Bulletin Board v304

Advocates, survivors say stigmas keep male victims from reporting sexual assaults — Social stigmas and a lack of understanding fuels the underreporting of sexual assaults among male victims, police and victim advocates said at a campus forum Thursday. Zac Palmer told about a dozen people at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln he didn’t realize what his longtime partner did to him was sexual assault. He only later came to terms with it, and then last summer, he was sexually assaulted by someone else while at a party with friends, he said.

Chicago Archdiocese pays $3.15 million to settle abuse suits — The Archdiocese of Chicago will pay $3.15 million to settle lawsuits brought by three men who allege they were sexually abused by a notorious former pastor of a West Side Catholic church more than a decade ago, the plaintiffs’ attorney said Wednesday. The accusers, all identified in court papers as John Doe, said former priest and convicted sex offender Daniel McCormack sexually abused them more than once during their participation in an after-school program called S.A.F.E. at Our Lady of the Westside Catholic School.

Court hears boy got himself expelled from seminary so that sex abuse by priest would stop — A catholic priest repeatedly sexually abused a young boy in his care “breaching that trust in a spectacular and horrific way,” a court heard. The boy was just 13 and 14 years old when Father Michael Higginbottom allegedly began seriously abusing him at a seminary in West Lancashire, according to prosecutors. Continue reading

Indian police charge 12 year old with rape for getting an 18 year old girl pregnant

India proves yet again that it is a terrible place for male rape victims. In case that I cannot begin to explain, Indian police charged a 12 year old boy with rape after an 18 year girl gave birth at a hospital:

Kalamassery police have registered a case against a 12-year-old boy and a private hospital here after an 18-year-old girl gave birth to a baby.

While the boy was booked under Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice Act for allegedly impregnating the girl two months before she turned 18, the hospital was charged for breaching the POCSO Act by not informing the police.

According to the Juvenile Justice Act, the boy faces a potential three in prison for:

[…] having the actual charge of, or control over, a child, assaults, abandons, abuses, exposes or wilfully neglects the child or causes or procures the child to be assaulted, abandoned, abused, exposed or neglected in a manner likely to cause such child unnecessary mental or physical suffering […]

If it seems like you are missing something, you are not alone. I looked up as many articles about this case as I could find, and not one of them explained how anyone determined that the 12 year old fathered the child, let alone why he and not the girl was held responsible. This was the best explanation: Continue reading

Britain to implement pre-trial testimony for rape cases

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The above is the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution. It exists to protect those accused of crimes from being forced to prove their innocence. It is the cornerstone of US law. No one can be compelled to testify against himself. No one can be compelled to testify in his defense. No one can be charged for the same crime twice.

This is followed by the Sixth Amendment:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Again, this is a fundamental part of the US legal process. No one can be held for long periods of time while awaiting trial (although this is violated frequently with high-profile, juvenile, and murder cases). No one can be prosecuted without being informed of the charges. Most importantly, no one can be tried without knowing who accused him and having the chance to question the accuser.

The right to cross-examination is important because it allows the defendant to challenge the accuser’s credibility directly. The legal definition explains the logic behind this:

[a] court practice, the part of a case, whether civil or criminal, where evidence is elicited from the other side’s witness. Thus, the defence will cross-examine the investigating police officers after the prosecutor has conducted the examination in chief It serves two functions:

(1) to test the veracity of the witness and the accuracy of the evidence;
(2) to obtain evidence on points on which he has not been questioned in chief and which may support the cross-examiner’s case. Failure to cross-examine on any matter generally implies acceptance of evidence on that point.

That is the purpose of the cross-examination. So when I see an effort in Britain to get rid due process and cross-examination in rape cases, I am reminded why the colonists decided to go their own way. Continue reading

Ontario court finds lying about taking the pill is A-okay

Oh,  Canada. The phrase takes on a different meaning considering how often the Canadian government screws over its citizens. In their latest instance of legal stupidity, a court ruled that lying about taking birth control is not grounds for a lawsuit:

In upholding an earlier ruling on the case, the Ontario Court of Appeal said the woman’s behaviour was not enough to open her up to the man’s highly unusual claim for damages.

“I see no basis on which to impose liability on the mother for any net negative impact (he) may consider that he has suffered due to his having fathered the child,” Justice Paul Rouleau wrote for the court.

That is right. Tricking a man into parenthood and essentially raping him by deceiving him into giving consent under false pretenses should result in zero liability. Go on and lie to get someone to have sex with you. Go on and get pregnant and later sue the man for child support. This is apparently legal in Canada.

As the Justice explained:

Allowing the father to recover damages from the mother for the unwanted birth would run counter to a clear trend in family law to move away from faulting one partner over another, Rouleau said.

That is interesting considering that Canada allows mothers sue sperm donors years after insemination, despite the obvious intent of the man to never have any financial or physical responsibility for the child.

Would that not “run counter to a clear trend in family law to move away from faulting one partner over another”? Or does this only apply to men?

The situation in the current case is simple: the woman claimed she was on birth control and the pair had unprotected sex. After they broke up, the woman texted the man (because calling him would have been too hard) to tell him she was pregnant.

The man sued the woman:

for more than $4 million for fraudulent misrepresentation, arguing he suffered emotional harm from his unplanned parenthood. He claimed DD’s deception over her use of the pill had deprived him of the benefit of choosing when and with whom he would become a dad.

“He wanted to meet a woman, fall in love, get married, enjoy his life as husband with his wife and then, when he and his wife thought the time was ‘right,’ to have a baby,” PP said in his statement of claim.

The $4 million suit is ridiculous as it would never be paid. However, given what the man would pay for child support, the amount seems rather tame. And make no mistake, the same system ignoring this clear act of deception would have no problem forcing the man to pay for the child.

In January last year, Superior Court Justice Paul Perell struck the claim without a hearing on its merits after deciding PP had no legal grounds to sue. Perell also banned publication of the couple’s names to protect the child, who might one day discover the “salacious and ignobly pleaded” facts of the case.

Or rather, the judge banned the release of the mother’s name to protect her in case she attempts to rape another man via deception to get pregnant.

Essentially, Perell ruled that fraudulent misrepresentation could only give rise to a claim for financial damages —not for emotional distress. He also decided any emotional harm PP suffered did not amount to a personal injury.

How does discovering you are an unexpected father via deception not cause financial damages? As I noted, this woman is likely to sue for child support. Does that not count?

Secondly, how does one not suffer personal injury from emotional harm? Are one’s emotions not part of a person? Would not damage to one’s emotions damage one’s person? Or does the judge mean physical injury? Is emotional damage prohibited in civil suits?

The judge did concede that the deception was tantamount to rape, but argued that this was immaterial because the suit was about unwanted parenthood.

The man appealed the decision, arguing:

On appeal, PP argued among other things that he should at least have been allowed to take his novel claim to trial, and that he should have been allowed to assert that the unwanted child would harm him financially.

The Appeal Court, however, found that a fraud that causes no loss cannot give rise to a lawsuit for damages, and that PP’s emotional distress didn’t count as a loss. It also said he suffered no physical injury or “pathological” emotional harm.

“The damages consist of the appellant’s emotional upset, broken dreams, possible disruption to his lifestyle and career, and a potential reduction in future earnings, all of which are said to flow from the birth of a child he did not want,” the Appeal Court said.

And the fact that this happened as a result of of someone tricking him into unprotected sex simply does not matter. Again, women can sue anonymous sperm donors for child support and win the suit, yet this man cannot even get the court to acknowledge that he is emotionally harmed by being raped by deception and forced into fatherhood. The court took it one step further:

The court, which looked to Britain and the U.S. to find similar cases, also ruled that DD’s deception about her use of the pill did not expose PP to the risk of serious physical injury during sex he willingly took part in. As a result, the court said, DD did not violate PP’s right to physical or sexual autonomy that could be viewed as an assault.

Except he only engaged in the sex under the false notion that the woman was taking birth control. This circumvents his sexual autonomy via the lie. He would not have had sex with her if he knew she could get pregnant. The woman lied in order to get him to have sex. What part of that is not a violation of his sexual autonomy?

The panel also trotted out the potential for pregnancy even when taking the pill. While this can happen, the risk is rather low, particularly if the pill is taken regularly. This argument then makes no sense outside of trying to excuse this woman’s behavior.

The reason the court rejected this suit is because the victim is male. If the situation were reversed, the man would be financially liable for claiming he was infertile or had a vasectomy if that proved untrue.

Of course, Canada has a long history of ignoring men’s rights, so the decision, as idiotic as it is, comes as no surprise.

Bulletin Board v303

2 Former Penn State Administrators Plead Guilty To Roles In Abuse Scandal — Two former high-level Penn State administrators pleaded guilty Monday to misdemeanor charges of child endangerment, for their roles in covering up child sex abuse by disgraced assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky. Former Vice President Gary Schultz and former Athletic Director Tim Curley each took a plea bargain that — if accepted by the judge — will carry a penalty of up to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine. As part of the plea bargain, the felony charges they originally faced were reduced to misdemeanors.

Battered Men: The Hidden Hurt — Battered men desperately sought help for years in California, but their efforts consistently fell on deaf ears. It took four battered men and a 2008 lawsuit by the National Coalition for Men for the California Supreme Court to recognize that men are entitled to equal protection and advocacy support from domestic violence shelters. Domestic violence accounts for a surprising proportion of violent crime in the United States. Close to one in six murder victims is killed by an intimate partner. Nearly three-fourths of all murder-suicides involve an intimate partner.

Dozens Say Christian Leader Made British Boys ‘Bleed for Jesus’ — Having disclosed his “sin” of masturbation, Mark Stibbe, age 17, was ordered to strip naked and lean over a wooden chair in the garden shed of a lavish Hampshire mansion on the southern coast of England. Then came the first blow from a cane, its impact so ferocious that it sent the boy into a state of paralysis that lasted through at least 30 more strokes that left him collapsed on the floor, blood oozing down his legs. Continue reading

The Red Pill: A Review

After years of waiting, I finally got the chance to watch Cassie Jaye’s documentary The Red Pill. Jaye’s documentary began as her examination of the men’s rights movement, and grew into her journey out of feminism.

The film received a great deal of backlash during its filming, post production, and initial release. All of the negative response, from people contacting Jaye’s financiers to cut her funding to people backing out of interviews to protests against the film, came from feminists. Most notably, they came from feminists who never saw the bulk of the footage or the completed film.

The reaction has been so overblown that it has likely increased people’s desire to see this horribly misogynistic film that gives a platform to rape apologists. Or something to that affect.

Is that Jaye’s film? Is it a love letter to women haters? Is it an attack on feminism? Does it excuse male violence against women? Continue reading

Domestic violence group attacks grieving father

An Australian woman attempted to drown her two sons last week. The woman, who is not named in the press for an unclear reason, told police that she “had to drown my babies”. The oldest child survived, but his younger brother did not. According to reports:

Police alleged the woman took her children to the Murray River and told her eldest son, 9, to get into water before she tried to drown him.

Detective Sergeant Trent Swinton told the court the younger son, 5, was screaming during the incident. The older boy managed to struggle free when the woman turned to the younger boy. He was last seen drifting facedown in the water.

After escaping from his mum, the older boy was “savagely mauled” by a dog.

Screams were heard by people on the riverbank but they did not witness the incident, the court was told on Friday.

The woman turned herself in to police after she was attack by a dog. It is unclear whether this was a different animal, although the report states that it happened at the river. The woman apparently admitted the crimes and did not seek bail.

The boys lived with their grandmother, and there were repeated reports to the authorities about the mother’s potential violence toward her sons. The authorities ignored these reports, instead telling the grandmother that:

she would have to “put up” with her daughter living at her house until alternative arrangements were made.

The child services department claims that the accusations are false:

Michelle Micallef, acting assistant commissioner for Community Corrections, said she strongly denied most of the serious allegations against her staff.

“It appears our staff took reasonable steps to put appropriate services in place and to make alternative accommodation arrangements. We could not have foreseen this shocking outcome,” she said.

“We have conducted an initial review of the claims, and found no evidence for most of them. Some are still being investigated.”

That response is hardly atypical. One would expect the authorities to wash their hands of any responsibility for failing to prevent this travesty.

What is quite atypical is an anti-domestic violence group attacking the father of the victims. The Red Heart Campaign, a feminist-run domestic violence group, released a statement regarding the father. Continue reading