Up-Skirt Filming Banned in Washington State

On May 12, Washington State Gov. Gary Locke signed into law legislation banning so-called “up-skirt” filming of women in public places.

In 2002 two men were arrested and charged with violating Washington’s anti-voyeur statutes after they were caught surreptitiously filming up the skirts of women at and outdoor festival. A state court ruled, however, that such activities were not covered by the anti-voyeur statute (largely, as one Washington state representative put it, because nobody in the legislature imagined anyone would engage in this sort of activity).

Once some initial partisan posturing was out of the way, the law sailed through Washington’s legislature, passing its Senate in an unanimous 97-0 vote in April. It makes up-skirting filming a felony punishable by up to a year in jail.

Source:

Legislature 2003: Locke signs up-skirt camera ban: Violators of voyeurism law face 3- to 12-month term. Steven Friederich, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, May 13, 2003.

‘Up-skirt’ camera ban goes to Locke. Seattle Post-Intelligencer, April 23, 2003.

Law targets ‘Up-Skirt’ filming. Reuters, January 3, 2003.

Share

Woman Drug Trafficker Sentenced to Death in Pakistan

Nigerian citizen Osfatu Bose Oweiye was sentenced to death in Pakistan in May after being convicted of heading up a heroin smuggling ring in that country.

Oweiye was arrested in 1999 in connection with a drug bust that turned up 20 kilograms of heroin in a Lahore hotel room. Pakistan’s Anti-Narcotics Force argued that Oweiye headed up a drug-trafficking ring that included at least five other individuals.

The heroin was going to be smuggled out of Pakistan and sold in other countries. Since the fall of the Taliban in Afghanistan, poppy production in that country has exploded, making it lucrative once again to smuggle heroin through Pakistan for distribution elsewhere in the world.

Source:

Pakistan death sentence for woman. The BBC, May 7, 2003.

Share

Kentucky Supreme Court Vacates Domestic Violence Order Between Couple Not Living Together

In April the Kentucky Supreme Court ruled that domestic violence protective orders could not be issued in cases where neither party to the complaint was living with the other.

Laura P. Wiley had obtained a protection order against her boyfriend, Charles Barnett. Wiley claimed that Barnett had threatened to kill her and had tailed her car “in a reckless manner.”

Barnett challenged the protection order on the grounds that domestic violence protection orders could only be issued when a couple was cohabitating. Since he and Wiley did not live together, then, an protection order could not be issued against him.

Two courts upheld the order, but the Kentucky Supreme Court reversed the decision. Writing for the majority, Justice Martin Johnstone wrote that while the law “should be construed liberally in favor of protecting victims,”

But the construction cannot be unreasonable. The phrase ‘living together’ implies some sort of cohabitation.

Source:

Court says domestic violence order not meant for ‘boyfriend/girlfriend’ cases. Charles Wolfe, Associated Press, April 24, 2003.

Share

Controversy in France Over Muslim Students Wearing Headscarfs

In the past few months a controversy over Muslim women and girls wearing headscarfs has heated up again in France.

On the one hand, Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy angered some Muslims in France when he insisted that women having their photographs taken for France’s national identity card would have to remove their headscarfs. Sarkozy was booed at a gathering of 10,00 Muslims at the Union of Islamic Organizations in France. On this point, Sarkozy is correct. Leaving aside problems with national identity cards themselves, requiring Muslim women not to cover their heads in scarves for such photographs seems sensible and uncontroversial enough.

On the other hand, many in France want to go much further. Specifically, they want to ban young Muslim girls from wearing head scarves to school. Educator in France are angered by this continued practice, and French Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin said he supported a ban on the wearing of headscarfs.

MP Jacque Myard told La Chine Info TV that Muslims wearing headscarfs in school was “incompatible with the neutrality of the school and the French Republic.” According to the BBC there is actually a “1994 instruction from the Education Minister [that] says the ‘ostentatious display of religious allegiance’ in state educational institutions should be prevented.”

That sounds like straightforward anti-Muslim bigotry. The BBC reports that Education Minister Luc Ferry has “pledged to introduce a new law next year that would reassert secular values in state schools.” Translation: the new law will shove secularism down the throat of the Muslim minority whether they like it or not.

Source:

Headscarf row erupts in France. Magali Faure and Philip Gouge, The BBC, April 25, 2003.

Share

James Madison University Decides to Ban Distribution of Morning After Pills

The Washington Post had an interesting story in April about James Madison University’s decision to stop the dispensing of the morning after pill in its campus health center after complaints from anti-abortion activists.

The health center had been prescribing and dispensing the morning after pills for eight years. Ann Simmons, a nurse at the health center, told the Washington Post that the Food and Drug Administration classifies morning after pills as contraceptives as opposed to abortion inducing drugs such as RU-486.

But Virginia State Delegate Robert Marshall sent a letter to James Madison University President Linwood Rose objecting to the distribution of the morning after pill. From there, a little politics was added to the mix.

James Madison University board Mark Obenshain is running for Virginia Senate. A local entrepreneur who supports another candidate distributed the letter to antiabortion activists pointing out that candidate Obenshain is a board member.

In April Obenshain then demanded an explanation about the distribution of the morning after pill and then successfully pushed the board to enact a ban on the contraceptive that passed 8-6.

Students at James Madison University obtained almost 3,000 signatures on a petition to ask the board to reverse its ban on the distribution of the morning after pill. That petition was taken up at the June meeting of the board which tersely reported that,

Neither the [Education and Student Life] committee nor the full board took any action on the request.

So for the moment, James Madison University students will have to go to off-campus pharmacies to have their morning after prescriptions filled.

Sources:

Pill ban gives birth to protest. Laura Sessions Stepp, Washington Post, April 24, 2003.

Summary Of Action By JMU Board Of Visitors. Press Release, James Madison University, June 6, 2003.

Share

Breast Cancer Study Finds No Link with EMF Exposure

A study of Long Island women recently found that there was no association between breast cancer and exposure to electromagnetic fields.

The study, published in the American Journal of Epidemiology, examined 576 women with breast cancer and 585 women without the disease. Researchers at Sony Brook University measured the electromagnetic fields in various rooms of the houses of the women, and also mapped the power lines around each house.

Like previous such studies, it found no association between EMF exposure and breast cancer risk. The study also took pains to examine only women who had lived in their houses for at least 15 years, to test if there was any association with long term exposure to EMF.

Dr. M. Cristina Leske, who headed up the six-year, $2.5 million study, said in a press release announcing the results of the study,

The results are reassuring in that residential levels of EMF, such as from electrical wiring in or around the home, were not related to breast cancer. Given these results, we now have valuable information that leads us to conclude that we can now focus on other possible risk factors. Our team is most grateful for the support of the Long Island women, who made our study possible.

Sources:

Study finds no link between breast cancer, power lines. Associated Press, June 25, 2003.

Breast Cancer and Electromagnetic Fields Study. Press Release, Stony Brook University, June 25, 2003.

Share

Man’s Conviction Overturned After FBI Agent’s False Testimony Revealed

In 1992 Anthony Bragdon was convicted of assault with intent to rape and sentenced to 30 years in jail. Bragdon’s conviction was recently reversed by a Washington D.C. Superior Court that found an FBI expert on fiber and hair evidence had given false testimony at Bragdon’s trial.

FBI Agent Michael Malone’s supervisors had been warned by a whistleblower three years prior to his testimony in Bragdon’s case that Malone may have given false testimony in a previous case, but that warning went unheeded.

In Bragdon’s case, the only scientific evidence linking Bragdon to the crime was fibers that were carpet fibers found on the body of the victim. Malone testified in court that the fibers were consistent with the carpet found in Malone’s apartment.

In 1997, an internal Department of Justice investigation concluded that Malone’s testimony to that effect was false and recommended he be disciplined. Instead Malone was allowed to retire in 1999. Not until 2001 did the government notify Bragdon’s lawyers of the problems with Malone’s testimony.

The major problem with Malone’s testimony is that he never bothered to conduct the tests that would have determined if the carpet fibers found on the woman’s clothing were the same as those from Bragdon’s apartment. In addition, Malone claimed that the type of fiber found on the woman’s clothing could only come from a carpet fiber, which was not true, and he failed to disclose that he found other fibers on the woman’s clothing that did not match the carpet in Bragdon’s apartment.

The National Whistleblower Center claims that problems like this could plague as many as 3,000 criminal cases at which FBI agents provided expert testimony.

Source:

Conviction tossed on FBI lab misconduct. Associated Press, May 28, 2007.

DOJ to Open its Brady Task Force Files Overturned Conviction Brings New Questions to Light. Press Release, June 5, 2003, National Whistleblower Center.

Share

Wendy McElroy on the Silliness of the Gender Wars

Wendy McElroy predicts that men and women will eventually look back at the gender wars in disbelief,

Future feminists will look back in disbelief at today’s false notion of a built-in Gender War between men and women, in much the same way we regard past theories of a flat earth.

Only flat-Earthers were generally harmless people. Politically correct feminists can be vicious.

McElroy defines the gender war as the idea that men and women’s political interests are inherently at odds — the sort of thing that motivates some academics to argue that women can only enjoy true freedom of speech when some men are censored (or that the idea of freedom of speech itself is situated in a patriarchal hierarchy and is thereby itself suspect).

McElroy thinks that eventually common sense will supplant such nonsense,

The only way out of the quagmire is to abandon convoluted social theory and return to common sense. Men and women are first and foremost human beings. Biology is a controlling factor of human nature, albeit not the only one. Men and women act as individuals, not as cogs in some vast class struggle. And, as individuals, we all share the same political interest: freedom.

Certainly the world will be a better place if McElroy is right, but she might be underestimating the tenaciousness of the gender war idea. After all, illiberalism has survived and even thrived in the most liberal of political cultures, and even when it is marginalized it has a habit of roaring back to life at a moment’s notice.

Source:

A Conscientious Objector to the Gender War. Wendy McElroy, FoxNews.Com, June 17, 2003.

Share