Monthly Archives: January 2004

Saskatchewan Government Says It’s Not Sorry for Malicious Prosecution

Posted on by
Reply

A judge recently ruled that a family accused of ritual abuse had been the victim of “malicious prosecution” but that hasn’t stopped representatives of the Saskatchewan government from saying it did nothing wrong and has nothing to apologize for.

The case against 12 members of the Klassen family began in 1987 when three foster children — a boy and his twin sisters — made accusations of incredibly bizarre ritual sexual abuse against their foster parents which soon led to allegations against twelve family members.

The children’s accusations were filled with bizarre ritual abuse, including claims that they were forced to eat eye balls, drink blood, participate in orgies, and watch while infants were skinned alive.

Police in Saskatoon called it the “scandal of the century” but few charges were actually lodged against anyone and by 1993 all charges in the cases were stayed. The children later came forward to repudiate the stories. The boy had been removed shortly before making the allegations after he had been found abusing his sisters. He maintained he made up the stories in order to be reunited with his sisters whom he then convinced to go along with the fiction.

On December 30 a judge ruled that Crown Prosecutor Matthew Miazga, Saskatoon Police Superintendent Brian Dueck, and child therapist Carol Bunko-Ruys were guilty of malicious prosecution. Shortly afterward, Saskatoon police chief Russell Sabo publicly apologized to the Klassen’s and promised an investigation into what went wrong in the investigation of the case.

Sabo said,

The judgment in this case vindicates the plaintiffs for the criminal charges they faced. Based on the information contained in the judgment, as the chief of police of the Saskatoon police service, my sympathy goes to each and every person that was wrongfully charged and I extend my apologies to them for any part that the Saskatoon police service played in this case.

But Saskatchewan Justice Minister Frank Quennell was having none of it, telling Canoe.Com,

It is our position that Crown prosecutors did not commit a wrong and there is no reason they would be required to apologize in that circumstance.

Quennell is probably afraid of the millions of dollars that Saskatchewan is going to have to pay out to the Klassen’s and perhaps even the twin sisters. They are also suing Saskatchewan, arguing that police social workers and others did nothing to protect them from the abuse they were subjected to by their brother.

Sources:

Twins hail malicious prosecution victory. CBC News, December 31, 2003.

NDP Must Take Responsibility for Klassen Family Tragedy and Negotiate Payment Immediately. Press Release, SKCaucus.Com, January 8, 2004.

Sask. government won’t apologize in abuse case. Canoe.CaTim Cook, January 8, 2004

Saskatchewan offers Klassen no apology. Darren Yourk, Globe and Mail, January 8, 2004.

Share

Great Britain Opens First Shelter for Male Victims of Domestic Violence

Posted on by
Reply

The Observer reported in December that the first shelter for male victims of domestic violence in Great Britain would open in early 2004, with another shelter planned for later in the year.

The Observer noted that the most recent British Crime Survey found that about 4 percent of both men and women said they had been victims of violence by intimates, and that in those incidents 50 percent of women and 31 percent of men said they sustained an injury.

Those sort of findings lead men’s groups to question the lack of resources for male victim’s of domestic violence. The Observer quoted David Hughes, editor of Male View magazine, as saying,

At the last count there were 426 shelters for women in Britain. That means there should be at least 70 refuges for men [assuming 1 in 6 acts of domestic violence are committed by women against men based on another survey]. Yet up until now there was none.

Ian Hancock, a National Health System director of psychological services, told The Observer that along with the lack of facilities, men also face social pressure not to report acts of domestic violence. According to Hancock,

It’s difficult for anybody if they’re being battered but with men their problem is compounded by the fact that they feel they shouldn’t allow themselves to be battered by a woman. The idea that it makes you some kind of weakling means it’s a double whammy for men. It affects their self esteem. . . . People have this image of muscular women and weedy men but size has got nothing to do with it. A man can be twice the size of his female partner and still be battered by her.

Source:

Battered men get their own refuge. Jamie Doward, The Observer, December 21, 2003.

Share

Transsexuals and Sports

Posted on by
Reply

The British Parliament of late has been considering the Gender Recognition Bill whose primary purpose is to allow transsexual individuals to formally re-register their gender to their newly reassigned gender, replacing for most legal purpose the gender of their birth. And, of course, this immediately created a debate about the most important related topic — the issue of transsexuals competing in sports competitions.

As originally drafted, the Gender Recognition Bill appeared to require both domestic and international sporting events to allow transsexuals to compete in their re-assigned genders. So a person born male who later decided to register his gender as female would have been allowed to compete in sporting events as a woman.

This caused great furor, in large part because reactions to this possibility cut to the very core of whether or not gender can genuinely be reassigned. As Kevin Myers wrote in an op-ed for The Telegraph,

We can pretend that we are able to turn men into women and vice versa, but that is not true. We merely give the appearance of doing so to help those unfortunates who feel that they have been born into the wrong sex; and maybe they genuinely have been. Or maybe they have got other psychological problems which become manifest in a gender-identity crisis. Either way, rightly or wrongly, medical science has taken the surgical and endocrinal route of rough-hewing a reasonable facsimile of the desired sex out of the raw material of the undesired sex. The result is usually unconvincing, but it nonetheless brings some peace to troubled people’s minds.

Neither law nor science can transform the physical substance of a woman into a man, or vice versa. And we are doing no justice to ourselves or trans-sexuals by pretending that an authentic bodily consecration can [sic] occurred, and that one sex can be transubstantiated into the other. This cannot happen.

Following the debate, the sponsors of the bill largely acquiesced to Myers’ view, announcing that there would, of course, be special exemptions to the bill where sports are concerned. According to The Guardian,

Under the government’s new gender recognition bill, which comes into force next year, transsexuals will legally be recognized as members of their new gender. However, sport is to be a given special exemption from certain elements of the bill because it is felt that some transsexual athletes might have an unfair advantage in some sports, particularly physical ones.

The medical panels will examine areas such as testosterone levels, physique and an athlete’s mental state before making their decision. If it is felt that a transsexual athlete has an unfair advantage then the panel will be allowed to prevent them from competing.

So which is it, then? Is a male-born female really a woman, or simply a man with slight cosmetic changes to the outward physical appearance? And if the answer is no when it comes to sports, why should it be yes for other areas?

Sources:

What next? Martin Johnson to be Martina? Kevin Meyers, Telegraph (UK), December 21, 2003.

Sport panel to rule on transsexuals. Vivek Chaudhary, The Guardian, December 20, 2003.

Share

Clothing Retailers Are Stupid — Throw Glenn Sacks at Them

Posted on by
Reply

Glenn Sacks, host of men’s and father’s issues radio talk show His Side, has been leading a campaign the past few weeks against clothing retailers stocking a t-shirt that Sacks argues is hateful toward boys.

The t-shirt, distributed by David and Goliath, shows a picture of a boy fleeing from some airborne rocks with the copy, “Boys are stupid, throw rocks at them!!!”

Sacks first targeted Bon-Macy’s in a December broadcast in which he said,

As the father of an 11 year-old boy this shirt makes my blood boil….degrading boys, insulting them, making our schools a hostile environment for them–we’re not taking it any more.

After a letter and phone campaign, Bon-Macy’s agreed to stop stocking the shirt. So far, Sacks’ campaign against the t-shirt has also convinced California clothing chain Tilly’s and Universal Studios (which owns Dapy’s) to agree not to carry the t-shirt as well.

On his show announcing Universal’s decision, Sacks said,

It really angers me that our boys have to confront this kind of bigotry. It also angers me that we’re telling girls that it?s OK to hate boys. When males insult females we call it ‘woman-hating’ and ‘misogyny.’ When females insult males, apparently it?s OK. No more.

According to David and Goliath, however, the shirts are one of their most popular sellers.

Frankly, I suspect a campaign against a t-shirt is probably not the best way for people to spend their time. On the other hand, it is surprising to see such a t-shirt stocked by mainstream clothing retailers. Obviously you’re always going to be able to order shirts like this over the Internet or find them in novelty t-shirt shops (you can order both “Girls are stupid” and “Boys are stupid” t-shirts here, for example), but I’m surprised a story like Bon-Macy’s would stock such a shirt.

But some of the rhetoric about the t-shirt is a bit silly. For example, here’s Wendy McElroy writing in support of the campaign,

Hate mongering is a lucrative business and the best remedy is to yank away the financial incentive. Boycott both the manufacturers and the distributors of any product that endorses the hatred or abuse of children, male or female. Tell vendors how you feel; ask “sponsors” like Universal Studios if they guarantee their safety of your son while on their premises.

Right, and lets all write to Universal to complain about that last hate-filled Eminem album or protest comedians who tell sexist jokes. Hey, maybe we should be urging libraries to get rid of their copies of Royce Flippin’s classic, Save an Alligator, Shoot a Preppie. Can libraries guarantee the safety of preppies who wonder down the aisle filled with such hate-filled books?

It’s a stupid t-shirt, not the harbinger of an anti-male Reich.

Sources:

Christmas in a war zone. Wendy McElroy, January 4, 2004.

Universal Studios Pulls ‘Boys are Stupid’ T-shirts in Face of Radio Campaign. Men’s News Daily, January 13, 2004.

Bon-Macy’s Pulls Anti-Boy Shirts as His Side Listeners Flood Store with Calls, E-Mails. Men’s News Daily, December 16, 2003.

Share

Men Sentenced to Jail for Honor Killing in Great Britain

Posted on by
Reply

In October, the BBC reported that two men who murdered their cousin in an apparent honor killing in Great Britain were convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment.

Tafarak Hussain and Rafaqat Hussain were convicted of stabbing their 21-year-old cousin Sahjda Bibi 22 times on January 11, 2003. The cousins killed her with a kitchen knife in her bedroom.

Tafarak and Rafaqat actually claimed they had accidentally stabbed Bibi 22 times, but prosecutors argued that they murdered her because she was going to marry a divorcee. The BBC quotes a West Midlands Police spokesman as saying,

The death has been called an honor killing — when a person is murdered because they have ‘brought dishonor’ upon their family. In Sahjda’s case it seems she had simply fallen in love with the wrong man. Rafaqat appears to have been unable to accept this union and took it upon himself to prevent it taking place — at any cost.

Source:

Cousins jailed for bride’s murder. The BBC, October 20, 2003.

Share

Wendy McElroy on Prosecutorial Grandstanding in Rape Cases

Posted on by
Reply

Wendy McElroy wrote an excellent article about a disturbing dichotomy in accusations of rape — while the name of the alleged victim rarely appears, prosecutors face no compunction about grandstanding to humiliate the alleged assailant even before the completion of an investigation.

The focus of McElroy’s piece is the outrageous behavior of Paradise Valley, Arizona, police in announcing the day before the Fiesta Bowl that a woman had filed a complaint of rape against Kansas State quarterback Ell Roberson. As McElroy writes,

No charge had been filed: no arrest made, then or now. Roberson denied the accusation leveled against him mere hours before, early THursday morning. The Paradise Valley police simply “outed” an accused rapist before completing an investigation. The process of how police departments deal with sexual assault accusations should be overhauled.

The police seemed to knowingly inflict damage on Roberson with little evidence to do so. Lt. Ron Warner reportedly told journalists that there was “no supporting evidence, no witnesses, no physical injuries” surrounding the alleged rape. “We have two opposing descriptions of what happened,” he concluded. Paradise Valley Police Chief John Wintersteen subsequently explained, “the investigation is not done.” Medical tests on the accuser had not returned when Roberson’s name hit TV< nor were they expected until early next week.

In fact, the Paradise Valley police later concluded that the rape accusation was unfounded and declined to press charges against Roberson. That announcement, of course, did not receive nearly the same coverage or speculation that the original announcement.

McElroy notes this seems to be the rule lately with celebrity prosecutions. Someone in the Colorado District Attorney’s office produced inflammatory T-shirts related to the Kobe Bryant prosecution, while Santa Barbara County District Attorney Thomas W. Sneddon seems to think he’s doing an off-Broadway one-man review every time he talks about the Michael Jackson case. As McElroy concludes her piece,

As it stands, those who prosecute rape allegations are losing credibility. A legal system that mongers gossip to the media before concluding investigations, that prints humorous T-shirts about defendants and uses press conferences for comic relief does not engender trust in justice. It is a threat to justice in-and-of itself.

Source:

Prosecutor grandstanding undermines justice. Wendy McElroy, IFeminists.Net, January 6, 2004.

Share

Scotland Rejects Proposal to Preserve Anonymity of Men Accused of Rape

Posted on by
Reply

The BBC reports that a committee of Scotland’s parliament unanimously rejected a proposal to grant anonymity to men accused of rape until their guilt is proven in court.

The proposal was submitted by the UK Men’s Movement which argues that men accused of rape need anonymity to avoid the stigma that even false allegations of rape can have on innocent men. UK Men’s Movement spokesman George McAulay said in September of a similar proposal introduced by his group,

We are alarmed by the proliferation of false rape allegations, and the seeming indifference with which the authorities treat this offence, often not prosecuting even when there was a prima facie case of false allegation to answer, and even when the accuser admitted it was a complete fabrication.

False rape claims may be made for a number of reasons, the most common being revenge, attention-seeking, malice, fiscal reward via the Criminal Injuries Board or civil suit, and advantage in marital disputes now that prosecutions are made for rape in marriage.

According to the BBC, the committee that voted to reject the idea argued that “the move would discourage women from coming forward.”

McAulay responded that the Scottish Parliament’s doesn’t seriously its own goal of ensuring sexual equality,

This parliament and this executive make much noise about their commitment to equality, but I have seen little of it with regard to men. We ask that an accused who may be innocent is given the same anonymity as their accuser, who may be malicious.

Unlike in the United States, it is generally illegal in the UK to publish the name of accusers in rape cases. In the United States, the Supreme Court has upheld the right the media to publish the name of rape accusers, but by custom most do not.

In general, the ideal would be equal treatment — if an outlet is not going to name the accuser, then don’t name the accused. If they’re going to name the accused, they should also name the accuser (except where minors are involved on either side).

Sources:

Rape case protection bid rejected The BBC, January 7, 2004.

Minister to hear rape plea. The BBC, September 26, 2000.

Share

Are Russian Mail-Order Brides Placed at Too High of a Risk?

Posted on by
Reply

There’s an interesting article at LegalAffairs.Org about mail-order brides from Eastern Europe. There have been a couple of high profile instances of violence against women who came to the United States as mail-order brides, leading to calls for tighter regulation of matchmaking services that arrange such marriages.

But in her article on the topic, Nadya Labi notes that a) no one knows if mail order brides from Eastern Europe are really subject to more violence than any other group, and b) the few limited studies that have been done suggest that, in fact, there isn’t a problem with these marriages. Labi writes,

So far, no definitive studies have confirmed the industry’s bad rap. In the 1996 Mail-Order Bride Act, Congress directed the Department of Justice to investigate fraud and domestic violence in mail-order marriages. But immigration officials don’t collect data on these relationships, so after three years of fact-gathering the DOJ could offer only preliminary and suspect statistics. Based on 266 immigration cases, a small sample, DOJ reported that matchmaking agencies did not play a significant role in marriage fraud. Investigators also found that mail-order brides suffer abuse less frequently than homegrown wives. On the strength of anecdotal evidence that some mail-order brides are abused, however, the 1996 law required international marriage brokers to tell foreign brides about their rights to claim certain immigration benefits if they become victims of domestic violence.

Currently Congress is considering the International Marriage Broker Regulation Act which would, according to Labi, “force agencies to ask each male client about his marital history and criminal background.” Do we want the government getting that directly involved in how people decide who they marry? As Labi writes,

But is it a broker’s job to run a background check on a man simply because he wants to meet a foreign mate? The legislation before Congress exempts matchmaking services like Match.Com and Yahoo! Personals because these companies charge the same rates to men and women and to natives and foreigners. In light of the financial incentive that mail order brokers have to side with their male clients, it makes sense to treat brokers differently by requiring them to tell foreign brides about their immigration rights. However, it seems premature to impose background checks without more proof that the men who go to brokers to meet foreign women . . . are more dangerous than men at any singles party. Mail-order brides are adults who can only hope for the best and guard against the worst. They should proceed, as others do, at their own risk.

Source:

Mrs. America: The business of mail-order marriage. Nadya Labi, Legal Affairs, January/February 2004.

Share