|
http://www.fatherhoodcoalition.org/cpf/newreadings/2003/MC_Kobe.htm
Mark Charalambous, a resident of Leominster, MA, is a founder of, and
the Spokesman for, CPF/The Fatherhood Coalition. He is an instructor
in the Massachusetts state college system
I suspect more than a few Americans are baffled by how Kobe Bryant's
accuser can retain her privacy while he is exposed to public
humiliation and career-threatening consequences, whether or not he is
ultimately acquitted. The "rape shield" law that protects his accuser
is an example of the plethora of laws and policies, loosely
characterized as examples of "feminist jurisprudence," that have
corrupted the administration of justice in our civil and criminal
courts under the guise of protecting women.
Clearly, one of the parties is lying. Those with limited life
experience may buy into the politically correct party line that women
rarely or seldom lie about matters as serious as rape, domestic
violence or child abuse. But let's get real. Women do indeed falsify
rape allegations, especially when there is a financial incentive, such
as when the horny, hapless fool is a wealthy celebrity. Rape may or
may not be the most underreported crime as feminists assert, but it is
undoubtedly the most falsely accused of crimes, and has been since
time immemorial.
|
| |
| |
http://www.fatherhoodcoalition.org/cpf/newreadings/2003/MC_Kobe.htm
Mark Charalambous, a resident of Leominster, MA, is a founder of, and
the Spokesman for, CPF/The Fatherhood Coalition. He is an instructor
in the Massachusetts state college system
Good article. Informative site. I bookmarked it.
Greg
|
| |
| |
It is clear to me that the "Rape Shield Laws" and other
feminist laws are clearly the antithesis of the ends and
means sought in the US Constitution and the Amendments to
the same (Especially the 4th,5th, and 6th Amendments to the
US Constitution). It is, also, clear to me that the purpose
of such laws, as are all of the other objectives of
feminism, not equality and justice but the social, economic,
political, legal, and cultural subjugation of men.A quote
from the Federalist Papers in support ot this assertion
follows at the end of this post.The US Constitution and the
Amendments to the same clearly had provisions in the same
that had as their purposes the prohibition of popularly
elected or appointed magistrates from imposing tyrannous and
oppressive judicial means to promulgate the unjust ends and
means sought by powerful political interests (in this case
feminists and female elitists who have significant political
control in the USA).
This same apprehension came from the corrupting influence on
the British courts of the British crown which, (especially
before the British "Glorious Revolution" and subsequent
Parliamentary acts in the 17th Century which largely removed
the same), used the British judiciary to persecute those
whom it chose.
The following quote from "The Federalist Papers", the
compilation of letters from the American Founding Fathers of
the USA in support of the adoption of the US Constitution
addresses this topic, clearly, indicates that the US
Constitution had as it's goal the the prevention of the
type of judicial oppression which the Rape Shield Laws and
other feminist legal concepts promulgate.
The quote is as follows:
" For my own part, the more the operation of the institution
has fall under my
observation, the more reason I have discovered for holding
it in high
estimation; and it would be altogether superfluous to
examine to what
extent it deserves to be esteemed useful or essential in a
representative republic, or how much more merit it may be
entitled to,
as a defense against the oppressions of an hereditary
monarch, than as
a barrier to the tyranny of popular magistrates in a popular
government. Discussions of this kind would be more curious
than
beneficial, as all are satisfied of the utility of the
institution, and
of its friendly aspect to liberty. But I must acknowledge
that I cannot
readily discern the inseparable connection between the
existence of
liberty, and the trial by jury in civil cases. Arbitrary
impeachment's,
arbitrary methods of prosecuting pretended offenses, and
arbitrary
punishments upon arbitrary convictions, have ever appeared
to me to be
the great engines of judicial despotism; and these have all
relation to
criminal proceedings. The trial by jury in criminal cases,
aided by the
habeas corpus act, seems therefore to be alone concerned in
the
question. And both of these are provided for, in the most
ample manner,
in the plan of the convention."
End of Quote
Thus it is clear to me that criminal offenses which depend,
for the most part, on the reliability of testimony should
face "stricter scrutiny" rather than less scrutiny that
feminists promulgate (in Rape Shield Laws and other feminist
laws such as sexual harassment and otherwise) not less in
order to avoid the "Arbitrary impeachment's,
arbitrary methods of prosecuting pretended offenses, and
arbitrary
punishments upon arbitrary convictions" (as per the
Federalist Papers quote) that the US Constitution and the
Federalist Papers in Support of the same sought as their
end.
|
| |
| |
The quote seems to be speaking out against
"arbitrary impeachment's, arbitrary methods of
prosecuting pretended offenses, and arbitrary
punishments upon arbitrary convictions..." as
"the great engines of judicial despotism" while
advocating trial by jury and habeas corpus. While
I completely agree, I don't see what this has to do
with the Rape Shield law, which was not an act of
a jucial body, but a piece of legislation enacted by
the State of Colorado's legislature.
And while I might agree that such laws have the
unfortunate effect of subjugating men, I don't see that
as their purpose, and I also don't see how your quote
supports that assertion.
C.V. Compton Shaw wrote:
It is clear to me that the "Rape Shield Laws" and other
feminist laws are clearly the antithesis of the ends and
means sought in the US Constitution and the Amendments to
the same (Especially the 4th,5th, and 6th Amendments to the
US Constitution). It is, also, clear to me that the purpose
of such laws, as are all of the other objectives of
feminism, not equality and justice but the social, economic,
political, legal, and cultural subjugation of men.A quote
from the Federalist Papers in support ot this assertion
follows at the end of this post.The US Constitution and the
Amendments to the same clearly had provisions in the same
that had as their purposes the prohibition of popularly
elected or appointed magistrates from imposing tyrannous and
oppressive judicial means to promulgate the unjust ends and
means sought by powerful political interests (in this case
feminists and female elitists who have significant political
control in the USA).
This same apprehension came from the corrupting influence on
the British courts of the British crown which, (especially
before the British "Glorious Revolution" and subsequent
Parliamentary acts in the 17th Century which largely removed
the same), used the British judiciary to persecute those
whom it chose.
The following quote from "The Federalist Papers", the
compilation of letters from the American Founding Fathers of
the USA in support of the adoption of the US Constitution
addresses this topic, clearly, indicates that the US
Constitution had as it's goal the the prevention of the
type of judicial oppression which the Rape Shield Laws and
other feminist legal concepts promulgate.
The quote is as follows:
" For my own part, the more the operation of the institution
has fall under my
observation, the more reason I have discovered for holding
it in high
estimation; and it would be altogether superfluous to
examine to what
extent it deserves to be esteemed useful or essential in a
representative republic, or how much more merit it may be
entitled to,
as a defense against the oppressions of an hereditary
monarch, than as
a barrier to the tyranny of popular magistrates in a popular
government. Discussions of this kind would be more curious
than
beneficial, as all are satisfied of the utility of the
institution, and
of its friendly aspect to liberty. But I must acknowledge
that I cannot
readily discern the inseparable connection between the
existence of
liberty, and the trial by jury in civil cases. Arbitrary
impeachment's,
arbitrary methods of prosecuting pretended offenses, and
arbitrary
punishments upon arbitrary convictions, have ever appeared
to me to be
the great engines of judicial despotism; and these have all
relation to
criminal proceedings. The trial by jury in criminal cases,
aided by the
habeas corpus act, seems therefore to be alone concerned in
the
question. And both of these are provided for, in the most
ample manner,
in the plan of the convention."
End of Quote
Thus it is clear to me that criminal offenses which depend,
for the most part, on the reliability of testimony should
face "stricter scrutiny" rather than less scrutiny that
feminists promulgate (in Rape Shield Laws and other feminist
laws such as sexual harassment and otherwise) not less in
order to avoid the "Arbitrary impeachment's,
arbitrary methods of prosecuting pretended offenses, and
arbitrary
punishments upon arbitrary convictions" (as per the
Federalist Papers quote) that the US Constitution and the
Federalist Papers in Support of the same sought as their
end.
|
| |
| |
|
