California Governor Addresses Men's Rights! Well, Sort of...

	posted by Scott on Thursday October 18, @08:50AM from the inequality/double-standards dept.
	Marc Angelucci writes "Governor Davis of California just vetoed SB 700, a California bill that would give special child visitation rights to "Any female prisoner serving a term of imprisonment subject to Section 3041 who has not had a release date" but not to males in a similar situation. Davis vetoed the bill for reasons mostly having to do with security. He did mention that it excludes males, but then he cites the problem as one of "costly litigation" rather than civil rights. Again, men don't *really* have rights. Here is all he says on the discrimination: 'Of additional concern is that by permitting specified female prisoners, but not similarly classified males, to have family visits, could lead to costly litigation due to its gender-specific provisions.' Thanks Governor Davis. Sort of."

<  Criminalizing Masculinity | Paul Craig Roberts on Domestic Violence  >

  

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Is he sympathetic but reserved? by Nightmist (nightmist@mensactivism.org) on Thursday October 18, @04:50PM EST (#1) (User #187 Info) http://www.jameshanbackjr.com One thing that struck me about Gov. Davis' response is that he seemed to be attempting to head off a veto override by the Calif. legislature. I'm betting that if he'd made the gender inequity his main concern for vetoing the bill, the legislature would have a much easier time overriding the veto (we've seen how fathers have been railroaded by similar women-only laws before). Gov. Davis may have done the smart thing, pointing out a problem with the bill that everyone (whether male or female) would relate to more easily, and making that problem his top concern. I also think that by pointing out the lawsuit potential, Davis managed to bring men's rights into the picture in a way easily digestable to lawmakers. Perhaps he isn't unsympathetic to men's rights, but just knows his audience?

Re:Is he sympathetic but reserved? by Marc Angelucci on Sunday October 21, @03:27PM EST (#2) (User #61 Info) You may be absolutely right about this Nightmist. I didn't mean to criticize him. I'm not sure where he stands. But I don't believe this statement comes straight from him. If you look at the CA legislative website and read the pros and cons, the one group that spoke out against this (a prison board) spoke out mostly about safety and also stated that there could be costly lawsuits. So it looks like Davis was repeating what they said. But you are absolutely right about not criticizing him too quickly. I'm glad he at least said what he did. And I hope you're right about him doing this strategically. Thanks for the comment. MA

[an error occurred while processing this directive]