Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[GreatJustice]

ron paul is not a libertarian championing for personal liberty. he is an anti-federalist seeking to empower the states in oppressing individuals.

What the we the people act does is prevent the us supreme court from defending the constitutional rights of citizens when a state chooses to infringe on them. But only in such a way that it champions the conservative agenda of enforcing religious mandates and abolishing abortion one state at a time.

Eh, well a lot of issues he's pro-personal liberty period (The military, surveillance, etc) and on others he believes either the government shouldn't be involved or that it should be a state matter (gay marriage, abortion).

Frankly, having issues like abortion handled at the state level makes a lot more sense. Also, states are by necessity a lot more responsive to the people living there, since (A) Each person's vote counts for a lot more (smaller population) and (B) Hundreds of millions of dollars aren't generally spent on lobbying as is the case in federal elections.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Frankly, having issues like abortion handled at the state level makes a lot more sense.

Elaborate.

[Truean]

Frankly, having issues like abortion handled at the state level makes a lot more sense.

Elaborate.

Two schools of thought:

I.) States should handle it: a.) traditionally states have police powers and family law powers. This is that. b.) "States are more responsive to their individual voters." Theory.

II.) The federal government should handle it: a.) it's a civil rights issue. b.) States have a history of trampling individual rights (see, civil rights movement).


[shrugs] I'mma eat some pie.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I'm not sure how anyone support abortion in the hands of the states by now anyway. It's been handled by the federal government already, and you can't unring a bell.

[Nadaka]

I'm not sure how anyone support abortion in the hands of the states by now anyway. It's been handled by the federal government already, and you can't unring a bell.

You can if you don't think the 14th amendment is a valid part of the constitution, like Ron Paul.

[Reelya]

Naomi Wolf on the unusual interest Sweden is taking in the Julian Assange case, and how it's vastly different to the normally lax treatment of rape charges there.

Excerpt:

When I reached the Stockholm branch of Terrafem, a support organization for rape survivors, a volunteer told me that in her many years of experience, Sweden’s police, prosecutors, and magistrates had never mobilized in pursuit of any alleged perpetrator in ways remotely similar to their pursuit of Assange. The far more common scenario – in fact, the only reliable scenario – was that even cases accompanied by a significant amount of evidence were seldom prosecuted.

This, she explained, was because most rapes in Uppsala, Stockholm, and other cities occur when young women meet young men online and go to an apartment, where, as in the allegations in the Assange case, what began as consensual sex turns nonconsensual. But she said that this is exactly the scenario that Swedish police typically refuse to prosecute. Just as everywhere else, Sweden’s male-dominated police, she explained, do not tend to see these victims as “innocent,” and thus do not bother building a case for arrest.

She is right: According to a report by Amnesty International, as of 2008, the number of reported rapes in Sweden had quadrupled in 20 years, but only 20% of cases were ever prosecuted. And, while the prosecution rate constituted a minimal improvement on previous years, when less than 15% of cases ended up in court, the conviction rate for reported rapes “is markedly lower today than it was in 1965.” As a result, “in practice, many perpetrators enjoy impunity."

Until 2006, women in Uppsala faced a remarkable hurdle in seeking justice: the city’s chief of police, Göran Lindberg, was himself a serial rapist, convicted in July 2010 of more than a dozen charges, including “serious sexual offenses.” One victim testified that she was told her rapist was the police chief, and that she would be framed if she told anyone about his assaults. Lindberg also served as the Police Academy’s spokesman against sexual violence. The Uppsala police force that is now investigating Assange either failed to or refused to investigate effectively the sadistic rapist with whom they worked every day.

[Sirus]

...goddamn.

[Urist Imiknorris]

What the what the what.

[GreatJustice]

I'm not sure how anyone support abortion in the hands of the states by now anyway. It's been handled by the federal government already, and you can't unring a bell.

Hardly an argument.

Also, it means that the states that are full of pro-lifers don't have to resort to banning abortion from pro-choice states federally. If you consider it to be that big of a deal then you can move to the next state over where it's legal/illegal. Plus, regardless of which side you're on, it falls distinctly under the category of "State Issue" for the same reason that there is no federal law banning murder. If abortion is considered to be murder then by definition it can't be a federal law, and if it isn't then the 10th amendment would come into effect (though the 10th applies to it both ways in this case).

[MetalSlimeHunt]

The pro-life movement is never going to succeed in federally banning abortion. The Supreme Court would overturn any such law even if it did pass.

The 10th is one of the most subjectively applied amendments in the Constitution.

[Vorthon]

Ohgod pro-lifers. Motherfucking prolifers. The was a booth for some pro-life group at the labour-day fair where I live. Only thing that marred my day at the fair, to be honest.

[Sirus]

Some local pro-life group sometimes likes to set up shop at my college. I'm pretty sure I mentioned them once before, the ones who outright tell women that they don't get a say in their own pregnancies.

[Glowcat]

She is right: According to a report by Amnesty International, as of 2008, the number of reported rapes in Sweden had quadrupled in 20 years, but only 20% of cases were ever prosecuted. And, while the prosecution rate constituted a minimal improvement on previous years, when less than 15% of cases ended up in court, the conviction rate for reported rapes “is markedly lower today than it was in 1965.” As a result, “in practice, many perpetrators enjoy impunity."

This is pretty Progressive Ra-..Discussion worthy of itself. That is seriously screwed up.

[palsch]

I'm not entirely trusting of Naomi Wolf on this topic, although the facts in the article wouldn't surprise me if they were true. Wolf wrote a gross piece immediately after Assange's arrest that was basically entirely dismissive of the women and has been trying to justify that original position ever since. It's lead her to take hard lines against anonymity in rape cases (something there is debate over but in her case is explicitly to justify outing the two women in the Assange accusations) and write what is frankly bullshit about the accusations and Swedish prosecution.

It could well be that her figures regarding Swedish rape prosecutions are right, and they certainly sound about right to me, but I simply would not use Wolf as a source for anything involving Assange.

As for the prosecution being political, yeah. But not in any conspiratorial manner.

The accusations against Assange came at the hight of his fame. If you are a country (or just a person within that country) trying to take rape seriously then you put a lot of effort into high-profile cases, simply because public perception is critical in shifting attitudes and without shifting attitudes (especially regarding reporting and guilt) you can't make improvements.

It's not surprising or suspicious that they have been perused with a lot more intensity than usual, especially given the way he left the country. Remember that he effectively skipped out on an active investigation when he was due in for questioning. David Allen Green has published his full account of the legal side focusing on the English law, but with a brief account of how Assange appeared to flee the prosecution at the start of the whole affair, leaving the country five days after his lawyer was contacted regarding the follow up interrogation. At this stage an arrest warrant was a fairly understandable step. That warrant was then appealed within Sweden by Assange's lawyer and upheld by the Court of Appeal of Svea. Only after this appeal found that the warrant was valid was a European Arrest Warrant issued, certified by the UK and executed when Assange surrendered himself to the police in London.

[scriver]

First of all, yes, rapes aren't taken as serious in Sweden as they should be, just like everywhere else in the world, because rape culture. There are some pretty shady things with that excerpt, though.


[/quote]According to a report by Amnesty International, as of 2008, the number of reported rapes in Sweden had quadrupled in 20 years, but only 20% of cases were ever prosecuted. And, while the prosecution rate constituted a minimal improvement on previous years, when less than 15% of cases ended up in court, the conviction rate for reported rapes “is markedly lower today than it was in 1965.” As a result, “in practice, many perpetrators enjoy impunity."[/quote]

First she talks about reported rapes. Then prosecuted cases. Then the amount of reported rapes leading to conviction. Of course the the conviction rate of reported rapes is lower than in 1965 - the amount of reports has risen a lot (she herself says it's quadrupled since 1988, just half the time from -65), while rapes remain almost just as hard to actually prove to the police and courts of a rape culture country.

It is strange, too, that she uses this to argue against a case where the reports are actually leading to prosecution. "You didn't to things the right way these other 80% of times, this one time can't be one of the 20% when you do do things right!", or that it should be suspicious because Assange didn't receive the normal response from police since he's famous. Well, what does she expect? Does she think that accusations of rape against, say, a famous pop star, or a French presidential candidate wouldn't receive more attention than a common Joe raping or getting raped? Celebrity cases always gets more attention and resources. Unfair, but nothing out of the ordinary.

Until 2006, women in Uppsala faced a remarkable hurdle in seeking justice: the city’s chief of police, Göran Lindberg, was himself a serial rapist, convicted in July 2010 of more than a dozen charges, including “serious sexual offenses.” One victim testified that she was told her rapist was the police chief, and that she would be framed if she told anyone about his assaults. Lindberg also served as the Police Academy’s spokesman against sexual violence. The Uppsala police force that is now investigating Assange either failed to or refused to investigate effectively the sadistic rapist with whom they worked every day.

Corrupted policemen and officials exist everywhere, as you very well know, and a lot of them use their power and status to threaten victims or shield themselves from suspicion. This one horrible story has very little to do with Assange's case. As for "failed or refused to investigate", what exactly does she think he was convicted for when it was discovered what crimes he had committed?