Woman Who Sought Asylum Turns Out to be a Fake

Adelaide Abankwah’s request for asylum in the United States made headlines and earned support from politicians such as Hillary Clinton and actors such as Julia Roberts and Vannessa Redgrave. Abankwah claimed she had been chosen “queen mother” of her tribe in Ghana and would be subjected to female genital mutilation if forced to return to that nation. She eventually won her asylum case, but now it turns out her entire story was false.

The woman’s real name is Regina Norman Danson, and she made up the story after being caught trying to enter the United States illegally in 1997. Somehow the real Adelaide Abankwah’s passport ended up in Danson’s hands, and Danson decided to assume the woman’s identity in an effort to stay in the United States. The real Abankwah says she didn’t come forward to dispute Danson because she was fearful of being deported due to unrelated immigration problems.

The Washington Post reported that prosecution of Danson was hindered by bureaucrats who didn’t want to embarrass the Clinton administration officials who had championed her asylum claim.

Source:

Hillary’s asylum queen was a fake. The Times (UK), December 21, 2000.

Share

Peggy McMartin Buckey, 74, Dies

Peggy McMartin Buckey, 74, was found unconcious at her California home and prounced dead on December 15, 2000. McMartin should have lived the last years of her life peacefully but instead was one of the victims in a witch hunt that claimed too many lives.

Buckey helped her family operate the McMartin Pre-School in Manhattan Beach, California. In 1983 children who had attended the McMartin Pre-School began telling fantastic tales of ritual sexual abuse directed at them, much of which allegedly took place in secret tunnels beneath the pre-school. Ultimately 349 of 384 students at the pre-school told investigators that they had been sexually assaulted at the pre-school. The fact that there simply no secret tunnels and that the claims of the children proved false in many details did not deter prosecutors from charging McMartin Buckey and others with sexually assaulting children

The case helped kick off a nationwide hysteria about Satanic and ritual abuse of children, helped on by a gullible media. McMartin Bukey was charged with sexual assault, but the case against her fell apart after it became clear that the testimony of the children had been improperly shaped and coerced by social workers who acted as latter day agents of the Inquisition. McMartin Buckey was acquitted on all charges, but was shadowed by the destruction of the business she helped run and the stigma attached to those even accused of sexual abuse of children.

Investigator’s relied on the highly specious belief that children always told the truth about such acts and could not be coerced to give false testimony or fail to remember accurately. In a series of experiments, memory expert Elizabeth Loftus demonstreated that it was relatively easy to get young children to falsely believe in events that had never happened.

Unfortunately there are still many people in jail based on testimony gleaned under such coercion or based on psychologists who used false memory techniques on their clients. The hysteria is largely over, but the effects still remain.

Source:

McMartin Case’s Legal, Social Legacies Linger. Ted Rohrlich, The Los Angeles times, December 18, 2000.

Share

Are Snowmen Too Patriarchal?

Art historian and radical feminist Tricia Cusack is concerned about the patriarchal bent that Christmas is taking. Specifically, there are just too many snowmen appearing on Christmas cards these days, according to Cusack, who is a professor at Great Britain’s Birmingham University.

In a press release put out by Birmingham University, Cusack writes,

In both the UK and US, Christmas has been gendered as women’s realm in its emphasis on children and family…

The snowman’s location in the semi-public space of garden or field reinforces a spatial-social system marking women’s spheres as the domestic-private and the men’s as the commercial public.

In other words, the prevalence of snowmen is evidence that Western culture is regressing into a far more conservative, patriarchal form more akin to the Medieval period.

Who knows how much worse the diagnosis will be should she turn her brilliant mind to the hidden meaning behind Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer.

Source:

Snowmen ‘reinforce gender stereotypes’, says doctor. Ananova, December 20, 2000.

Share

Kenyan Girls Win Female Gential Mutilation Injunction

A Kenyan judge recently granted an injunction sought by two teenage girls to stop their father from forcing them to submit to female genital mutilation — the first time that a court has intervened to stop the practice which is prevalent in rural Kenya.

The BBC reported that,

The human rights group [The Center for Human Rights and Democracy in Kenya] says girls from the Kalenjin tribe are normally subject to circumcision and immediately forced into sexual activities or marriage.

Source:

Kenyan girls win circumcision ban. The BBC, December 13, 2000.

Share

New York City to Allow Civil Suits for Gender-Biased Crimes

Feminist Daily News Wire recently reported that the New York City Council approved a new law on November 30, 2000, that will “allow victims of rape, domestic violence, and other crimes motivated by gender bias to sue the perpetrators in civil cases.” According to The New York Times, New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani is expected to sign the bill.

This is basically a rehash of the federal Violence Against Women Act provisions that were thrown out as unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court a few months ago. The goal here is to codify into law the radical feminist construct that there men as a class oppress women as a class.

As an example, the Feminist Daily News wire notes that for a civil suit to be allowed under this law, it must be accompanied by evidence of gender bias such as the act “perpetuated stereotypes of women’s submissive role.” Under this law, then, a rapist who rapes and sodomizes a woman could find himself in civil court, while a rapist who rapes and sodomizes a man would not have to worry about a suit under this statute because the criminal act couldn’t be construed as an example of “gender bias.”

The ultimate message such laws send is that crimes of violence committed by men against women are much more serious than crimes of violence committed by women against men or by men against men, since only the crimes in the first category are part of a society-wide conspiracy against women.

At one time, feminists might have saw such unequal protection before the law for men and women as a sign of overarching paternalism, but today it’s just business as usual.

Source:

NYC Establishes Civil Rights Remedy for Victims of Gender-Biased Crime. Feminist Daily News Wire, December 1, 2000.

Share

NOW and the Voting Gender Gap

The National Organization for Women keeps making a claim in its press releases about the recently concluded election that while technicaly true completely glosses over the reality of the election. Here’s a random sample by Tanya Melich,

Unlike Florida, the proof of our power is not sullied with statistical probabilities. Nationally, women gave Gore their vote by an 11-percent margin while Bush won men by 11 percent. In Florida, the margins mirror this national vote with women backing Gore and men Bush. Whether by age, education or economic status, the pattern holds.

This paragraph is disingenous. Yes the pattern holds by age, education or economic status — unfortunately it does not hold by race and by marital status.

The so-called gender gap is in fact largely a racial gap. Black and Hispanic women broke overwhelmingly toward Gore, while depending on which polling data you rely on, Bush barely won or barely lost the white female vote. If, in fact, NOW had been able to deliver its core constituency of white women to “fight the right,” Gore would have won in a landslide.

Bush also beat Gore among married women (as well as men). NOW activists may indeed “have begun outreach in their communities to tell the cold, hard truth about the threat that George W. Bush, if elected, poses to the nation” early in the campaign, as one of their press releases claimed, but if they did a lot of women simply weren’t buying what they were selling.

Source:

Anti-Women Backlash Strategy Dwindling. Tanya Melich, WomensENews, No date given.

Share

Benedictin Makes A Comeback

I knew some women experienced morning sickness while pregnant, but nothing prepared me for what my wife had to go through while pregnant with our daughter. Every morning for literally six months was a routine of vomiting that was so severe at one point that her doctor considered having her hospitalized. The sad thing was a perfectly save medication could likely have prevented her vomiting, but trial lawyers had driven it off the U.S. market in the 1980s.

The drug was benedictin and it had been widely prescribed to pregnant women since the mid-1950s as an anti-nausea agent. In the 1970s, however, some women began to complain that the drug had caused or contributed to their children’s birth defects and sued. By 1983, the manufacturer of the drug, Merrill Dow Pharmaceuticals, threw in the towel on the drug and said the litigation over the birth defects was simply too costly to justify continued production of the drug. No longer would women with morning sickness have access to the drug in the United States.

Ironically, that was about the time when numerous studies demonstrated what a close look at the evidence hinted in the 1970s — benedictin was completely safe. About three percent of all infants born in the United States suffer from birth defects, and the children of women who took benedictin had the same rate of birth defects as those born to women who didn’t take the drug. Even teh Food and Drug Administration exonerated the drug and declared it safe.

But it was too late. Nobody was willing to take on manufacturing the drug and risking the inevitable lawsuits over birth defects. Now, though the drug seems to be making something of a comeback thanks to a Canadian company, Duchesnay Inc., which is seeking FDA approval to sell a generic version of benedictin. Duchesnay’s diclectin has been available in Canada since 1975.

Hopefully women in America will soon have the choice to use the same drug that women in Canada and the rest of the world have been using safely for the past couple decades.

Source:

Once maligned morning sickness drug prepares for comeback. The Associated Press, October 10, 2000.

Share

How Long Until Colleges Create Affirmative Action Programs for Men?

In recent months there have been a number of news stories about a gender discrepancy at American universities and colleges that is likely to grow even larger in coming years — women now are disproportionately represented in higher education.

This year, for example, men made up only 44 percent of admissions to colleges and universities. For a variety of reasons, that percentage is likely to decline further before it stabilizes. By 2010, the United States Department of Education estimates that men will make up only 42 percent of higher education admissions.

Already some colleges are creating what are essentially affirmative action programs for men to increase “diversity” on campus, and thanks to the feminist mantra that a statistical discrepancy is prima facie evidence of active discrimination, such programs are likely to survive and expand.

According to a Daily Telegraph (UK) report, The University of NOrth Carolina and DepauL University have already started targeting potential male students with more outreach than female students, including extra mailings with more emphasis on traditionally male areas of study such as engineering. Meanwhile, some women who applied to the University of Georgia sued that university because they argued it’s admissions policies were biased toward men. They lost their suit.

The Daily Telegraph claims that the decline is attributable to men opting not to go to college to pursue more lucrative independent careers such as with Internet companies, which may be true for a very small segment of men, but is unlikely to explain the entire difference. Rather the difference is attributable to the fact that women as a group tend to do better in high school then men as a group. Women have much higher graduation rates, and although men tend to do better on standardized tests than women, this is only because the male sample of test takers is skewed because far more men tend to take tests such as the SAT and ACT.

Given the disparities, should there be affirmative action programs for men? Absolutely not. Affirmative action programs were a lousy way to try to compensate for statistical disparities when they favored men and they would be a lousy way to compensate when the statistical disparities favor women.

Source:

University women in a class of their own. Philip Delves Broughton, The Daily Telegraph, December 6, 2000.

Share

The European Union Addresses the Problem of Female Genital Mutilation

A meeting of the European Union in Brussels attracted activists from Africa and the world to discuss what, if anything, Europe can do to work against female genital mutilation in Africa. Female genital mutilation typically involves removal of all or part of the clitoris, and sometimes other parts of the genitalia, without anaesthetic and usually under unsanitary conditions.

The World Health Organization estimates that worldwide up to 130 million women have been subjected to the practice. Although some Africans defend the traditional practice as necessary to ensure young girls remain virgins until marriage, 15 out of 28 African countries have outlawed the practice. Even so, up to 2 million young girls each year undergo such mutilation either legally in 13 countries or illegally in the others.

African activists want the European Union to strongly condemn the practice as well as create European Union-wide policies allowing women who fear they may become victims of the practice to seek asylum. Greek commissioner for employment and social affairs, Anna Adamant, suggested that the European Union should make foreign aid to African nations contingent on their agreeing to outlaw genital mutilation. That suggestion is sure to draw complaints of Western imperialism from traditionalist supporters of the practice.

Meanwhile in Kenya, where genital mutilation is not specifically illegal, two young women there recently had a court agree to take up a case they filed against their father who they believe is secretly planning a traditional female genital mutilation ceremony for them. In their lawsuit, the young women argue that the practice is an affront to morality and justice.

Sources:

EU tackles female mutilation. The BBC, November 29, 2000.

EU may ban aid to states that allow female circumcision. Andrew Osborn, The Guardian (UK), November 30, 2000.

Familyl in court over circumcision. Muliro Telewa, The BBC, December 1, 2000.

Share

Once Again, Breast Implants Just A Political Football

In 1992, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration “temporarily” banned silicone breast implants until further studies cleared up whether they posed health risks. So what do you do if you’re a government agency and your $4 million dollar 8 year study once again demonstrates that implants are safe? You don’t tell anyone.

Salon.Com originally broke this story, and so far few traditional media outlets have bothered to cover the story (although they had no problem whipping up anti-implant hysteria). Shortly after the ban on silicone implants, Dr. Louise Brinton began a major study that followed 14,000 women who had implant surgery purely for cosmetic reasons. Brinton’s study focused specifically on whether or not implants increased the risk of cancer, as some anti-implant activists claimed.

Her study was controversial from the beginning in large part because Brinton herself seemed to hope that her study would demonstrate that silicone implants did indeed raise the risk of cancer. Brinton had extensive contacts with plaintiffs lawyers suing implant manufacturers. She conducted presentations for plaintiffs lawyers, and wrote letters that circulated to women with implants saying things like, “The study provides an opportunity for women who may be suffering as a result of implants to be heard. Now is your chance.”

Unfortunately things didn’t work out like that. Her study was quite definitive on the issue of breast cancer. Not only was there not an increased risk of cancer among implant recipients, but in fact women with breast implants had lower risks of cancer (although this doesn’t mean women should rush out to get implants to lower their cancer risk. This effect is more likely to be due to some confounding factor).

Whew. So implants don’t contributed to breast cancer. Time to spread the good news and let women with implants know those fears are unfounded, right? Not by a long shot.

In fact although the National Cancer Institute prepared a press release, it buried the release on its web site and told NCI press officer Brian Vastag that he was “forbidden” to tell journalists about the press release’s existence. At the beginning of October, Vastag decided he’d had enough with the NCI’s nonsense, forwarded information about the press release and study to journalists anyway, and then resigned from his job. In an e-mail to journalists, Vastag wrote that, “It makes me crazy when tax-funded public health research doesn’t make it to the public.”

The NCI, of course, says the whole episode has a perfectly normal explanation, but there seem to be some holes in that explanation. NCI’s Mass media division told Salon.Com that it was respecting an embargo on the study since it was going to be published in the November issue of Cancer Causes and Control. The problem with that explanation is that a) that journal had already posted a copy of the study to its web site, and b) NCI was only issuing a press release announcing the results of the study rather than distributing copies of the study itself.

NCI’s denial of anything out of the ordinary become even more apparent when Salon.Com asked Newman if NCI would be publicizing the study when it came out in November. Her response? “We’ve already posted the press release, so why would we distribute old news?”

This from an agency that in May 2000 hired a public relations firm to publicize Brinton’s findings that the rupture rate of silicone implants was much higher than previously suspected (the tendency for implants to rupture is one of the few genuine problems with the implants). Letting women know that implants may rupture apparently is at the top of the agenda for NCI, while letting them know that their implants won’t cause cancer is something they should have to find out for themselves by searching the NCI’s web site for a press release buried on the site.

Brinton is also keeping silent. Even though she once touted her study as “the most comprehensive epidemiological study of breast implants to date,” apparently she doesn’t want to publicize the results too much since they didn’t have the outcome she had hoped for.

This is the sort of thing that is inevitable when politics drives scientific research. As the American Council on Science and Health wrote in a recent pamphlet on the breast implant controversy, “In a sense, the anti-silicone-implant crusade is a microcosm for so much that is wrong with how scientific data and principles are distorted and ignored when there is greater gain to be had by doing so. The resoundingly antiscientific — and, until recently — successful crusade against silicone implants portends problems for many other products that may be destroyed by analogous waves of hysteria.”

In this case, not only products but people were harmed, not only by the psychological fears induced by the wave of anti-implant hysteria, but the many women who underwent surgical procedures to have the implants removed on what turned out to be false, unsubstantiated concerns. Women deserve better from the media, government, and research community.

Source:

Covering up the breast. Denise Dowling, Salon.Com, October 9, 2000.

Hush–good news on silicone. John Meroney, The Washington Times, November 22, 2000.

Updated report: Scientific evidence fails to halt silicone breast implant controversy. Press release, American Council on Science and Health, November 27, 2000.

Share