Do I have anything useful to say about the Zimmerman verdict? No, not really, except that I don’t get it. Martin didn’t stalk Zimmerman; Zimmerman stalked Martin; so I don’t get it.

Or maybe I do, but wish I didn’t.

Update: someone named Julia Wong put it very well in a tweet.

The actions our society condones as “self-defense” are indicative of who is deemed to have a self (be human). This is white supremacy.

I’m afraid I think that’s about right.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Sahar Gul was sold into “marriage” at age 12. Her in-laws tortured her in an attempt to force her into prostitution.

The torture began shortly after her brother sold her to the family for an underage wedding, when she baulked at the family’s effort to force her into prostitution. Her new husband did not participate in the abuse, but nor did he try to stop his father, mother and sister.

By the end of her ordeal she was so weak she had to be rescued from her makeshift prison in a wheelbarrow.

The in-laws were prosecuted and convicted but now they’ve been released.

Human rights activists have warned of an new assault on women’s rights in Afghanistan after judges and prosecutors allowed the early release of three people convicted for the brutal torture of a child bride, and conservative lawmakers made an aggressive bid to prevent relatives testifying against each other.

If successful, the small change – introduced covertly into the criminal prosecution code – would stop the vast majority of cases of violence against women from ever reaching court.

Together with the quashing of three convictions for the attempted murder of the teenager Sahar Gul, it marks an alarming two-pronged assault on women’s rights by both those who make the laws and those tasked with upholding them.

“Conservative” seems an odd and inadequate word to describe “lawmakers” who want to see young girls sold into bogus “marriage” and their in-laws free to torture them into prostitution. How exactly is that “conservative”? Does Afghanistan have a proud tradition of torturing girls, forcing girls into prostitution, doing nothing when the in-laws of girls sold into marriage torture them nearly to death? Is that what the lawmakers are conserving?

The 10-year sentences handed down to Gul’s tormentors last year was hailed as an important step forward, after her case horrified Afghanistan and prompted a bout of national soul-searching.

She was sold as a wife when she was an illiterate 12-year-old and her in-laws wasted little time embarking on a campaign of almost unimaginable torture. They starved her, chained her in a basement bathroom, beat her, burned her with red-hot metal pipes and pulled her fingernails out.

By the end of her ordeal she could no longer walk, and was rescued from her makeshift prison in a wheelbarrow. But last week, according to her lawyer and women’s activists, a court ordered the release of Gul’s mother-in-law, father-in-law, and sister-in-law saying there was no proof of abuse.

“This was based on the idea that there was no evidence, but the people who would have given evidence didn’t know that the hearing was taking place,” said Kimberley Motley, a Kabul-based US lawyer who took on Gul’s case last week after learning of the release.

Judges ignored the fact that the courtroom was almost empty, with apparently no representation from government prosecutors or the victim, even though both should have been informed under Afghan law.

That, too, does not seem very “conservative.” It seems more like heads we win, tails you lose.

However terrifying women’s advocates find the quashing of sentences for Sahar Gul’s tormentors, the legal changes that some MPs are hoping to bring to the country’s criminal prosecution code, now travelling through parliament, would have stopped the case even reaching court.

They have added a provision to clause 1 of article  26, which lists people who cannot be questioned as witnesses. “Relatives of the accused” are now grouped with small children, the accused’s defence lawyer and others, according to one source who has seen a draft of the law.

Qazi Nazir Ahmad Hanafi, a conservative MP who has been a driving force in efforts to quash a landmark law on violence against women, confirmed to the Guardian that the provision had been added to a draft of the code that recently went through the lower house of parliament. It would still need to be passed by the upper house and signed by the president to become law.

Women’s rights activists and female MPs who are outspoken about women’s rights said they were not aware of the change, which still has to be approved by the upper house, but the head of the UN’s human rights unit warned it could make prosecution of violence against women “almost impossible”.

It’s always depressing to realize how passionately women are hated.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

We’ve seen the Fox News hack’s “joke” about coat hanger abortions.

Jen Gunter explains what happens with a coat hanger abortion.

A coat hanger is technically narrow enough to get through a pregnant cervical os, but the end is sharp not tapered so it can lacerate and perforate. Getting any instrument through the cervix safely also requires visualization and knowledge of the correct amount of force.

If she’s lucky enough to get the coat hanger through her cervix it could easily sail right through the back or side walls of the uterus. The uterine wall is soft and easily perforated with the wrong instrument or unskilled hands. If the uterus is perforated on one of the sides there is a high risk of lacerating a uterine artery, as that is where they are located. If this happens a woman who is by herself could easily bleed to death before she gets appropriate medical care. These arteries pump a lot of blood.

The other danger with uterine perforation is the bowel. Puncturing bowel will hurt, but depending on her level of fear it might only be enough to cry out but not to ask for help. However, within the next 3 days the bowel perforation will most certainly kill her unless she gets appropriate medical care. That care will likely involve major surgery to drain abscesses, remove necrotic bowel, and possibly even a colostomy. The uterus will also be infected and may be damaged beyond repair.

If she was lucky and got that rough end of the coat hanger in and out of her cervix without puncturing something it is unlikely she will induce an abortion immediately. In this scenario the coat hanger is really just a vector for introducing infection. In 2-3 days or so she will cramp, and if fortunate her uterus will contract and she will pass the tissue at home. However, the bacteria from septic abortions often disseminates and each hour the condition remains untreated death takes a step closer.

There’s more.

It’s not a very funny joke.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Manboobz addresses the Edmonton MRA campaign.

I don’t think that MRAs are really concerned about false accusations. If they were, they would be working with groups like the Innocence Project that actually help men (and women) who have been wrongly convicted for crimes they didn’t commit.

No, it seems to me that what they’re really worried about is true accusations.

MRAs, with these posters, and with their endless whinging about the alleged complexities of sexual consent, are trying to push back against the date rape awareness campaigns of the last several decades. MRAs and PUAs like to pretend that consent is a complicated and weirdly arbitrary thing — something that women decide to bestow or not to bestow on a whim, and that women sometimes like to retract after the fact.

It’s important to know what “the movement” really says about consent and rape.

AVFM founder and publisher Paul Elam blames date rape on its victims, writing in one notorious post — which regular readers here will no doubt remember — that women who are raped after drinking and going home with a man are “begging” to be raped:

I have ideas about women who spend evenings in bars hustling men for drinks …  paying their bar tab with the pussy pass. And the women who drink and make out, doing everything short of sex with men all evening, and then go to his apartment at 2:00 a.m..  Sometimes both of these women end up being the “victims” of rape.

But are these women asking to get raped?

In the most severe and emphatic terms possible the answer is NO, THEY ARE NOT ASKING TO GET RAPED.

They are freaking begging for it.

Damn near demanding it.

And all the outraged PC demands to get huffy and point out how nothing justifies or excuses rape won’t change the fact that there are a lot of women who get pummeled and pumped because they are stupid (and often arrogant) enough to walk though life with the equivalent of a I’M A STUPID, CONNIVING BITCH – PLEASE RAPE ME neon sign glowing above their empty little narcissistic heads.

Elam has also said that if he is ever on a jury in a rape case he will vote to acquit even if there is clear evidence that the accused is guilty, and he has urged other men to similarly “nullify.” Here is his exact quote:

Should I be called to sit on a jury for a rape trial, I vow publicly to vote not guilty, even in the face of overwhelming evidence that the charges are true.

That’s worth knowing.

Meanwhile, AVFM Editor in Chief John Hembling takes a certain pride in his callousness towards rape victims, and has gone so far as to make several videos in which he’s announced that he doesn’t care about rape, and that if he ever sees anyone being raped, he will simply walk on by. (You can find excerpts of both vidoes here.)

There are many other examples of the site’s utter contempt for rape victims, but perhaps the most telling is the site’s use of the term “rapetard” to describe people who take the issue of rape seriously.

The people behind the Don’t Be That Girl posters claim that they’re merely trying to protect innocent men from false accusers. Their real agenda is much more insidious than that.

The pro-rape party. Interesting.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

You know what “horseplay” is – it’s when an adult man pulls an adult woman onto his lap when both of them are at work.

THE general secretary of Fine Gael has criticised party TD Tom Barry for his “unacceptable” and “inappropriate” actions in pulling a female party colleague onto his lap during the Dail abortion debate.

In a rare public statement, Tom Curran revealed that he had watched the footage of the incident, which has gone viral.

He insisted that the characterisation of the incident as “horseplay” by Fine Gael figures did not reflect how the party viewed it.

This morning, party officials described the incident as being “silly” and “clearly horseplay”.

However this afternoon, Mr Curran said the party did not view it this way and and branded it as “unacceptable”.

“One deputy’s actions were unwelcome to another deputy. If it happened in any other workplace, it would be unacceptable.

“That it happened on the floor of Leinster House makes it more so,” he said.

It’s strange that this seems to be so challenging for some people.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

My friend Udo Schuklenk has an opinion piece on why “John Paul II day” is a very bad idea.

Looking back at this pope’s legacy, John Paul II was a highly conservative head of the Roman Catholic Church. Under his leadership, pedophilia in the church was not addressed seriously, and repeat offenders were busily shuffled through the worldwide church empire. He invariably made the noises about this behaviour being bad, but he did little to follow through as the man in charge.

His views on artificial insemination, abortion, euthanasia and homosexuality are considered offensive by the overwhelming majority of Canadians. This did not stop him from proactively lobbying Jean Chretien at the time against marriage equality, because the thought of providing equal rights to gay and lesbian Canadians was something this Catholic pontiff was not prepared to tolerate, not even in a country that was not his own. Well, that is if you accept that all-male Vatican as a country, of sorts.

John Paul II has rightly been criticized by public health and reproductive health experts for his absolute prohibition on condoms. He did not care that it could reduce the spread of HIV/AIDS, and he certainly did not like the idea of preventing the birth of unwanted children. Under his leadership his clergy campaigned in many developing countries relentlessly against sex-education campaigns involving the use of condoms. Deliberate misinformation, in the name of God, was not beneath many of these campaigners.

So even if you wanted to have a “Cleric day” this particular cleric would be a terrible choice.

But you wouldn’t want to have a “Cleric day” anyway.

The inevitable question this “honouring” business gives rise to is this: Where should we draw the line? What other religious figurehead is next? How about the founder of the Church of Scientology, the deceased science fiction author L. Ron Hubbard? Or perhaps we should next honour a Muslim cleric for good balance?

The bottom line is this: Religion is a private and typically highly divisive issue. The truth of religious beliefs cannot be established. It is bad public policy in modern, multicultural societies to honour religious figureheads.

That sentence about the impossibility of establishing the truth of religious beliefs is one that almost always gets left out when people defend secularism. I’m glad Udo put it in. It makes a difference, after all; it’s basic; it shouldn’t be left out.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Well Vincent Browne is blunt.

Tonight the (almost) all-male parliament will vote to imprison a woman, for up to 14 years, who refuses to give her body to the sustenance of another human being, irrespective of almost all circumstances.

It is irrespective of whether the pregnancy would do serious and irreversible harm to her health for the rest of her life.

It is irrespective of the circumstances whereby she became pregnant, for example, if she had been gang-raped and was distraught at the prospect of bringing to full term the child of one of her rapists.

It is irrespective of whether the woman would be able to cope physically, emotionally and psychologically with having, say, a 10th child. It’s irrespective of the woman’s will.

That was Wednesday, before the vote happened.

This intrusion on the autonomy of women is founded on the virulent misogyny that pervades our culture. The culture that demeaned women by disbarring them from employment for centuries; that excluded them from the institutions and positions of power; that made them the property of their husbands; that still often portrays them as the mere sex toys of men; that has so infiltrated the consciousness of millions of women that even they believe their role is the mere “helper” of men (see Genesis chapter 2, verse 18). The culture that has absorbed the poisonous misogyny of the Catholic Church. Aside from an acknowledgement of a women’s right to life, there has been hardly a mention of any other entitlement on the part of the mother by any of the anti-abortion advocates, including the Catholic bishops (whose effrontery in engaging in any debate to do with morals is itself astonishing). It is as though they regard women as mere incubators.

Yes, it is.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Canada what the hell are you thinking?!

The text of the bill:

An Act to establish Pope John Paul II Day

Whereas Pope John Paul II served as the pontiff of the Roman Catholic Church from October 16, 1978, until his death on April 2, 2005;

Whereas Pope John Paul II is widely recognized as a leading figure in the history of the Roman Catholic Church and the world and played an influential and vital role in promoting international understanding and peace;

Whereas Pope John Paul II loved young persons and was instrumental in establishing World Youth Day in 1985 as a way to inspire youth and encourage them in living out the teachings of Christ;

Whereas Pope John Paul II visited Canada in his capacity as Pope for the first time in 1984 and later in 1987 and 2002;

And whereas Pope John Paul II visited many countries around the world and helped to end communism in Eastern Europe;

…therefore let’s pick a day in the calendar and call it pope John Paul day.

No, let’s not.

Sign the petition that says let’s not.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

In Ireland, chapter 20 of the Murphy Report has just been published.

Three former Archbishops of Dublin have been criticised in trenchant terms in a previously unpublished section of a report on the handling of child abuse cases in Dublin.

Archbishops Dermot Ryan, Kevin McNamara and Cardinal Desmond Connell are named in Chapter 20 of the Murphy report, published this afternoon.

Chapter 20, which dealt with former priest Patrick McCabe (77), was released for publication by the High Court yesterday and placed in its entirety on the Department of Justice website this afternoon. McCabe walked free from court last March after an 18-month jail term was backdated by the judge.

…

At 62 pages Chapter 20 is the longest chapter in the Murphy report, which was published in November 2009.

The Chapter’s findings are among the most critical of church and Garda authorities made by the Murphy Commission, which investigated the handling of clerical child sex abuse allegations by church and state authorities in Dublin’s Catholic archdiocese between 1975 and 2004.

McCabe was protected; that’s what chapter 20 is about.

The Murphy report found that: “Archbishop (Dermot) Ryan not only about knew about the complaints against Fr McCabe, he had a considerable understanding of the effects of abuse on children. This is one of the few cases in which he took a close personal interest.”

Murphy found that Archbishop Ryan “protected Fr McCabe to an extraordinary extent; he ensured, as far as he could, that very few people knew about his activities; it seems that the welfare of children simply did not play any part in his decisions.”

They let him go off to a new job in Stockton, California without telling anyone there about his history. They protected him and themselves and the church and no one else.

In a statement this evening the Catholic Archbishop of Dublin Diarmuid Martin said: “For those abused by Patrick McCabe, the wait for truth has been a long one. They rightly also feel that their fight for justice has been a long one and as I know from my meetings with some of the survivors, justice delayed compounded their suffering. I hope that today, with the publication of the full Chapter 20 of the Murphy Report some of their suffering will ease.”

He said more, but none of it reported was anything like “we behaved abominably.” What was reported was the usual river of elegant words with no sign of actual horror and shame at what his colleagues and his church did.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

CNN gives the most complete coverage of Malala’s speech at the UN that I’ve seen so far, with a selection of videos.

Speaking for children across the world, she told world leaders: “We are really tired of these wars.”

Yousafzai went on to address specific attacks in Pakistan on teachers and school children. Earlier this summer a female teacher was gunned down in front of her son as she drove into her all-girl school. A school principal was killed and his students severely injured when a bomb was tossed onto a school playground at an all-girl school in Karachi in March.

In January, five teachers were killed near the town of Swabi in the volatile northern Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province, the United Nations says.

And, in June, a suicide bomber blew up a bus carrying 40 schoolgirls as it made its way to an all-girl campus in Quetta. Fourteen female students were killed.

“Dear sisters and brothers,” she said, “we realize the importance of light when we see darkness. We realize the importance of our voice when we are silenced. In the same way when we were in Swat, we realized the importance of pens and books when we saw the guns.

“The extremists were and they are afraid of books and pens,” she said.

“The power of education frightens them. They are afraid of women. The power of the voice of women frightens them.”

This fear is partly based on the Taliban’s own lack of education, Yousafzai said. And, she said, world leaders should “change their strategic policies” to press for peace and ensure that children’s and women’s rights are protected.

“We call upon all governments to ensure free, compulsory education — all around the world for every child.”

Free, compulsory, and safe – no bombers, no gunmen, no acid attacks, no arson. No theocrats trying frantically to shrink human beings into something tiny and afraid and submissive.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Malala Yousufzai spoke at the UN today. I’ve found two videos so far, which cover different sections of her speech.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrasFcGqM_s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIPggZPmceI

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

RTÉ follows the Dáil abortion legislation debate as it happened.

17:00

And we’re off again … with our second live blog as another round of discussions on the abortion legislation gets under way in the Dáil.

17:25

Clare Daly TD said where a woman believes that it is in her best interest to have a termination, that option should be available to her.

• 17:23

  Joan Collins TD said we should not allow women to be treated as second and third class citizens.

Clare Daly TD – I was on a panel with her less than two weeks ago – a panel on reproductive rights.

This one, in fact -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtlxP5mvo_8

I’m amazed at the things I get to do, sometimes.

19:46

Minister for Children Frances Fitzgerald said that where there is a real and substantial risk to the life of the mother, she has the right to have her life saved.

She said that if you start saying that risk of death has to be set aside, then you are putting the life of the mother at risk and denying her, her rights.

Well quite.

• 00:25
  The Government has passed the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Bill by 127 votes to 31.

  All of the 165 proposed amendments were defeated by the Government which led to criticism from Opposition TDs.

  The Bill now moves to the Seanad.

So that’s done.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Aodhán Ó Ríordáin TD thanks supporters and rejoices that Ireland has been brought into the 1950s tonight.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfPXGKJ_eRk

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

It’s done. Shortly after midnight the Dáil passed the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Bill.

The Government has passed legislation for the first time allowing for abortion in limited circumstances.

Shortly after midnight, TDs voted by 127 to 31 in favour of the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Bill.

The landmark legislation enshrines a woman’s right to a termination if her life is at risk, including from suicide.

It’s about stinking time, and it’s also obviously very inadequate, but it’s something.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Some tweets:

Gavin Reilly @gavreilly

Applause from the Labour benches, and from Alan Shatter, as the Dáil adjours at 12:25am.

Aodhán Ó Ríordáin TD @AodhanORiordain

Its done. #actiononx

Owen Corrigan @owencorrigan

FINALLY! And all it took was 21 years. #disgrace #XCase #abortionvote #Dail #Ireland pic.twitter.com/aeW2z6BCQq

             Retweeted by Jen Keane

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Men’s Rights Edmonton has issued an Official Statement gloating over its new fame and glory and explaining how urgent it is to change the subject from rape to false accusations of rape. (H/t hjhornbeck for the link.)

Hello Everyone,

We at Men’s Rights Edmonton have become a national topic of discussion due to our recent poster campaign calling attention to false allegations of rape.

For the people that want a quick answer to the question of why the campaign, we would respond, What is wrong with advocating against both rape and false rape accusations?

Both are abhorrent means of manipulation and power.  As for our campaign, not once did it advocate or apologize for rape.  It is very clearly worded to target only people who lie about sexual assault.  “Lying about sexual assault = a crime” is a statement of fact that any rational person will agree with, and false rape reports undermine the credibility of actual reports of actual rape.

Men’s Rights Edmonton believes the original “Don’t be that guy” campaign is hate speech.  It specifically targets a gender and all members of that gender as perpetrators of rape.

No, it doesn’t.

Sexual violations, including rape, can be committed by anyone.  While a majority of reported sexual assaults are committed by men, associating or claiming all men are potential rapists is analogous to claiming all minorities will commit theft.

The “Don’t be that guy” campaign is insulting to anyone with a conscience, both men and women.  It is not novel or different. We want rapists punished for their crimes.  We also want the system to punish those that make false rape claims.  How more can you trivialize real victims of rape than by making a false rape claim?

Reliable statistics on rape and false claims of rape are hard to find.  Some studies, bolstered by low conviction rates, suggest that false claims of rape are on a par with actual rape reports.  How is this not a problem?  Reducing the false reporting of rape can only work to increase the conviction rates for actual rapists.

Men’s Rights Edmonton extends an open invitation to debate this issue to Lise Gotell and anyone who wishes to join her here.  You are more than welcome to join us for a debate.

["]What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist.”

― Salman Rushdie

Yeah…Men’s Rights Edmonton isn’t Salman Rushdie.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

More on the Edmonton MRAs and their “don’t be that girl” poster campaign.

The CBC story on Tuesday.

Posters that mimic the well-known “Don’t be that guy” campaign against sexual assault have gone up around Edmonton bearing a very different message.

The “Don’t be that girl” poster reads: “Just because you regret a one night stand, doesn’t mean it wasn’t consensual. Lying about sexual assault = a crime.”

Late Tuesday night a group called Mens Rights Edmonton, a local anti-feminism group, claimed responsibility for the posters.

…

New data released Tuesday by the Canadian Women’s Foundation show that less than 10 per cent of sexual assaults are reported to the police.

The survey suggests about 19 per cent of Canadians believe women encourage or provoke assault when they are drunk and 15 per cent believe it can be provoked by flirting.

The CBC report yesterday.

In that one you get to hear the familiar voice of Karen Straughan explaining how the original “don’t be that guy” poster campaign “really does demonize all men.”

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Well isn’t that adorable - a men’s rights group in Edmonton put up a bunch of posters claiming women lie about rape.

After a story aired about the controversial posters on Tuesday, CBC News received an email from an unknown member of the group.

“Thank you for your interest in our activist group,” the person going by the name MR-E wrote. “Yes, we have been very busy with postering our town.”

The posters, which mimic the well-known “Don’t be that guy” campaign against sexual assault, recently popped up in downtown Edmonton and around the University of Alberta, where they have since been taken down by campus police.

The “Don’t be that girl” poster reads: “Just because you regret a one night stand, doesn’t mean it wasn’t consensual. Lying about sexual assault = a crime.”

Karen Straughan, spokesperson for Men’s Rights Edmonton, believes the original “Don’t be that guy” campaign demonized men.

“It frames all men as potential sexual predators,” she said.

Karen Straughan, aka GirlWritesWhat.

Lise Gotell, chair of women and gender studies at the University of Alberta, worked on the original “Don’t be that guy” campaign. She believes the new posters send the wrong message.

“They’ve perverted the message,” she said. “And they’ve transformed it into a rape apologist message and it’s just very disturbing.”

Police officers who investigate sexual assault cases say false accusations are “extremely rare.”

Those police officers must be radfems.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Ivana Bacik thinks that bishops shouldn’t be telling legislators what to do.

A call by Labour Senator Ivana Bacik for a Seanad debate on the separation of church and State led to sharp exchanges.

Ms Bacik said she looked forward to the debate on the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Bill, adding that she welcomed the fact that after 21 years legislators were facing up to their responsibilities.

“I call on the leader, in the aftermath of the Bill, perhaps in the autumn, to arrange a debate on the separation of church and State, given the rather robust interventions by the bishops, essentially seeking to tell legislators what to do, which, I believe, is not appropriate in a republic.’’

Darragh O’Brien (FF) asked if Ms Bacik wanted to gag the bishops.

Is that an option?

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)