May 16, 2010
NEW DELHI: The central government says the Domestic Violence (DV) Act, enacted with a view to protect women, can also be used to prosecute women.
Backing the recent decision of some courts in Delhi to invoke the civil law against women, an affidavit filed in the Delhi High Court by the Women and Child Development ministry says that "the main purpose of the Act is to protect women from domestic violence but not solely protect them from male persons...right of the victim against domestic violence can't be guided by the gender of the perpetrator."
The central government's stand came in response to a petition by a widow questioning the fact that the Act was invoked against women by a few courts in the capital. Varsha Kapoor, through her lawyer Arvind Jain, urged the court to strike down a section in the Act that allowed for women to be prosecuted.
Justifying the government's stand, the affidavit adds, "the main purpose of society and the law maker is to provide certain protection to the women so that they can live with honour...the legislature never wanted to exempt women from prosecution...if any crime is committed by any woman in that case she is liable to be prosecuted irrespective of gender."
In her petition, Kapoor, who has been booked under the Act on the basis of a complaint filed by her estranged daughter-in-law, also challenged a lower court's order against her.
"The DV Act is a benevolent piece of legislation aimed to provide for more effective protection of rights of women under the constitution who are victims of violence of any kind within family," the petition argued.
Mr.Rebates
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
HC saves man from impotency tag
Sept 7, 2010
MUMBAI: Marital discord continues to flounder in a sea of legalese as harried courts try to reconcile differences between partners who don't even share a bed. The newest issue before Bombay HC in this territory is: can the police force a man to undergo medical tests to prove his manhood?
The issue arose before the Bombay high court when a Peddar Road-based woman sought the annulment of her 12-year-old marriage, claiming that it was never consummated. In her plea, she also complained of marital cruelty stemming from "his frustration".
On Monday, playing arbiter, the court suggested the couple, Shyam Talreja and Sunidhi Patel (names changed), divorce through mutual consent. But the proposition created further disagreements between the two: Patel insisted the consent terms mention her husband's "impotency", a demand Talreja opposed.
The judges, in a bid to avoid tainting the man with the stigma "no prudent person might agree to", offered a more "amiable phrase". "You may say 'there was no physical relationship between the parties' rather than 'non-consummation'," they said. The court has now asked the couple to sleep over its suggestion and return next Monday to settle the matter, failing which it is prepared to hear the husband's plea on merit.
The couple -- both in their late 30s -- hail from business families.
According to his lawyer, Edith Dey, Talreja worked for his father-in-law's stockbroking company but was sacked last year when marital trouble began. Late last year, Patel filed a complaint of physical cruelty against her husband and in-laws under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). She alleged the physical violence was because of "his frustration arising out of impotency". The police arrested Talreja and his parents, but released them on bail.
Last month, Talreja said, when the police sought a change in his reporting schedule, he realised it was to have him tested for impotency at Nair Hospital. Aggrieved, he objected and got a medical report to show "all is well" from a private charitable hospital. But the police refused to accept Talreja's private report, forcing him to move the high court. A bench headed by Justice B H Marlapalle barred the medical tests.
Patel's lawyer Aabad Ponda on Monday said that a divorce which did not mention Talreja's "impotency" might mar her chances of remarriage and undermine the harassment she faced "for the last seven years". On her part, Dey questioned the "12-year delay in raising the impotency issue".
MUMBAI: Marital discord continues to flounder in a sea of legalese as harried courts try to reconcile differences between partners who don't even share a bed. The newest issue before Bombay HC in this territory is: can the police force a man to undergo medical tests to prove his manhood?
The issue arose before the Bombay high court when a Peddar Road-based woman sought the annulment of her 12-year-old marriage, claiming that it was never consummated. In her plea, she also complained of marital cruelty stemming from "his frustration".
On Monday, playing arbiter, the court suggested the couple, Shyam Talreja and Sunidhi Patel (names changed), divorce through mutual consent. But the proposition created further disagreements between the two: Patel insisted the consent terms mention her husband's "impotency", a demand Talreja opposed.
The judges, in a bid to avoid tainting the man with the stigma "no prudent person might agree to", offered a more "amiable phrase". "You may say 'there was no physical relationship between the parties' rather than 'non-consummation'," they said. The court has now asked the couple to sleep over its suggestion and return next Monday to settle the matter, failing which it is prepared to hear the husband's plea on merit.
The couple -- both in their late 30s -- hail from business families.
According to his lawyer, Edith Dey, Talreja worked for his father-in-law's stockbroking company but was sacked last year when marital trouble began. Late last year, Patel filed a complaint of physical cruelty against her husband and in-laws under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). She alleged the physical violence was because of "his frustration arising out of impotency". The police arrested Talreja and his parents, but released them on bail.
Last month, Talreja said, when the police sought a change in his reporting schedule, he realised it was to have him tested for impotency at Nair Hospital. Aggrieved, he objected and got a medical report to show "all is well" from a private charitable hospital. But the police refused to accept Talreja's private report, forcing him to move the high court. A bench headed by Justice B H Marlapalle barred the medical tests.
Patel's lawyer Aabad Ponda on Monday said that a divorce which did not mention Talreja's "impotency" might mar her chances of remarriage and undermine the harassment she faced "for the last seven years". On her part, Dey questioned the "12-year delay in raising the impotency issue".
Monday, September 6, 2010
India's disappointing government
Well anyone with some common sence can tell you the Congress led government is a farce. Look at who is leading, the Chief Eunuch the PM.
If you read the description below, you will realize Manmohan Singh too has been casterated without his consent by Amma his master. Amma's dream is to see all Men in India casterated without their concent using, IPC 498a.
An eunuch (pronounced /ˈjuːnək/) (Greek: "Ευνούχος") is a castrated man, usually one castrated early enough to have major hormonal consequences.
The term usually refers to those castrated (without their consent) in order to perform a specific social function, as was common historically in many societies.
Sept 2, 2010
Much less than promised
The economy is powering on, but the Congress-led coalition is squandering an opportunity to improve India
THE weightlifting auditorium has a leaky roof. The athletes’ village has no kitchen. Stagnant monsoon water, abuzz with dengue-carrying mosquitoes, collects at most of the stadiums being hurriedly built for the Delhi Commonwealth games, which are due to begin on October 3rd. The security arrangements, in terrorism-stricken India, are shot to pieces because of 24-hour processions of workmen at most venues. Manmohan Singh, the prime minister, reiterates the official line that these will be the “best games ever”. That may depend on how you define “best”.
This shambles, for which corruption, feuding ministries, sapping bureaucracy and shoddy workmanship are all to blame, does not matter to many Indians. Athletics is not cricket. And few know much about their country’s image abroad. Yet it is depressing, not least because it mirrors how large parts of India are run.
When Mr Singh’s government, a coalition dominated by the Congress party, came to power in May last year it was considered to be in a strong position to improve matters. Congress had won a general election convincingly, letting it shake off a few of the troublesome partners, including Communist parties, who dogged its outgoing coalition administration. Its main opposition, the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party, was deflated by electoral defeat. And Congress’s leaders, Mr Singh and Sonia Gandhi, the party chief, are highly regarded.
The government has at least managed the economy steadily. On August 31st it said that output had grown by 8.8% in the second quarter compared with the same quarter last year. This figure was made especially rosy by the relative gloom of a year earlier. Yet it puts India back in its wished-for realm of 9% growth, and it is based on strong growth in job-creating manufacturing, which increased by 12.4%.
But almost everywhere else the results are disappointing. The government has brought almost none of the economic reform India needs. And it has done no more in other pressing areas, like infrastructure and health care, than its predecessor. It may even have jeopardised one of that government’s biggest achievements, a civil nuclear co-operation deal with America that was expected to lead to big investments in nuclear energy. On August 30th India’s upper house passed a nuclear-liability law that will make suppliers of nuclear fuels and related gear liable for 80 years in the event of any malfunction. That may well deter them.
Worse, the government’s poor management of several crises makes it seem incompetent. These include violent separatist protests in Kashmir, where an 11-year-old boy was killed by police on August 30th, becoming the 65th victim of the year, and a worsening Maoist insurgency in east India, which has cost almost 900 lives this year.
The easy response to this disappointment is to blame unrealistic expectations. Despite hopes bandied about by businessmen, there never was much prospect of this leftist government bringing economic reform to India’s statist financial sector or protected retail industry.
But even when the government has tried bits of reform it has often got stuck. The biggest, an effort to prune the country’s dreadful thicket of indirect taxes into a tidier form, an all-India Goods and Services Tax, has been pushed back by a year, to April 2012. Another, to scrap a petrol subsidy, announced in June to many loud public protests, has been followed by only one rise in petrol prices, which suggests they are not yet free.
The government’s inability to make itself work better is a more basic failing—richly evident in the games’ foul-up—for which Congress, in charge of the Delhi state government, is especially guilty. To address a big weakness of the previous government, road-building, an able minister, Kamal Nath, was appointed. He promised to build an average of 20km a day, but this looks unlikely.
In education, another priority, early progress has slowed. The education minister, Kapil Sibal, has promised an array of improvements, including universal primary education, partly provided for through private schooling. This has been enshrined in law, yet its implementation is bogged down. State governments are against any change that the centre will not fund; and its negotiating skills are poor.
The man at the wheel
A lack of strong leadership underlies that. Mr Singh’s power is limited. From her central Delhi bungalow, at 10 Janpath, Mrs Gandhi controls the government. Ministers also pay more heed to the man expected to be the next prime minister, her 40-year-old son Rahul, than to the current one. Yet on the rare occasions when Mr Singh has decided to put his shoulder to the wheel, it has moved. That explains why the America-India nuclear deal was passed by the previous government, despite much hostility to it.
Why Mr Singh, a formidable economist and liberal, has not tried to do more—especially to calm the crises in Kashmir and the east—is baffling. But his reluctance to act more vigorously explains why he is rated less highly at home than abroad. According to Newsweek he is the world leader “other leaders love”. India Today, by contrast, found that 1% of Indians consider him their first choice for prime minister.
Mr Gandhi, a late-developer, meanwhile shows little interest in the tough business of policy. He is devoted to rebuilding Congress, especially in populous north India; forthcoming state elections, in Bihar in October and West Bengal next year, will be important tests of his progress. This ambition also explains Mr Gandhi’s single recent policy statement. After the government forbade a big mining company, Vedanta, to extract bauxite from a mountain in Orissa sacred to local tribes, he rushed to present himself to them, on August 26th, as their “soldier in Delhi”. Indeed they need one. And the tribal vote, about 8% of the total, would certainly be helpful to Congress.
But it would be more useful for India if Mr Gandhi could get a long-stalled land-acquisition bill through parliament. It would redefine the terms under which the government can acquire land for industry, an urgent need, in a poor, crowded country.
If you read the description below, you will realize Manmohan Singh too has been casterated without his consent by Amma his master. Amma's dream is to see all Men in India casterated without their concent using, IPC 498a.
An eunuch (pronounced /ˈjuːnək/) (Greek: "Ευνούχος") is a castrated man, usually one castrated early enough to have major hormonal consequences.
The term usually refers to those castrated (without their consent) in order to perform a specific social function, as was common historically in many societies.
Sept 2, 2010
Much less than promised
The economy is powering on, but the Congress-led coalition is squandering an opportunity to improve India
THE weightlifting auditorium has a leaky roof. The athletes’ village has no kitchen. Stagnant monsoon water, abuzz with dengue-carrying mosquitoes, collects at most of the stadiums being hurriedly built for the Delhi Commonwealth games, which are due to begin on October 3rd. The security arrangements, in terrorism-stricken India, are shot to pieces because of 24-hour processions of workmen at most venues. Manmohan Singh, the prime minister, reiterates the official line that these will be the “best games ever”. That may depend on how you define “best”.
This shambles, for which corruption, feuding ministries, sapping bureaucracy and shoddy workmanship are all to blame, does not matter to many Indians. Athletics is not cricket. And few know much about their country’s image abroad. Yet it is depressing, not least because it mirrors how large parts of India are run.
When Mr Singh’s government, a coalition dominated by the Congress party, came to power in May last year it was considered to be in a strong position to improve matters. Congress had won a general election convincingly, letting it shake off a few of the troublesome partners, including Communist parties, who dogged its outgoing coalition administration. Its main opposition, the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party, was deflated by electoral defeat. And Congress’s leaders, Mr Singh and Sonia Gandhi, the party chief, are highly regarded.
The government has at least managed the economy steadily. On August 31st it said that output had grown by 8.8% in the second quarter compared with the same quarter last year. This figure was made especially rosy by the relative gloom of a year earlier. Yet it puts India back in its wished-for realm of 9% growth, and it is based on strong growth in job-creating manufacturing, which increased by 12.4%.
But almost everywhere else the results are disappointing. The government has brought almost none of the economic reform India needs. And it has done no more in other pressing areas, like infrastructure and health care, than its predecessor. It may even have jeopardised one of that government’s biggest achievements, a civil nuclear co-operation deal with America that was expected to lead to big investments in nuclear energy. On August 30th India’s upper house passed a nuclear-liability law that will make suppliers of nuclear fuels and related gear liable for 80 years in the event of any malfunction. That may well deter them.
Worse, the government’s poor management of several crises makes it seem incompetent. These include violent separatist protests in Kashmir, where an 11-year-old boy was killed by police on August 30th, becoming the 65th victim of the year, and a worsening Maoist insurgency in east India, which has cost almost 900 lives this year.
The easy response to this disappointment is to blame unrealistic expectations. Despite hopes bandied about by businessmen, there never was much prospect of this leftist government bringing economic reform to India’s statist financial sector or protected retail industry.
But even when the government has tried bits of reform it has often got stuck. The biggest, an effort to prune the country’s dreadful thicket of indirect taxes into a tidier form, an all-India Goods and Services Tax, has been pushed back by a year, to April 2012. Another, to scrap a petrol subsidy, announced in June to many loud public protests, has been followed by only one rise in petrol prices, which suggests they are not yet free.
The government’s inability to make itself work better is a more basic failing—richly evident in the games’ foul-up—for which Congress, in charge of the Delhi state government, is especially guilty. To address a big weakness of the previous government, road-building, an able minister, Kamal Nath, was appointed. He promised to build an average of 20km a day, but this looks unlikely.
In education, another priority, early progress has slowed. The education minister, Kapil Sibal, has promised an array of improvements, including universal primary education, partly provided for through private schooling. This has been enshrined in law, yet its implementation is bogged down. State governments are against any change that the centre will not fund; and its negotiating skills are poor.
The man at the wheel
A lack of strong leadership underlies that. Mr Singh’s power is limited. From her central Delhi bungalow, at 10 Janpath, Mrs Gandhi controls the government. Ministers also pay more heed to the man expected to be the next prime minister, her 40-year-old son Rahul, than to the current one. Yet on the rare occasions when Mr Singh has decided to put his shoulder to the wheel, it has moved. That explains why the America-India nuclear deal was passed by the previous government, despite much hostility to it.
Why Mr Singh, a formidable economist and liberal, has not tried to do more—especially to calm the crises in Kashmir and the east—is baffling. But his reluctance to act more vigorously explains why he is rated less highly at home than abroad. According to Newsweek he is the world leader “other leaders love”. India Today, by contrast, found that 1% of Indians consider him their first choice for prime minister.
Mr Gandhi, a late-developer, meanwhile shows little interest in the tough business of policy. He is devoted to rebuilding Congress, especially in populous north India; forthcoming state elections, in Bihar in October and West Bengal next year, will be important tests of his progress. This ambition also explains Mr Gandhi’s single recent policy statement. After the government forbade a big mining company, Vedanta, to extract bauxite from a mountain in Orissa sacred to local tribes, he rushed to present himself to them, on August 26th, as their “soldier in Delhi”. Indeed they need one. And the tribal vote, about 8% of the total, would certainly be helpful to Congress.
But it would be more useful for India if Mr Gandhi could get a long-stalled land-acquisition bill through parliament. It would redefine the terms under which the government can acquire land for industry, an urgent need, in a poor, crowded country.
Sunday, September 5, 2010
Unreported domestic violence of SFPD's Madden snowballed into scandal, change, and 100's of dropped cases
Female charged for Domestic Violence, could this be possible? Well Deborah Madden brought the entire San Francisco Police Drug Lab down, and it has shut for good. Read Below
...Revelations that the department had failed to tell prosecutors about [now-resigned San Francisco Police Drug Lab Technician Deborah] Madden's criminal record for domestic violence led to an internal review of police files. That review ultimately determined that as many as 135 police officers had misconduct histories that might be subject to disclosure to defense attorneys if they were summoned to the stand... The department has since created a panel to review the histories of officers going back 30 years... Since the drug lab closure, prosecutors have been forced to drop hundreds of drug cases as testing is farmed out to outside labs...
SAN FRANCISCO POLICE FACE DEMOTION IN CRIME LAB SCANDAL
Aug 21th, 2010
Several top San Francisco police officials - including at least one assistant chief - failed to act on early indications that a former lab technician had been skimming drug evidence and face demotion or misconduct charges, police sources say.
In March, Police Chief George Gascón ordered the drug lab shut amid allegations that since-retired lab worker Deborah Madden had taken cocaine sent to the lab for testing.
Without going into detail, the chief said at a news conference Friday that there had been "acts of negligence by various" police officials who showed an "inability to see the signs that should have been detected much earlier" related to the drug lab.
"Some of that had to do with broken-down systems. Some of that had to do with people not paying attention to their jobs," he said. The chief did not mention names, citing personnel protections.
Gascón also said the department bungled by not telling prosecutors about Madden's previous conviction for domestic violence in San Mateo County. By law, prosecutors must turn over such information to the defense during trials.
He said at the news conference that he is doing everything he can to clean up the department.
"We can tell the public," he said, "if we have a bad apple, we're going to deal with a bad apple and we're going to do so appropriately, and that we're going to create systems and we are going to hold people accountable to make sure acts like this do not recur."
Tech's sister alerted department
The department learned about the possible drug theft in mid-December, when Madden's sister alerted the lab that she had found a lab vial at Madden's home. Department officials, however, did not launch a criminal investigation until February, a delay of more than two months.
Two of the officials who were told of suspicions surrounding Madden in December and failed to order a criminal probe for more than two months - Assistant Chief Kevin Cashman and Commander John Loftus - have both been demoted to their previous civil service ranks of captain.
...Revelations that the department had failed to tell prosecutors about [now-resigned San Francisco Police Drug Lab Technician Deborah] Madden's criminal record for domestic violence led to an internal review of police files. That review ultimately determined that as many as 135 police officers had misconduct histories that might be subject to disclosure to defense attorneys if they were summoned to the stand... The department has since created a panel to review the histories of officers going back 30 years... Since the drug lab closure, prosecutors have been forced to drop hundreds of drug cases as testing is farmed out to outside labs...
SAN FRANCISCO POLICE FACE DEMOTION IN CRIME LAB SCANDAL
Aug 21th, 2010
Several top San Francisco police officials - including at least one assistant chief - failed to act on early indications that a former lab technician had been skimming drug evidence and face demotion or misconduct charges, police sources say.
In March, Police Chief George Gascón ordered the drug lab shut amid allegations that since-retired lab worker Deborah Madden had taken cocaine sent to the lab for testing.
Without going into detail, the chief said at a news conference Friday that there had been "acts of negligence by various" police officials who showed an "inability to see the signs that should have been detected much earlier" related to the drug lab.
"Some of that had to do with broken-down systems. Some of that had to do with people not paying attention to their jobs," he said. The chief did not mention names, citing personnel protections.
Gascón also said the department bungled by not telling prosecutors about Madden's previous conviction for domestic violence in San Mateo County. By law, prosecutors must turn over such information to the defense during trials.
He said at the news conference that he is doing everything he can to clean up the department.
"We can tell the public," he said, "if we have a bad apple, we're going to deal with a bad apple and we're going to do so appropriately, and that we're going to create systems and we are going to hold people accountable to make sure acts like this do not recur."
Tech's sister alerted department
The department learned about the possible drug theft in mid-December, when Madden's sister alerted the lab that she had found a lab vial at Madden's home. Department officials, however, did not launch a criminal investigation until February, a delay of more than two months.
Two of the officials who were told of suspicions surrounding Madden in December and failed to order a criminal probe for more than two months - Assistant Chief Kevin Cashman and Commander John Loftus - have both been demoted to their previous civil service ranks of captain.
Rule by fear or rule by law?
February 04, 2008
"The power of the Executive to cast a man into prison without formulating any charge known to the law, and particularly to deny him the judgment of his peers, is in the highest degree odious and is the foundation of all totalitarian government whether Nazi or Communist."
- Winston Churchill, Nov. 21, 1943
Since 9/11, and seemingly without the notice of most Americans, the federal government has assumed the authority to institute martial law, arrest a wide swath of dissidents (citizen and noncitizen alike), and detain people without legal or constitutional recourse in the event of "an emergency influx of immigrants in the U.S., or to support the rapid development of new programs."
Beginning in 1999, the government has entered into a series of single-bid contracts with Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown and Root (KBR) to build detention camps at undisclosed locations within the United States. The government has also contracted with several companies to build thousands of railcars, some reportedly equipped with shackles, ostensibly to transport detainees.
According to diplomat and author Peter Dale Scott, the KBR contract is part of a Homeland Security plan titled ENDGAME, which sets as its goal the removal of "all removable aliens" and "potential terrorists."
Fraud-busters such as Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles, have complained about these contracts, saying that more taxpayer dollars should not go to taxpayer-gouging Halliburton. But the real question is: What kind of "new programs" require the construction and refurbishment of detention facilities in nearly every state of the union with the capacity to house perhaps millions of people?
Sect. 1042 of the 2007 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), "Use of the Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies," gives the executive the power to invoke martial law. For the first time in more than a century, the president is now authorized to use the military in response to "a natural disaster, a disease outbreak, a terrorist attack or any other condition in which the President determines that domestic violence has occurred to the extent that state officials cannot maintain public order."
The Military Commissions Act of 2006, rammed through Congress just before the 2006 midterm elections, allows for the indefinite imprisonment of anyone who donates money to a charity that turns up on a list of "terrorist" organizations, or who speaks out against the government's policies. The law calls for secret trials for citizens and noncitizens alike.
Also in 2007, the White House quietly issued National Security Presidential Directive 51 (NSPD-51), to ensure "continuity of government" in the event of what the document vaguely calls a "catastrophic emergency." Should the president determine that such an emergency has occurred, he and he alone is empowered to do whatever he deems necessary to ensure "continuity of government." This could include everything from canceling elections to suspending the Constitution to launching a nuclear attack. Congress has yet to hold a single hearing on NSPD-51.
U.S. Rep. Jane Harman, D-Venice (Los Angeles County) has come up with a new way to expand the domestic "war on terror." Her Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 (HR1955), which passed the House by the lopsided vote of 404-6, would set up a commission to "examine and report upon the facts and causes" of so-called violent radicalism and extremist ideology, then make legislative recommendations on combatting it.
According to commentary in the Baltimore Sun, Rep. Harman and her colleagues from both sides of the aisle believe the country faces a native brand of terrorism, and needs a commission with sweeping investigative power to combat it.
A clue as to where Harman's commission might be aiming is the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, a law that labels those who "engage in sit-ins, civil disobedience, trespass, or any other crime in the name of animal rights" as terrorists. Other groups in the crosshairs could be anti-abortion protesters, anti-tax agitators, immigration activists, environmentalists, peace demonstrators, Second Amendment rights supporters ... the list goes on and on. According to author Naomi Wolf, the National Counterterrorism Center holds the names of roughly 775,000 "terror suspects" with the number increasing by 20,000 per month.
What could the government be contemplating that leads it to make contingency plans to detain without recourse millions of its own citizens?
The Constitution does not allow the executive to have unchecked power under any circumstances. The people must not allow the president to use the war on terrorism to rule by fear instead of by law.
"The power of the Executive to cast a man into prison without formulating any charge known to the law, and particularly to deny him the judgment of his peers, is in the highest degree odious and is the foundation of all totalitarian government whether Nazi or Communist."
- Winston Churchill, Nov. 21, 1943
Since 9/11, and seemingly without the notice of most Americans, the federal government has assumed the authority to institute martial law, arrest a wide swath of dissidents (citizen and noncitizen alike), and detain people without legal or constitutional recourse in the event of "an emergency influx of immigrants in the U.S., or to support the rapid development of new programs."
Beginning in 1999, the government has entered into a series of single-bid contracts with Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown and Root (KBR) to build detention camps at undisclosed locations within the United States. The government has also contracted with several companies to build thousands of railcars, some reportedly equipped with shackles, ostensibly to transport detainees.
According to diplomat and author Peter Dale Scott, the KBR contract is part of a Homeland Security plan titled ENDGAME, which sets as its goal the removal of "all removable aliens" and "potential terrorists."
Fraud-busters such as Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles, have complained about these contracts, saying that more taxpayer dollars should not go to taxpayer-gouging Halliburton. But the real question is: What kind of "new programs" require the construction and refurbishment of detention facilities in nearly every state of the union with the capacity to house perhaps millions of people?
Sect. 1042 of the 2007 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), "Use of the Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies," gives the executive the power to invoke martial law. For the first time in more than a century, the president is now authorized to use the military in response to "a natural disaster, a disease outbreak, a terrorist attack or any other condition in which the President determines that domestic violence has occurred to the extent that state officials cannot maintain public order."
The Military Commissions Act of 2006, rammed through Congress just before the 2006 midterm elections, allows for the indefinite imprisonment of anyone who donates money to a charity that turns up on a list of "terrorist" organizations, or who speaks out against the government's policies. The law calls for secret trials for citizens and noncitizens alike.
Also in 2007, the White House quietly issued National Security Presidential Directive 51 (NSPD-51), to ensure "continuity of government" in the event of what the document vaguely calls a "catastrophic emergency." Should the president determine that such an emergency has occurred, he and he alone is empowered to do whatever he deems necessary to ensure "continuity of government." This could include everything from canceling elections to suspending the Constitution to launching a nuclear attack. Congress has yet to hold a single hearing on NSPD-51.
U.S. Rep. Jane Harman, D-Venice (Los Angeles County) has come up with a new way to expand the domestic "war on terror." Her Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 (HR1955), which passed the House by the lopsided vote of 404-6, would set up a commission to "examine and report upon the facts and causes" of so-called violent radicalism and extremist ideology, then make legislative recommendations on combatting it.
According to commentary in the Baltimore Sun, Rep. Harman and her colleagues from both sides of the aisle believe the country faces a native brand of terrorism, and needs a commission with sweeping investigative power to combat it.
A clue as to where Harman's commission might be aiming is the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, a law that labels those who "engage in sit-ins, civil disobedience, trespass, or any other crime in the name of animal rights" as terrorists. Other groups in the crosshairs could be anti-abortion protesters, anti-tax agitators, immigration activists, environmentalists, peace demonstrators, Second Amendment rights supporters ... the list goes on and on. According to author Naomi Wolf, the National Counterterrorism Center holds the names of roughly 775,000 "terror suspects" with the number increasing by 20,000 per month.
What could the government be contemplating that leads it to make contingency plans to detain without recourse millions of its own citizens?
The Constitution does not allow the executive to have unchecked power under any circumstances. The people must not allow the president to use the war on terrorism to rule by fear instead of by law.
The Abused Men's Area
INTRODUCTION
This Web Site is becoming more extensive than I had ever expected. So I have decided to add more material about myself and in this way, I hope to bring a better understanding and clarity to my work. But before I begin, I must write about egalitarianism and feminism.
Egalitarianism (about 1885) is an idea that advocates the removal inequalities among people. It supports human equality in all matters including economic, political, and social rights. Feminism (about 1895) is a theory that embraces political, economic, and social equality without regard to gender. The only difference between egalitarianism and feminism is ten years.
Feminism is now redefined by a few women who have embraced fascism, a political movement that places their self-invented ideology above the individual. This authoritarian movement is lead by a dictatorial clique of women who have embraced their own self-conceived notions of feminist superiority. The fascist movements of the past tried selective genocide and the radical feminists of today are engaged in selective gender persecution. They tolerate their lackeys and despise all others who oppose them without regard to their gender.
As a result, the term ‘Feminazi’ entered our lexicon in 1989. The word refers to ‘an extreme or militant feminist’. I have used the word and have abated because other words such as obstinate, stubborn, and perversion are more useful and accurate. Once a person embraces egalitarianism, then all other false beliefs are or will become obsolete. Please note that I left room for improvement.
I completed my graduation requirements at Sonoma State College, now called Sonoma State University, in 1968. My major was Physical Science and Mathematics. Normally, a student could receive their Baccalaureate Degree with120 semester units but the graduation requirements were changed. I earned 163 semester units in four years and many were at the postgraduate level. If my memory serves, I was in the top 10 percent of my class and graduated with Honors in Mathematics and in Physical Science. I do not like class ratings because they have nothing to do with real world performance.
Visit the website to read all the authors articles.
http://home.earthlink.net/~elnunes/abindex.htm
This Web Site is becoming more extensive than I had ever expected. So I have decided to add more material about myself and in this way, I hope to bring a better understanding and clarity to my work. But before I begin, I must write about egalitarianism and feminism.
Egalitarianism (about 1885) is an idea that advocates the removal inequalities among people. It supports human equality in all matters including economic, political, and social rights. Feminism (about 1895) is a theory that embraces political, economic, and social equality without regard to gender. The only difference between egalitarianism and feminism is ten years.
Feminism is now redefined by a few women who have embraced fascism, a political movement that places their self-invented ideology above the individual. This authoritarian movement is lead by a dictatorial clique of women who have embraced their own self-conceived notions of feminist superiority. The fascist movements of the past tried selective genocide and the radical feminists of today are engaged in selective gender persecution. They tolerate their lackeys and despise all others who oppose them without regard to their gender.
As a result, the term ‘Feminazi’ entered our lexicon in 1989. The word refers to ‘an extreme or militant feminist’. I have used the word and have abated because other words such as obstinate, stubborn, and perversion are more useful and accurate. Once a person embraces egalitarianism, then all other false beliefs are or will become obsolete. Please note that I left room for improvement.
I completed my graduation requirements at Sonoma State College, now called Sonoma State University, in 1968. My major was Physical Science and Mathematics. Normally, a student could receive their Baccalaureate Degree with120 semester units but the graduation requirements were changed. I earned 163 semester units in four years and many were at the postgraduate level. If my memory serves, I was in the top 10 percent of my class and graduated with Honors in Mathematics and in Physical Science. I do not like class ratings because they have nothing to do with real world performance.
Visit the website to read all the authors articles.
http://home.earthlink.net/~elnunes/abindex.htm
The Work of the Fascist Feminists is Real and Evil
The doctrine of the Fascist feminists is dictatorial and illusionary. For an example, they claim that ‘misogyny’ means the ‘hatred of women’ when it originally meant ‘hate the queen’. Misogyny actually referred meant the brutal excesses of Queen Mary the First who tortured and murdered others on basis of their religious beliefs.
Some years ago, a local newspaper printed a misandrious article about spousal abuse. It described the relationship between heartbeat and blood pressure. If his heartbeat was slow, normal, or high then he abuses women. If his blood pressure was low, normal, or high then he abuses women. In other words, no one could pass that test and is an example of pseudo science, a system of theories and fabrications that are not scientific or true. The dubious right to lie by creating false statistics has become the cornerstone of the fascist feminist conspiracy.
Some months ago, a woman wrote that one in three females will be a victim of domestic violence but she ignored the existence of same gender relationships involving females. So this woman lied by fabrication, commission, and omission. Her missive appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle in 2008. Just before I started to write this introduction (Monday, February 2, 2009), a Texas mother killed her two-year-old daughter to teach her manners.
The Violence Against Women Act was first enacted in 1994 as Title IV of the Violent Crime Control and Law enforcement Act of 1994. The authorization amount was $1.6 billion over six years from the end of 1994 through Fiscal Year (FY) 2000.
Government grants to encourage mandatory arrest policies from FY 1995 through FY 2000 amounted to $214 million. The expenditures for the FY 1999 ($34 million) and FY 2000 ($34 million) were appropriated without authorization while STOP Grants were used to train (indoctrinate) law enforcement, prosecutorial, and victim service personnel. The lowest amount was $26 million for FY 1994 and the highest amount was $174 million for FY 2000. These grants amount to at least $800 million and the minimum amount granted to each small state was $500,000 per year and another 4 percent was set aside for tribes.
The source for this data is the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence (NCADV). The title of the document is Comparison of VAWA 1994, VAWA 2000, and VAWA 2005 Reauthorization Bill (1/16/06). What became an interest to me was the provision stated on page 1. It would prohibit notification of an accused batterer without the victim's consent when an out-of-state order is registered in the new jurisdiction. The problem is that how can anyone obey a secret order? Moreover, a secret accusation is exactly that, it is an unproved accusation. This a work in progress and I will add more information after I have confirmed it.
Some years ago, a local newspaper printed a misandrious article about spousal abuse. It described the relationship between heartbeat and blood pressure. If his heartbeat was slow, normal, or high then he abuses women. If his blood pressure was low, normal, or high then he abuses women. In other words, no one could pass that test and is an example of pseudo science, a system of theories and fabrications that are not scientific or true. The dubious right to lie by creating false statistics has become the cornerstone of the fascist feminist conspiracy.
Some months ago, a woman wrote that one in three females will be a victim of domestic violence but she ignored the existence of same gender relationships involving females. So this woman lied by fabrication, commission, and omission. Her missive appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle in 2008. Just before I started to write this introduction (Monday, February 2, 2009), a Texas mother killed her two-year-old daughter to teach her manners.
The Violence Against Women Act was first enacted in 1994 as Title IV of the Violent Crime Control and Law enforcement Act of 1994. The authorization amount was $1.6 billion over six years from the end of 1994 through Fiscal Year (FY) 2000.
Government grants to encourage mandatory arrest policies from FY 1995 through FY 2000 amounted to $214 million. The expenditures for the FY 1999 ($34 million) and FY 2000 ($34 million) were appropriated without authorization while STOP Grants were used to train (indoctrinate) law enforcement, prosecutorial, and victim service personnel. The lowest amount was $26 million for FY 1994 and the highest amount was $174 million for FY 2000. These grants amount to at least $800 million and the minimum amount granted to each small state was $500,000 per year and another 4 percent was set aside for tribes.
The source for this data is the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence (NCADV). The title of the document is Comparison of VAWA 1994, VAWA 2000, and VAWA 2005 Reauthorization Bill (1/16/06). What became an interest to me was the provision stated on page 1. It would prohibit notification of an accused batterer without the victim's consent when an out-of-state order is registered in the new jurisdiction. The problem is that how can anyone obey a secret order? Moreover, a secret accusation is exactly that, it is an unproved accusation. This a work in progress and I will add more information after I have confirmed it.
Misandry (mis'-an'-dre') n.the hatred or oppression of males
Misandry (mis'-an'-dre') n.
Nicolas Chauvin, an fanatical admirer and soldier of Napoleon 1, harbored irrational and boastful contempt toward others who did not share his views and principles. The character Chauvin in The Tricolor Cockade (1831) placed the term 'chauvinism' in the French language. 'Chauvinism' is similar to the English word 'jingoism'. The problem is that Chauvin never existed.
The jingoistic epithet 'male chauvinist pig' came into common usage during the women's liberation movement of the 1960's. Even today, extremist radical feminists are intractably contemptuous toward others who do not share their delusional views and principles.
Both terms 'misogyny' and 'misandry' evolved in the 1960's in the United States. Radical feminists defined term 'misogyny' as the hatred of women. Originally, I defined misandry to mean the hatred of men. After reflection, I changed the definition of misandry to mean the hatred or oppression of males. Then I redefined misogyny to mean the hatred or oppression of females. Radical feminists are chauvinists because they hate and berate anyone who does not share their views.
Kathleen Coulborn Faller displayed her bigotry in Child Sexual Abuse: Intervention and Treatment Issues. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services sponsored her work in 1993 under subcontract No. S105-89-1730 to Westover Consultants. Psychotherapist Kathleen Goodfriend nearly destroyed a family with her brand of chauvinism. Susan Murphy-Milano and K. J. Wilson wrote books on how to lie and make false accusations of rape and spousal abuse. These women are chauvinists in every sense of the term.
Acts of bigotry and misandry include:
(1) the desire or act to subjugate or oppress or punish or harm or injure, or murder a male because of his gender.
(2) the deliberate preference of a female's lie against the truth.
(3) the belief that no father can be a fit parent.
(4) the assumption that masculinity, male physiology, and male hormones cause males to become evil, sexually abusive, oppressive, and violent. The parallel assumption is we must raise boys as we do girls, in the image of misandry, without regard to a child's unique qualities, preferences, hopes, and desires.
(5) the assumption that every male is or can become sexually abusive, oppressive, and violent.
(6) the assumption that females cannot be sexually abusive, oppressive, and violent.
(7) the attribution of negative qualities and humanity's historic evils to the entire male gender while ignoring female culpability.
(8) the promulgation of false statistics against males regarding rape and family violence. The parallel assertion that female acts of abuse and violence against males are insignificant and are justified as self-defense.
(9) the tolerance of female violence and abuse toward males.
(10) the suppression of evidence of a female’s violence and abuse toward a male.
(11) the encouragement or reporting or supporting or the toleration of false allegations and charges against a male because of his gender.
(12) lying or the deliberate creation of false information against any male because of his gender.
(13) the deliberate suppression or distortion of facts showing a female’s guilt or a male's innocence.
(14) the suppression or distortion of a male's testimony because of his gender.
(15) the falsification of transcripts, police reports, court reports, and evidence to adversely affect a male because of his gender.
(16) the denial of historic male spiritual, intellectual, humanitarian, and material contributions to civilization.
(17) the act of coercing women to lie against their husbands.
(18) the act of coercing children to lie against their fathers.
(19) the act of encouraging or instructing females to contrive, or testify to, false allegations of family violence, child abuse, child molestation, or rape against a male.
(20) the act of making false allegations of family violence, child abuse, child molestation, or rape against a male.
(21) the act of falsely testifying against a male to support false allegations of family violence, child abuse, child molestation, or rape.
(22) blaming males for all psychological and social maladies.
(23) encouraging or persuading another to lie against a male because of his gender.
(24) the abuse of a male for personal satisfaction or material gain.
(25) the failure to provide males equal protection under the law.
(26) the use of female pronouns to refer to victims and male pronouns to refer to assailants, rapists, and suspects.
(27) the actual or tacit toleration of mental, physical, or sexual abuse by a female upon a male.
(28) the actual or tacit toleration of any act of depravity upon a male.
Other Parts of Speech
misandrous (mis'-an'-drΛs) adj. (1) practicing misandry (2) of or characterized by misandry.
misandric (mis'-an'-dric) adj. characterized by misandry.
misandrist (mis-an'-drist) n. one who practices misandry.
My note: If someone can find a better definition, I would like to see it.
Dealing with Misandry
Misandry is a world wide problem. Those who practice misandry abuse men, women, and children. These purveyors of hate do not support the right of all people to live safely and free of false accusations. They do not care about the damage they cause. They want to exercise their personal power and influence over others. Most people are not aware of what is happening in our courts. So, become informed about gender and accusatorial preference in our courts. Take note of this behavior and discuss it with others.
The greatest danger is that judges, prosecutors, and others possess immunities that protect them from criminal prosecution and civil liability for their public crimes and civil torts. These persons are not subject to public scrutiny and accountability. So the law must be changed to provide reparations, restitution, and redress for those who have been wronged. Outlaw immunity. Demand punishment of any public official or other person who has lied or used coercive or oppressive measures to, or in an attempt to, imprison, or distress another. Demand changes in the law that removes the statutes of limitations for these crimes. Misandry, misogyny, and accusatorial preferences have no place in our society. We cannot have equality and opportunity when gender preference is so prevalent in our justice courts.
Nicolas Chauvin, an fanatical admirer and soldier of Napoleon 1, harbored irrational and boastful contempt toward others who did not share his views and principles. The character Chauvin in The Tricolor Cockade (1831) placed the term 'chauvinism' in the French language. 'Chauvinism' is similar to the English word 'jingoism'. The problem is that Chauvin never existed.
The jingoistic epithet 'male chauvinist pig' came into common usage during the women's liberation movement of the 1960's. Even today, extremist radical feminists are intractably contemptuous toward others who do not share their delusional views and principles.
Both terms 'misogyny' and 'misandry' evolved in the 1960's in the United States. Radical feminists defined term 'misogyny' as the hatred of women. Originally, I defined misandry to mean the hatred of men. After reflection, I changed the definition of misandry to mean the hatred or oppression of males. Then I redefined misogyny to mean the hatred or oppression of females. Radical feminists are chauvinists because they hate and berate anyone who does not share their views.
Kathleen Coulborn Faller displayed her bigotry in Child Sexual Abuse: Intervention and Treatment Issues. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services sponsored her work in 1993 under subcontract No. S105-89-1730 to Westover Consultants. Psychotherapist Kathleen Goodfriend nearly destroyed a family with her brand of chauvinism. Susan Murphy-Milano and K. J. Wilson wrote books on how to lie and make false accusations of rape and spousal abuse. These women are chauvinists in every sense of the term.
Acts of bigotry and misandry include:
(1) the desire or act to subjugate or oppress or punish or harm or injure, or murder a male because of his gender.
(2) the deliberate preference of a female's lie against the truth.
(3) the belief that no father can be a fit parent.
(4) the assumption that masculinity, male physiology, and male hormones cause males to become evil, sexually abusive, oppressive, and violent. The parallel assumption is we must raise boys as we do girls, in the image of misandry, without regard to a child's unique qualities, preferences, hopes, and desires.
(5) the assumption that every male is or can become sexually abusive, oppressive, and violent.
(6) the assumption that females cannot be sexually abusive, oppressive, and violent.
(7) the attribution of negative qualities and humanity's historic evils to the entire male gender while ignoring female culpability.
(8) the promulgation of false statistics against males regarding rape and family violence. The parallel assertion that female acts of abuse and violence against males are insignificant and are justified as self-defense.
(9) the tolerance of female violence and abuse toward males.
(10) the suppression of evidence of a female’s violence and abuse toward a male.
(11) the encouragement or reporting or supporting or the toleration of false allegations and charges against a male because of his gender.
(12) lying or the deliberate creation of false information against any male because of his gender.
(13) the deliberate suppression or distortion of facts showing a female’s guilt or a male's innocence.
(14) the suppression or distortion of a male's testimony because of his gender.
(15) the falsification of transcripts, police reports, court reports, and evidence to adversely affect a male because of his gender.
(16) the denial of historic male spiritual, intellectual, humanitarian, and material contributions to civilization.
(17) the act of coercing women to lie against their husbands.
(18) the act of coercing children to lie against their fathers.
(19) the act of encouraging or instructing females to contrive, or testify to, false allegations of family violence, child abuse, child molestation, or rape against a male.
(20) the act of making false allegations of family violence, child abuse, child molestation, or rape against a male.
(21) the act of falsely testifying against a male to support false allegations of family violence, child abuse, child molestation, or rape.
(22) blaming males for all psychological and social maladies.
(23) encouraging or persuading another to lie against a male because of his gender.
(24) the abuse of a male for personal satisfaction or material gain.
(25) the failure to provide males equal protection under the law.
(26) the use of female pronouns to refer to victims and male pronouns to refer to assailants, rapists, and suspects.
(27) the actual or tacit toleration of mental, physical, or sexual abuse by a female upon a male.
(28) the actual or tacit toleration of any act of depravity upon a male.
Other Parts of Speech
misandrous (mis'-an'-drΛs) adj. (1) practicing misandry (2) of or characterized by misandry.
misandric (mis'-an'-dric) adj. characterized by misandry.
misandrist (mis-an'-drist) n. one who practices misandry.
My note: If someone can find a better definition, I would like to see it.
Dealing with Misandry
Misandry is a world wide problem. Those who practice misandry abuse men, women, and children. These purveyors of hate do not support the right of all people to live safely and free of false accusations. They do not care about the damage they cause. They want to exercise their personal power and influence over others. Most people are not aware of what is happening in our courts. So, become informed about gender and accusatorial preference in our courts. Take note of this behavior and discuss it with others.
The greatest danger is that judges, prosecutors, and others possess immunities that protect them from criminal prosecution and civil liability for their public crimes and civil torts. These persons are not subject to public scrutiny and accountability. So the law must be changed to provide reparations, restitution, and redress for those who have been wronged. Outlaw immunity. Demand punishment of any public official or other person who has lied or used coercive or oppressive measures to, or in an attempt to, imprison, or distress another. Demand changes in the law that removes the statutes of limitations for these crimes. Misandry, misogyny, and accusatorial preferences have no place in our society. We cannot have equality and opportunity when gender preference is so prevalent in our justice courts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)