female lives matter
Have you wondered WHY it's a BLACK Female's face on the "Black Lives Matter" posters ?
What is there to like about Black Women ?
Screwed if I know!
When they SAY "Black Lives Matter", they REALLY mean "Black WOMEN Matter", nothing more..
They have been riding on the coat tails of the white majority via endless and ever increasing "benefits". They have been singled out for obvious sexist and biased "education" with paid for programs, so they can attend some obviously useless college or university to study their own level of insecurity, their very own level of "VICTIMHOOD"..
On top of all that, black men and boys have been completely and entirely ignored and downtrodden, just to ensure those black privileged princesses can apply ever greater damage to their already negative image.
Such is the Black Female, that they now can use their free, "white" taxpayer paid subsidised education and use it to murder and riot against the very people that have supported and paid for their extravagant existence.
That's gratitude for you. Typical female..
One can understand why black guys avoid those toxic, malignant deviates like they are infected with some deadly plague. They obviously are effected by something as they continually demonstrate what level of toxic, disgusting and vile creatures they really are. They are sexist, racist bigots. Generating a list of benefits black women already receive, would begin with expletives, while running out of room as the list grows ever larger. of ever increasing size.
One would run out of expletives describing their unconscionable behaviour. Talk about taking everything for granted.
Now they are out to KILL the Goose that Lays the Golden Egg.
What level of moronity do these Black females live in ?
Exclusive: Law Enforcement Agencies On Alert For ‘Black Lives Matter’ Attacks On 9/11Law enforcement agencies are on high alert this week due to violent threats coming from the Black Lives Matter movement.
According to several Be On Look Out (BOLO) alerts sent from several law enforcement agencies and exclusively obtained by The Daily Caller, some members of the “#blacklivesmatter and #fyf911 are calling for the murder of more police officers on a site called blog radio.”
One caller on the show says, “When those mother f**kers are by themselves, that’s when when we should start f***ing them up. Like they do us, when a bunch of them ni**ers takin’ one of us out, that’s how we should roll up.” That caller goes on, “Cause we already roll up in gangs anyway. There should be six or seven black mother f**ckers, see that white person, and then lynch their ass. Let’s turn the tables.”
One BOLO says, “The narrator known as ‘King Noble’ on Facebook states: ‘It’s open season on killing whites and police officers and probably killing cops period. It’s open season. Picking them off. Today we live in a time when the white man will be picked off,” he goes on to claim “the predators are now the prey.’”
The BOLOs states further that the “#fyf911 (Fuk Yo Flag)” website calls for burning the American flag on 9/11 and “and physically breaking free of the imperialist, colonialist, and racist empires.”
Additionally, according to the BOLO’s description of the website, the plan also includes burning Confederate flags, police uniforms, and “ALL representations of organized evil and oppressive nations.”
The website says, “We also will be raising the Liberation flag and building on a new nation for the people. This is an INTERNATIONAL movement and a day of unity, progressive action, and liberation. To all OPPRESSIVE AND ORGANIZED EVIL after #FYF911 the people will not be bound to you any longer!”
The BOLOs also warns officers about a particular radio show. “A secondary organizer of the movement known as “Sunshine” has also indicated the same acts of violence (lynching and hanging) against white people and cops on her talk show radio, ‘Sunshine’s F***ing Opinion Radio Show.’”
Another BOLO shows a picture associated with the #FYF911 movement and “depicts a police officer hanging from a tree and Uncle Sam in a military uniform with a branch of the tree up his posterior end.”
The BOLO concludes, “states should heighten security measures to protect against possible protests and violence. Law enforcement and military personnel should be extremely vigilant and take extra safety precautions on 9/11.”
Source
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)