Teen-aged boy cleared of wrongful rape accusation. He had been incarcerated for six months while waiting for that decision, and all for nothing more than that an older woman invited him to have sex with her, after which she accused him of having raped her, which he did not.
The Star; U.K.
2009 01 23
Tears as teen is cleared of rape
CHEERS erupted from the public gallery at Doncaster Crown Court after a teenager was cleared of rape charges.
Dean Bunn, aged 19, broke down in tears and had to be helped from the dock when he was overcome by emotion at the end of his six-month ordeal.
Several of the defendant’s family and friends also wept when the jury delivered their unanimous ‘not guilty’ verdicts on two counts of rape, after retiring for little more than an hour.
Mr Bunn, of Pickering Road, Bentley, was first arrested in early July when he went to a police station after seeing a cordon thrown around the alleged crime scene next to Bentley railway bridge.
He told police he had had sex with a woman in bushes at the bottom of the bridge embankment, but said she instigated it – something he maintained throughout two trials….(Full Story)
Anyone who has not heard of Cyntoia Brown, lately, is probably not active on any of the social media, but who needs justice, law and order, when the will of the mob will be a much more liked substitute?
I use Facebook. Yesterday, the trickle of Facebook notifications clamoring to have Cyntoia Brown treated lightly, that I had been receiving during the last few days, increased to a flood. A lot of people wanted to get my attention that I had been doing my best not to give.
I knew nothing about Cyntoia Brown, decided this morning to check out what the tsunami of publicity was all about and found that, if anything, the mainstream media were not a good source of information on the case. CNN and ABC published a few articles on the case, but those were far from being objectively informative. From there the quality of the media sources deteriorated, to sources that I don’t usually use as sources of reliable information, and worse.
The renewed wave of public awareness and concern about the case made me curious. What was so special about this case of murder, that the level of public awareness and concern about it, a single case, would demand half and more of all the attention that the public was willing to direct to close to 20,000 murder cases a year in the US?
It now appears that pop-media figures, notably Rihanna and Kim Kardashian, wish to use the case of Cyntoia Brown to bolster their flagging public appeal, by generating public awareness and sympathy for Cyntoia Brown’s case. Google Trends gives a fairly good indication of how well that social-media campaign is working out, which leaves innocent bystanders with a puzzle.
Mob justice or law and order
Why does anyone think that fanning a massive media campaign that appears to be once more gathering momentum will serve justice by substituting mob appeal and public pressure for equitable justice? Will self-appointed, non-elected arbiters be reasonably good substitutes for elected and respected judges and state governors? If that is the case, then why not work to abolish law and order, to substitute a system of mob justice administered through trials by social media, so as to put the administration of justice directly into the hands of the people?
Who needs justice, law and order, when the will of the mob will do – triggered and steered by people who make profitable careers out of attention seeking?
Mercenary ‘victim’ uses parking lot theatrics, without a doubt in the hope to make financial gains. Be careful, when driving a car in a parking lot. Ensure no one can accuse you of having hit a pedestrian. Perhaps that is too much to hope for, but protect yourself. Use a dashcam and make sure it is running all the time.
Government, law, jurisprudence and justice go together. We hope that the first three lead to and result in objective justice, but nothing is perfect. Objective justice can at best be nothing more than the most objective justice obtainable under the circumstances. Under the worst circumstances it may be nothing more than outright tyrannical, absurd, capricious and unjust. Objective justice does not necessarily possess all of those and more attributes but at least one or more.
There seems to be no clear gradation of the extent of objectivity of justice. That is throughout the range of forms of governments from tyranny to democracy. At the democratic end of the range, the outcomes of cases where justice is sought vary greatly with time and location. That is true even for cases with equal extents of severity of specific crimes or transgressions.
The range of crimes brought to trial does not include all crimes. Many crimes go undetected. In many crimes no perpetrator is ever suspected, found, indicted and brought to trial. On the other hand, a good number of criminal trials involve cases where no crime took place. Still, a perpetrator got fingered and brought to trial in those cases without a crime.
That can happen for a variety of reasons. The most obvious one can be that an accuser is looking for financial gain, compensation for injuries that he claims he suffered but did not. Whether such a claim will succeed depends on the quality of the evidence that is presented to support the claim. It depends on what level of credibility is demanded by the court in which the claim is heard and will be judged. The outcome of any claim, false or not, depends even on whether the accused or accuser shows up at trial.
An accused party may not show up at his trial, without having given a good reason in advance of his absence. If so, that virtually assures that a judgment against the accused will be handed down. Conversely, if an accusing party does not show up for a trial in which the accusation is to be judged, it is virtually certain that the accusation will be dismissed. Nevertheless, there can be other reasons for a dismissal of charges, before a scheduled trial begins.
In the beginning of the 1960s I worked in Korea. A lot of things were different there from what I had experienced. I do remember people warning me about a specific principle of Korean law. It was that, if one felt obliged to help to save someone from committing suicide, one could and most likely would be held legally responsible for the welfare of the individual he had saved. If one were to drive a car, it would often happen that people would lay down on the pavement, waiting for a car to hit them, but, even more importantly, in the hope that a driver of a car would stop to inquire what was wrong, thereby to assume legal responsibility for the individual laying on the pavement.
That seemed crazy to me, out of this world. Little did I know that the same mercenary ‘victim’ approach would routinely come to be seen as an opportunity for unjust enrichment in Canada. The peculiarities, vagaries and demands of Canadian jurisprudence prevent me from providing exact details of what happened in the following example.
Parking lot theatrics for monetary gain through exploitation of government services
In the summer of 2018, a friend of mine made a left-hand turn into a lane between two rows of parked cars. That happened in the parking lot of a grocery store. She was driving at the speed of about one or two miles per hour. An individual on foot passed her on the passenger side of her car. The ‘victim-to-be’ flopped herself down in front of my friend’s car. My friend stopped her car, without having her car touch the ‘victim’.
The ‘victim’ on the pavement began to scream, “Is my head bleeding? Is my headbleeding?” My friend got out of her car. She looked at what the ‘victim’ on the pavement was doing. She saw that nothing was wrong with her, sat down in the car and waited for what would happen next.
Some friends of the drama queen on the pavement showed up and called the police and emergency services. The police and an ambulance came, to check what the ‘accident’ was all about. My friend handed over her driver’s licence and insurance card for examination by the police. She received them back, along with a ticket for a traffic violation involving the making of an unsafe left turn. The ticket gave an option to pay the fine or to show up at a specified court date and location.
My friend showed up on the specified court date, pleaded “not guilty” and received a date for a court hearing. She went to court on that new date but had by then not yet received copies of the police’s accident report and related documentation. (That was even though she had called the appropriate authorities and reminded them to make certain to send the required documents).
We waited for her case to come up and heard the judge pronounce a good number of judgments before my friend’s turn came. In about six or seven of the roughly 30 cases presented, the accused made no appearance, either in person or through a lawyer. Deadlines for paying the fines were set, with pronouncements of the severity of jail sentences if no payment would be made by the deadline.
Upon being asked, my friend told the judge that she was ready for her case. The prosecutor said he was not. He had not received any of the information he had requested from the police. He had been unable to determine the reasons for that. On account of that he asked that the case against my friend be dismissed. The judge ruled accordingly, that the case was dismissed, telling my friend that she was free to go but would be welcome to remain and watch the rest of the proceedings. We did that, until the court adjourned for a discussion and for lunch. We left for home, much relieved.
Was justice served?
My concern now is, although the law was without a doubt administered correctly, whether in my friend’s case justice was served.
After the court hearing, my friend called a number of people involved or interested in the aftermath of the court hearing: the neighbour who had offered to drive her and her car home after the ‘accident’ that wasn’t, the insurance company’s accident investigator, and others whose interest in the case better remains undisclosed, because there is still a civil court claim in the works for an amount of damages and compensation that is unknown to my friend.
My impressions of those remaining aspects of the case are purely hearsay and don’t have the hope of a snowball in hell to be admissible (let alone stand up) in court. They are these:
The police feel that the ‘victim’ staged the accident;
Witnesses think the ‘victim’ staged the accident;
The emergency response team found no evidence of any injuries received by the ‘victim’;
The hospital to where the ‘victim’ was taken for a more thorough examination found no evidence of any injuries received, but
The ‘victim’ lawyered-up and is pursuing a claim for compensation, of which a portion will likely be paid.
Without a doubt, everything is being done according to the letter of the law, but there is no doubt that the gaming of Canadian jurisprudence for financial gain is a very real, profitable concern. That does justice a disservice. Not only that, but thousands of dollars worth of time and services by a large number of individuals and agencies have been, are being and will still be spent by many in catering to the consequences of a claim of self-inflicted ‘injuries’ that are in the range from at most extremely slight and undetectable to non-existent and imaginary.
This is my assessment of the final outcome to be expected in this case:
The cost of the consequences of the allegations into which my friend and many other parties had been unsuspectingly dragged will run into many thousands of dollars. The undeseriving ‘victim’ will skim off from that as much as she can. She is quite likely to be able to do that. The money is there for such cases. All it takes is an allegation and the gumptions to stick to them. We all have to pay, through higher insurance contributions, increased taxes and lost time.
Will my expectations be met? The next two years or so will tell whether they are on the mark. It seems that the only thing open to question is how much more the cost of this case will amount to before it is over. I will provide updates as new information becomes available.
21 Reasons Why Gender Matters — This blog posting contains an overview of the discussion paper. Download link for full paper (954kb PDF file)
Gender uniqueness and complementarity means that each gender has a unique contribution to work, society and interpersonal communication that cannot be filled by the other gender in its entirety.
Acknowledging gender differences helps children learn more effectively.
Men and women are happier and healthier when they acknowledge and celebrate their respective gender differences.
The masculine gender is an essential ingredient for fatherhood, and children raised by a committed father do much better in life.
The feminine gender is an essential ingredient of motherhood, and children do better in life with an involved and committed mother.
Marriage is the best way for men and women to enjoy gender complementarity.
Gender complementarity in a life long committed marriage between a man and a woman is essential for the continuation of humanity.
Gender complementarity in a life-long committed marriage between a man and a woman is needed for a healthy, stable society.
Gender complementarity in a life long committed marriage between a man and a woman is good for the economy as a whole.
Marriage involving a man and a woman is the foundation of a successful family and the best way to protect children.
Gender complementarity in a life long committed marriage between men and women is the best way to teach children the value of gender.
Gender is important in understanding the significance of manhood.
Gender is important in understanding the significance of womanhood.
Gender differences are universally celebrated and acknowledged around the world in healthy societies. Conversely, societies and civilisations which reject gender uniqueness and complementarity often face harmful consequences.
Healthy gender development is important because it prevents individuals of either gender from developing compulsive obsessive disorders that can lead to sexual addiction and other pathologies.
Gender disorientation pathology, as in the form of sexual addictions, is often a symptom of family dysfunction, personality disorder, father absence, health malfunction or sexual abuse.
Gender disorientation pathology will lead to increased levels of drug abuse and partner violence.
Gender disorientation pathology will increase the risk of communicable disease and the likelihood of suffering bad health.
Gender disorientation pathology will decrease life expectancy.
Gender disorientation pathology is preventable and treatable.
Gender disorientation pathology encourages the sexual and psychological exploitation of children.
21 Reasons Why Gender Matters has 34 authors and contributors, some of whom come from the USA, like noted academic Dr. Judith Reisman and well-known author Dale O’Leary. Three of the authors are former homosexuals. Many others are noted Academics.
James Adams – Fathers4Families, NSW
Shirley Baskett – Author and Public Speaker, VIC
Ron Brookman – Living Water Ministries, NSW
Dr Michael and Dr Michelle Browne – Medical Practitioners, NSW
Dr Kevin Donnelly – Author, Academic and Social Commentator, VIC
Eugene Dwyer – Psychologist and Counsellor, NSW
Richard Egan – Family Research Officer, FOL, WA
Steve Estherby – Minister and Social Commentator, NSW
Mary-Louise Fowler – Vice President, Australian Family Association, NSW
Babette Francis – Endeavour Forum, VIC
Philip Harback – Tasmanian Men’s Network, TAS
Dr Robert Kelso – Senior Lecturer, Ethics and Public Policy QLD
The #MeToo phenomenon ran its course? Who knows, and, if so, what will take its place? Its consequences will probably be with us for some time to come.
On October 15, 2017, actress Alyssa Milano encouraged spreading the hashtag #MeToo, to attempt to draw attention to sexual assault and harassment. Milano later acknowledged earlier use of the phrase by Burke.—Wikipedia
In 2006, Tarana Burke had tried to bring the phrase “Me Too” to prominence. Alyssa Milano succeeded in doing so. Thanks to Twitter, her effort to popularize the hashtag struck a note. The consequences were immediate and apparently will be with us for a while.
The Islamic Rape of Europe is an exaggeration, but it became a world-wide concern after numerous instances of sexual groping of women on New Years Eve in Cologne, Germany. What is the truth? Are the growing public concerns over increasing numbers of rapes and other violent crimes by immigrants in Europe justified? Perhaps.
Sexual assaults by immigrants a growing concern in Europe
No link was identified with that image. The claim that the image on the magazine cover is exploding across Europe is at best an exaggeration, if not outright hype. If such an explosion were happening, we would most certainly notice it being mentioned in the media. That does not mean that such an explosion did not happen. It appears to be at least a somewhat justified claim.
Still, is the image a realistic depiction? When and where it was published? Was there a Polish magazine that did publish such an image on its cover, and was there ever anything in the way of publicity that could be considered an explosion across Europe? In other words, the 5 Ws (what, when, where, who and why) serve to differentiate real news from fake news. Some digging provided answers.
Yes, there was what could be considered an awakening of public concern about sexual assaults by immigrants. It was sparked by hundreds (some say, more than a thousand) of incidents of sexual assaults by migrants of which perhaps none had escalated to actual rape involving penetration. That was perhaps little or somewhat less traumatic to the victims of gang groping than actual rapes would have been. The severity of such things are in the eye of the beholder, even according to the laws of liberal Germany. The incidents took place in and around the large plaza that separates the Cologne Cathedral from the main railroad station in Cologne, New Years Eve 2015, almost three years ago.
The event received the world-wide attention it had deserved, a few days after it had occurred, after attempts by politicians and other powers to downplay and censor reports of the extent of it had failed (in spite of numerous, official complaints having been filed with the police that many prominent officials kept denying).
So much for the motivation for the image that ‘exploded across Europe’. Was there a Polish magazine that had published it, and did the image (and the associated article) explode across Europe? Yes (“wSieci”: ‘Islamic Rape of Europe‘ published on February 13, 2016) and, yes, the cover page of the magazine showed the image of concern. Some digging produced this:
A reverse image search resulted in a list of the most likely sources, ranked as to which were most likely the source of the image. The most likely source, a ‘SPIEGEL ONLINE’ English-language article:
Is There Truth To Refugee Rape Reports?
Right-wing websites claim that Germany is facing an alleged epidemic of rape cases committed by refugees, fueling panic about the recent influx of foreigners and the safety of women in the country. We investigated one site’s reports and found many problems with them. By DER SPIEGEL Staff Read More
That article does not include or provide an image or version of the image of concern. Although it downplays allegations of a rape or crime crisis posed by immigrants, interestingly, it provides the following graphic and comments, as well as reported facts that surely indicate otherwise.
The role of immigrants in criminal offenses against sexual self-determination (‘criminal offenses against sexual self-determination’ is apparently the German equivalent of the catch-all phrase ‘sexual assault’, which would include groping as well as rape with penetration)
The third paragraph following that graph in the article states:
…Bavarian Interior Minister Joachim Herrmann announced shortly before the German federal election last September that the number of rapes and serious sexual abuses had risen in Bavaria during the first half of 2017 by 47.9 percent. He said 126 of the 685 crimes could be attributed to immigrants, 91 percent more than in the same period the previous year. The latter statistic roughly reflects the findings of the BKA, but the Bavarian crime statistics additionally count those who have been granted asylum as part of its figures for the category of immigrants.
That is critical, because it implies that the statistics shown in the graph seriously understate the magnitude of the problem of sexual assaults by migrants. The BKA (which stands for Bundeskriminalamt, the German Federal Office of Criminal Investigation) is the source of the numbers in the graph. The numbers apparently do not take into account crimes committed by migrants who do not have recognized immigrant status.
The article requires discerning reading, as it is not always that clear on the somewhat indirect distinction between the reality that faces the German voters and the wishful thinking that their leaders wish them to become indoctrinated with.
Take the suggestion in the article section that asks,
Did New Groping Offense Shift Statistics?
Pickert, 54, a deputy police commissioner in Bavaria, ties the rise in reports of sexual offenses to several factors. One is that many German citizens first learned that groping was a punishable offense following the debate over the Cologne attacks. And a change in the law in 2016 meant that groping is no longer solely punishable as an insult, but is now explicitly considered to be sexual harassment. Previously, groping had been absent from the statistics on sexual offenses maintained by police, but now such incidents are included. “It’s that and not some change in everyday reality that explains the sudden surge in the number of crimes reported,” Pickert explains.
The article attempts but fails to fully explain why it was not German citizens but so-called asylum seekers (mostly economic migrants) who partook of the novel experience by putting it into practice, nor – considering the gradual escalation of the frequency of sexual offences over a three-year period from 2014 to 2016 – why such offences by German citizens had declined, while experiencing a massive increase that coincided with a massive increase in the number of migrants who swelled the numbers of German residents over the course of the years from 2014 to 2016.
The confusion generated by the article is in no way lessened by the assertion that:
The public does, in fact, only hear about a small number of the sexual assaults that are committed each year, although this is not because they are covered up. There are so many that you could fill an entire newspaper with reports about them every day. According to police crime statistics, approximately 47,401 alleged criminal offenses against sexual self-determination were recorded in 2016, committed by Germans as well as by non-Germans. That represents about 130 reported crimes per day. The true number is likely much higher than that, but many victims don’t go to the police.
The reluctance of victims of sexual assault to report those assaults to the police is hardly surprising, given that it took more than a hundred of such reports in consequence of New Years Eve celebration in just one location in one city to make an impression that somewhat lessened. eventually, after a few days, the reluctance of politicians and the media and moved them to admit that they had invited a problem that had grown out of control.
It seems that no title page for any edition of ‘Der Spiegel’ carried the image of concern in relation to the article on the Islamic Rape of Europe. Perhaps, more importantly, the search return list does not appear to include a link to a Polish magazine article that includes the image or a reference to ‘The rape of Europe’, at least not in the top-ranked, most likely articles.
However, the collection of linked thumbnail images (the second thumbnail) provided on the search return list for the reverse image search provides a link to an article that contains a commentary about a Polish-language article, »“The Islamic Rape Of Europe” – A Polish Magazine’s Shocking Cover«, by Tyler Durden, Wed, 02/17/2016, that fails to provide a link to the Polish article.
An apparently more accurate copy of the front page of the Polish magazine is contained in this article, ‘Islamic Rape of Europe‘, attributed to a Breitbart article, dated 17 Feb 2016, on the same topic. The subheader in the Breitbart article states:
“One of Poland’s most popular weekly magazines has splashed a graphic depiction of the rape of Europe’s women by migrants on its front cover. The image may be one of the most politically incorrect illustrations of the migrant crisis to date.”
The title of that article permits a search that leads to the Polish source of the image of concern. A search for Islamic Rape of Europe will permit to determine the extent to which that magazine cover was not only “exploding across Europe” but throughout the world. Nevertheless, if one can believe what Google Trends indicates, the “Islamic Rape of Europe” left no impression:
According to Google Trends, the “Islamic Rape of Europe” (published 2016 02 13) made no impression on the extent of public interest
The blue line in the graph by Google Trends is incongruous. It shows not even the slightest blip for the middle of February 2016, even though February 13, 2016 was the date on which SIECI, the Polish weekly magazine had published an article titled Islamic Rape of Europe (Polish title: Islamski gwałt na Europę) with a cover photo that became the focus of about 800,000 to 4.5 million (depending on how a search for the article is formulated) articles across the world. The articles were published. They are accessible on the Internet, but Google Trends shows not even a blip during the month when that had happened. Why is that?
There is an explanation: Google search algorithms. The title for this blog posting, Islamic Rape of Europe : Hype? Justified Claim?, can serve to illustrate how the inclusion of a popular phrase in the title of an article or blog posting on the Internet will most likely cause the article to be ranked low on search return lists. A search engine optimization tool like Yoast SEO will make a strong recommendation not to include such a phrase in the title:
Analysis resultsProblems (1)
Link keyphrase: You’re linking to another page with the words you want this page to rank for. Don’t do that!
That leaves the author of an article with a title that contains a popular phrase in a quandary. He can decide whether the subject he is writing about will rank high, by not mentioning it in the title (which will make it somewhat more difficult to find, for which reason it will be ranked low on search return lists, as it is less likely to be found), or he can be very explicit and quote the phrase or any of its synonyms and suffer the consequence of having it ranked low because it does not meet search engine optimization standards.
No doubt, Google’s team of search algorithm experts (comprising thousands of employees and contractors) have means to elevate politically correct key phrase to cause higher ranking, and corresponding solutions for politically incorrect phrases. An author of an article or blog posting can only guess and suffer the consequences of the decisions he makes. My decision was to leave the phrase Islamic Rape of Europe intact but not to identify it as a key phrase and to identify the adjective (Islamic), noun (Rape) and name (Europe) as key words.
People who search the Internet for Islamic Rape of Europe will be able to find the article of they include the character string +islamic +rape +europe in their search string. If they should happen to find the article, they will be lucky, and they better bookmark it, so that the next time they need to look it up, they will be able to do so in an instant. Unfortunately, none of that will leave much of an impression on the ranking of the article nor make much of a mark in graphs produced by Google Trends for Islamic Rape of Europe, not even in the unlikely event that the article were to go viral.
Domestic violence: Would you sign this contract to help to reduce domestic violence or even to find marital bliss?
An employer can at any time dismiss an employee without justification and have that employee imprisoned if he objects too strongly to his dismissal. For example, if the employee raises his voice in anger he may be arrested for ‘violence’. In any event, an employer can dismiss an employee regardless of the circumstances, and at his sole discretion. He can fire him from his job whenever he wishes, no matter how long the employee has served with the company and even if the employee has done absolutely nothing wrong. Further, the employer can insist that the employee is evicted from his own house and never allowed to re-enter it. An employer may further demand that the sacked employee must, under threat of imprisonment, forfeit part of any future income to the employer for some considerable time into the future.
How about including the following clause? Will that be an improvement?
A woman can at any time dismiss her male partner without justification and have that partner imprisoned if he objects too strongly to his dismissal. For example, if he raises his voice in anger he may be arrested for ‘domestic violence’. In any event, a woman can dismiss the man regardless of the circumstances and at her sole discretion. She can fire him from his jobs as father and partner whenever she wishes, no matter how long he has served the family and even if he has done absolutely nothing wrong. Further, the woman can insist that the man is evicted from his own house and never allowed to re-enter it. If she has children, a woman may further demand that her sacked partner must, under threat of imprisonment, forfeit part of any of his future income to the woman and her children for some considerable time into the future – and this is the case even if her children turn out not to be his.
—My response to Angry Harry
See the extensive discussion of the two “contracts,” of which the second one is sadly the reality that feminism gradually imposed on society during the last four decades or so.* For additional details regarding the reality of today’s marriages or, for that matter, any relationship between men and women, refer also to advice for men.
*A note of caution: Discussions of the “contracts” make extensive references to US statistics on spousal murders. The assumption in the discussions usually is that the statistics pertaining to men and women who became victims of spousal murders are equally valid. That is a wrong assumption.
The declining number of men classified as having been murdered by intimates is most likely due to the escalating efforts by feminists to hold women blameless under any and all circumstances.
Men comprise the vast and overwhelming majority of victims in a very large proportion of unsolved murder cases. It is quite likely that a large proportion of those male victims of these unsolved murder cases are victims of spousal murders.
Furthermore, women are less likely to be suspected, many times more likely than men not to be prosecuted or to be acquitted, twice as likely as men to use contract killers, and more likely than men to have their murder charges pleaded down to lesser charges such as manslaughter or accidental deaths. (If they did it right, women will hardly ever suspected of having murdered their husbands or spouses, unless they became “bereaved” at least three times in a row.)
For those reasons, many spousal murders committed by women will not show up as domestic violence crimes.
Most importantly, spousal murders comprise a very small proportion of all murders and an insignificant fraction of all causes of deaths, smaller than the deaths caused by surgical misadventure or by falling out of bed. (See US Leading Causes of Death and Falling out of Bed)
If the mission is to find domestic violence against women, domestic violence against women will be found. Janet Reimer (a former Edmonton mayor) and other representatives of Alberta women’s shelter organizations appear to pursue another revival of the Super Bowl Battering Hoax from the 1990s.
Another Revival of the Super Bowl Battering Hoax
A 1994 commentary on domestic violence against women, as manifested by the Super Bowl Battering Hoax from the 1990s states:
“…the Super Bowl “statistic” will be with us for a while, doing its divisive work of generating fear and resentment. In the book ‘How to Make the World a Better Place for Women in Five Minutes a Day’, a comment under the heading “Did You Know?” informs readers that “Super Bowl Sunday is the most violent day of the year, with the highest reported number of domestic battering cases.” How a belief in that misandrist canard can make the world a better place for women is not explained.” —Christina Hoff Sommers, ‘The New Mythology‘, June 27, 1994
Three decades later, Christina Hoff Sommers’ prophesy is once more proven correct. The concerns expressed by the four social justice warriors in the November 18, 2018 Post Media article in the Edmonton Journal did not address whether Calgary hospital admissions due to injuries contracted in domestic violence against women incidents follow the indicated trends in correlation. The report presents no facts that indicate the relative proportions of male and female domestic violence victims. Apparently, we are to swallow the unsubstantiated and non-specific suggestion that calls to DV hotlines represent exclusively female victims better than hospital admissions do, but the list in the report that the concerns expressed refer to is spell-binding:
• During the 10-day-long Calgary Stampede, domestic violence calls on the seventh, ninth and tenth day of Stampede, were up 15 per cent compared to an average day.
• Weekends and summer months were also generally associated with the highest rates of domestic violence reports in Calgary.
• Calls were higher only when the Stampeders faced off against the rival Edmonton Eskimos – with a 15 per cent increase in domestic violence reports.
• Grey Cup games in which Calgary played were associated with a 40 per cent increase in reports of domestic violence.
• Games played by the Calgary Flames seemed to have no relationship to domestic violence calls, even those against the rival Edmonton team.
• New Year’s Day appears to be associated with a significant spike in domestic violence, going by a four-year count of phone calls reporting domestic violence to both police and a local help line for those experiencing domestic and sexual abuse.
• Good Friday, Easter, Canada Day, Labour Day, Valentine’s Day and Halloween.
• The 2013 catastrophic floods in Calgary resulted in an increase in reports of domestic violence to police and the Connect help line, averaging an additional 6.6 reported incidents of domestic violence per day during the flood, 14 per cent higher than average.
• A correlation was also found in Calgary between the fall in oil prices and the rise in calls, with every US$10 fall in the price of West Texas Intermediate resulting in an extra call for help every two days.
The report contains recommendations:
• Recognizing possible contributing factors and finding ways to counteract their effect,
• Identifying these correlates is the first step to prevention.
• New places to look, based on these results, are highly charged Stampeder football games, the Calgary Stampede, weekends, summer months and certain holidays.
The report states:
“Based on the study results, the authors recommend increasing publically funded childcare and affordable family outings; working with sporting organizations to better educate and support gender equity, healthy relationship skills and bystander skills; increasing training in social and emotional learning for parents and families; and conducting further research on the role of alcohol in domestic violence.”
In other words, when seeking to reduce domestic violence against women, however infinitesimal the reduction sought may be, violence against men is of no concern, but re-educating the public to reduce violence against women is an important first step of paramount importance, time and again, to the exclusion of all others.
As to Consequences of Divorce : Longlasting effects on children, it is an unsubstantiated myth that children are resilient, that their parents’ separation and divorce will not affect them, even be good for them. Yet, as Stephen Baskerville wrote, the common ‘wisdom’ is that,
…”No good can come from forcing people to remain in loveless marriages, even in the misguided belief that somehow it is better for the children,” runs an editorial in the Daily Herald of Provo, Utah, opposing a mild reform bill recently introduced. “Is it really good for children to be raised in a home by two parents who don’t love each other and who fight all the time but who are forced to stay because of the law?”
These questions are red herrings. Divorce today does not necessarily indicate marital conflict and is less likely to be the last resort for a troubled marriage than a sudden power grab. Most divorces are initiated with little warning and often involve child snatchings. In 25 percent of marriage breakdowns, writes Margaret Brinig of Iowa State University, the man has “no clue” there is a problem until the woman says she wants out. A University of Exeter study found that in over half the cases there was no recollection of major conflict before the separation. “The assumption that parental conflict will cease at divorce is not only invalid,” writes Patricia Morgan; “divorce itself instigates conflict which continues into the post-divorce period.”
Further, as Judith Wallerstein and Sandra Blakeslee found, few children are pleased with divorce, even when severe conflict exists. “Children can be quite content even when their parents’ marriage is profoundly unhappy for one or both partners,” they write. “Only one in ten children in our study experienced relief when their parents divorced. These were mostly older children in families where there had been open violence.” Divorce and separation almost always have a more detrimental effect on children than even high-conflict marriages. “The misery their parents may feel in an unhappy marriage is usually less significant than the changes [the children] have to go through after a divorce,” says Neil Kalter, a University of Michigan psychologist. Surveys of children by Ann Mitchell and J.T. Landis found that most recalled a happy family life before the breakup….«
A Summary of Some of the Findings in the Book: ‘Second Chances: Men, Women, & Children a Decade After Divorce’ by Judith S. Wallerstein & Sandra Blakeslee (New York: Ticknor & Fields [Houghton Mifflin], 1989)
Quoted from that:
E. One-year Results Contrary to Expectations:
Wallerstein explains that when they began the study they expected that divorce would be a short-term crisis that people soon recovered from:
The study was supposed to last one year, for we believed that normal healthy people would be able to work out their problems following divorce in about one year’s time….Indeed we did not question the commonly held assumption that divorce was a short-lived crisis.
But when we conducted follow-up interviews one year to 18 months later, we found most families still in crisis. Their wounds were wide open. Turmoil and distress had not noticeably subsided. Many adults still felt angry, humiliated, and rejected, and most had not gotten their lives back together. An unexpectedly large number of children were on a downward course. Their symptoms were worse than before. Their behavior at school was worse. Their peer relationships were worse. Our findings were absolutely contradictory
to our expectations (p. xv).
‘Science 2.0’ weighs in on the destruction of Alessandro Strumia’s character, motivations, reputation and career prospects.
»Strumia’s slides contain a collection of half-baked claims, coming from his analysis of InSpire data from citations and authorship of articles in theoretical physics. I consider his talk offensive on many levels. It starts by casting the woman discrimination issue in scientific academia as a test of hypothesis of whether the “man-woman” symmetry is explicitly broken (i.e. there is no symmetry) or spontaneously broken (by a difference of treatment) – something that could even raise a smile in a geeky physicist; but the fun ends there.
He uses all sorts of ways, from methodologically questionable to ridiculous, to try and make his point….«
In paragraph 8 of his commentary, Tommaso Dorigo promises that he “will not comment further Strumia’s discussion, other than noting that [Prof. Alessandro Strumia] heavily relies for his “inference” on the IQ:…” and nevertheless rambles on for another four full paragraphs, for another 370 words.
Still, Tommaso Dorigo presented in his long commentary not a single fact that disproves any of Alessandro Strumia’s claims that there is anti-male discrimination in hiring at CERN or in the science of physics.
Tommaso Dorigo concludes his commentary with “We cannot silence minoritarian views – that would be horribly bad. But we can certainly disallow them from mudding waters and prevent us from taking rational actions.” There you are, “rational actions” indicates without a doubt that we must pursue political correctness, affirmative action hiring and equality of outcomes.
Could we possibly get into troubled waters by pursuing science with mediocre resources instead of developing them with what had made them great: excellence? Jonathan Swift, one of the original mansplainers, described long ago what is wrong with the consequences of the diktats of ideology in science, when he had Gulliver recount his observations on ‘scientific’ inquiry in Laputa (Gulliver’s Travels, A Voyage to Laputa, Chapter 5).
Update 201 81 09 14: Made addendum , to identify that FB blocked Claudia Kirn
Translation of Zeit Online Article
Re: Facebook Community Standards — Facebook censorship ruled unconstitutional — A landmark decision by the Higher Regional Court in Munich, Germany — Alas, it is as of now a temporary injunction against Facebook.
–Start of translation–
Higher Regional Court Munich [Germany]
Facebook may not remove comments at will
The social network must respect the freedom of expression when deleting contributions. The Higher Regional Court of Munich decision to that end thereby supported the opinion of a female AfD [AfD: Alternative for Germany] politician.
For Facebook, the same rules apply as for government agencies, decides the OLG Munich [Higher Regional Court Munich].
In its handling of comments, Facebook is bound to the same degree of freedom of expression as state agencies. Thus decided the Higher Regional Court of Munich (OLG) already about a week ago (file number 18 W 1294/18) and issued a temporary injunction. It is therefore not permissible for the network to set a narrower framework for the admissibility of expressions than the state.
The occasion for the hearing was a comment by female AfD politician Heike Themel, which Facebook had deleted with reference to its own community standards. Because of a report on border controls in Austria, Themel had a heated debate with some users of the platform. During that she had been insulted. She had then written to a user who had supported this statement with a “Like”, writing to her, inter alia, “I can no longer argue with you and do you justice. You are unarmed and that would not be particularly fair of me.”
With the deletion of this contribution, Facebook had done injury to its contractual obligation, decided the OLG. The social network is obliged to take into account the rights of all users, in particular the constitutional right to freedom of expression. If Facebook were to be permitted, “based on a ‘virtual house right’ (…) to delete the contribution of a user (…) even if the contribution does not exceed the limits of permissible freedom of expression”, then such an approach would not be compatible with the German constitutional Law.
In its terms and conditions, Facebook reserves the right to delete comments “if we believe they violate the statement or our guidelines.” In the opinion of the judges, this provision discriminates against users in an inadmissible manner. After all, the deletion of comments would thereby ultimately be placed at the discretion of the company.
The lawyer Joachim Steinhöfel, who represented the AfD politician in the lawsuit, was satisfied with the decision of the court. He called the temporary injunction “a milestone in the fight for freedom of expression in the social media.”
A spokeswoman for Facebook said that the injunction is currently not yet available to the enterprise: “As soon as we receive it, we will examine it.” Facebook were a platform where people across the world, across borders, can exchange and share content that matters to them. However, this should not be done at the expense of the safety and well-being of others.
Translation: “Claudia was obviously blocked by Facebook. The suspicion is close that she was reported. Does the snitch have at least enough ass in his pants? Who reported a group founder?”
Apparently, there is some (non-identified) evidence that Claudia Kirn blocked someone from her discussion forum, because the individual had insulted her in an exchange of opinions.
The subsequent discussion involves much speculation, but no evidence at all, on who the culprit was.
The interesting aspect of that discussion is that much of it revolves around what and what not to do to avoid violations of Facebook’s nebulous community standards. Still, even though the recent ruling by the Higher Regional Court of Munich, prohibiting Facebook from blocking any of its subscriber due to its community standards that do not comply with what applies in respect to standards of conduct for government agencies, Facebook apparently ignored the ruling of the Court.
That was pointed out in the referenced discussion thread, but not one of the participants appeared to pay any attention to the likelihood that the blocking by FB of Claudia Kirn was possibly a breach of the law, in violation of the recent court order by the Higher Regional Court of Munich.
Yes, the website for Fathers for Life and its affiliated blogs are being slandered and censored.
Whether you are a fathers-rights activist, a pro-family activist or a skeptic of environmental alarmism, it is quite likely that your website or blog is being slandered and censored, too. It is being done on the sly. No one will tell you about it. If it happened, you will have been found guilty and were sentenced in the Star-Chamber court of a multinational corporation (by an obscure clerk, in an obscure office), and it is not likely that you will be able to appeal.
Check the rating of your website or blog.
I had asked O2 to review and explain their website rating policy in regard to Fathers for Life. They did not respond.