WELL, THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU DEFINE “SEXUAL ASSAULT” DOWN:
A photo of a female protester kissing an Italian riot policeman hailed as an emblematic image of peace in Italy, has not gone down well with a police union, which wants the protester prosecuted for sexual violence. . . .And the war on men on campus: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
“We have accused the protester of sexual violence and insulting a public official,” said Franco Maccari, the union’s general secretary. “We fully expect an investigation to start.”
Mr Maccari said he was not prepared to brush off the incident as a peaceful gesture.
“If the policeman had kissed her, world war three would have broken out,” he said. “Or what if I had patted her on the behind? She would have been outraged.
“So if she does that to a man on duty, should it be tolerated?”
Miss De Chiffre has also done her bit to spoil the photo’s apparent message of non-violence, claiming she was trying to provoke the officer into reacting.
“No peace message,” she wrote on Facebook. “I would hang all these disgusting pigs upside down.”
How the government encourages kangaroo courts for sex crimes on campus
New Rules for Campus SexAnd more:
Yu, a U.S.-educated Chinese citizen, is now going after the Poughkeepsie, New York, school in federal court, claiming not only wrongful expulsion and irreparable personal damage but sex discrimination. His complaint argues that he was the victim of a campus judicial system that in practice presumes males accused of sexual misconduct are guilty. His is one of three such lawsuits filed last summer. St. Joseph's University in Philadelphia is being sued by an expelled student, New York state resident Brian Harris, who likewise claims he was railroaded by a gender-biased campus kangaroo court. And in August college basketball player Dez Wells sued Ohio's Xavier University for expelling him in the summer of 2012 based on a rape charge that the county prosecutor publicly denounced as false.
While the lawsuits target private colleges, they also implicate public policy. That was especially true in Wells' case: When he was accused, Xavier was under scrutiny by the federal government for its allegedly poor response to three prior sexual assault complaints, and his attorney says he was the "sacrificial lamb" to appease the U.S. Department of Education. In the other two cases, there was no such direct pressure, but the charges were adjudicated under a complainant-friendly standard that the Obama administration has been aggressively pushing on academic institutions.
In April 2011, the Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights sent a letter to college and university presidents laying out guidelines for handling reports of sexual assault and harassment. One key recommendation was that such complaints should be evaluated based on a "preponderance of the evidence"-the lowest standard of proof used in civil claims. (In lay terms, it means that the total weight of the believable evidence tips at least slightly in the claimant's favor.) Traditionally, the standard for finding a student guilty of misconduct of any kind has been "clear and convincing evidence"-less stringent than "beyond a reasonable doubt," but still a very strong probability of guilt.
Last May the government reiterated its commitment to the "preponderance" standard in a joint Department of Justice/Department of Education letter to the University of Montana following a review of that school's response to sexual offenses. The letter was explicitly intended as a "blueprint" for all colleges and universities; noncompliant schools risk losing federal funds, including student aid eligibility. Meanwhile, the Department of Education also has launched civil rights investigations into complaints by several college women who say they were sexually assaulted by fellow students, then revictimized by school authorities when their assailants either went unpunished or received a slap on the wrist. The schools under scrutiny include the University of Southern California, the University of North Carolina, and the University of Colorado at Boulder.
'Rape Culture'
The federal war on campus rape is unfolding amid a revival of what Katie Roiphe, in her landmark 1994 book The Morning After: Sex, Fear and Feminism on Campus, dubbed "rape-crisis feminism"-a loosely defined ideology that views sexual violence as the cornerstone of male oppression of women, expands the definition of rape to include a wide range of sexual acts involving no physical force or threat, and elevates the truth of women's claims of sexual victimization to nearly untouchable status. This brand of feminism seemed in retreat a few years ago, particularly after a hoax at Duke University drew attention to the danger of presuming guilt. (In 2007, the alleged rape of a stripper by three Duke lacrosse players sparked local and national outrage-until the case was dismissed and the young men declared innocent.) Yet in 2013, the concept made a strong comeback with a sexual assault case that gained national visibility in January and went to trial in March. This one was in Steubenville, Ohio.
Lesson: keep it in your pants until you're married. But that is anti-cultural.
5 comments:
This is strikingly similar to Canada's so-called Human Rights Tribunals where people are railroaded by a corrupt system whereby the accuser doesn't even need to show up in court and guilt is presumed, leaving the hapless defendent to *prove* his or her innocence. They've charged priests and pastors with such "hate crimes" as speaking out against homosexuality, charging them ludicrous fines. As you can imagine, these kangaroo courts are used as a tool to enforce political correctness -- a tyranny of niceness.
As I understand it Canadians were successful in getting rid of the tribunals. The tribunals were also used by Muslims to punish any and all criticism of their barbaric 5th century customs, particularly treatment of women iirc. Columnists and bloggers who "offended" someone could be severely punished outside of court and without juries by these unelected tribunals, with no recourse to judicial court-type justice. True dictatorship of the Left.
That's what the socialists want to implement here by setting legal precedence for the courts to punish thought crimes, such as that photographer in New Mexico who refused to attend a same-sex wedding. They're bullies.
When in training at a rape crisis center in Norfolk, VA, (to become "certified" as a rape crisis counselor as part of the required qualifications to teach women's self-defense), students were subjected to politically correct nonsense that defied all logic, as well as actual data.
For example, one of the most quoted statistics is that "Rape is a rapidly growing epidemic, and one in every four women will be raped at some time in her lifetime." However, the FBI statistics (year after year) show nothing that would support this assertion. It was only by digging into the referenced reports that one finds "rape" to be defined ("loosely" doesn't begin to describe this definition) as any "unwanted contact" by a man. By throwing all categories of unwanted "contact" (including such ludicrous activities as simply asking a woman out on a date) into the definition of "rape," the authors cited could then make these monstrous claims.
Rape is a horrific crime, and I certainly want no one to become a victim of it. However, manufacturing more "victims" by arbitrarily redefining what constitutes a crime does not help the real victims of this crime.
What purpose was served by asserting that virtually all men are either actual or potential rapists? It garnered more sympathy for the victims (and their rescuers), but most importantly, it got more government grant money for the various centers and organizations sponsoring this nonsense as "research."
Let me tell you a story. When I was in my final year of the Navy I was working on Dam Neck as an instructor. Part of my rotating duty was to stay late and process message traffic.
I'm sitting there watching the clock when the base CDO (Command Duty Officer) and the Master at Arms come in to deliver a sensitive message. A girl in the restricted barracks had been raped by one of the instructors. The accused was immediately taken into custody and spent two nights in the brig, having to call his wife and tell her what was happening, only to find out under questioning that she had made the whole thing up because she wanted to get out of the restricted barracks. She had assigned restricted status due to a larceny charge to begin with.
So without a shred of proof, the Navy, in their eagerness to appease the politicians, probably caused irreparable damage to an innocent person's life. The only reason I was privy to this much of the story was that a female instructor who also did duty at the same message center was a Sexual Assault and Victim Intervention counselor. I actually asked her at the end of the first day if she thought her accusations were true (we both knew that it was highly unlikely due to the nature of restricted duty) and she indicated with little pause that she thought she was lying.
Post a Comment