|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dear ACLU folks:
Your second talking point for your action item at http://www.aclu.org/CriminalJustice/CriminalJustic e.cfm?ID=9955&c=249 promulgates the false perception that women who batter are merely defending themsleves. The Justice Dept. has acknowledged repeatedly in studies that most cases of domestic battery are co-battering, with women initiating the assault as often as men. Yet, arrest protocols usually require that the man be arrested, stated in so many words, even if the evidence points to the owman having been the batterer or initiator of the exchange of blows. This is sexist gender discrimination of the worst sort, esp. as the start of such a process leads to the most disastrous results for the falsely-accused.
You say in this action item you want presumed innocence for all those accused-- but the fact is that a man accused of any crime vs. a woman is presumed guilty. He is presumed so even when proven innocent, or even when the accuser is obviously very imbalanced and has a history of making false allegations (take the Kobe Bryant case).
The ACLU would do much better to start lobbying for true presumed innocence in ALL courts of law in the US for ALL accused people, regardless of gender. As a now-former ACLU member (former because your long history of bias against men could no longer be ignored), I suggest in the interests of the purported aim of your organization that you start taking up the cause of sexist discrimination against men in society and the legal system. After all, it would be the fair, right thing to do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:56 PM April 13th, 2004 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think the ACLU knows the meaning of the word "fair".
Jinx.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:11 PM April 13th, 2004 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
"Jinx"
That's a new name here. (or have I missed earlier posts from you?)
Either way, welcome aboard!
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I must respectfully disagree with any contention of the ACLU starting as or once being a Noble or good organization. The very purpose of the ACLU from its beginning was to be a hate filled organization bent on the destruction of Christianity in America. They have traditionally made their money by searching and following Christians in organizations and suing them for practicing their civil liberties such as their right to pray in public, lead prayers in public mention their religion in public, carry Bibles in public etc. The famous Scopes (Monkey) trial was staged by the ACLU if I am not mistaken which of course did more to outlaw the civil liberty of praying in public schools than any other single event in history. The ACLU does not sue school distrcts that allow Muslims or Hindus to pray and/or lead prayers in public and even supports them when they do. The New Thought Police by Tammy Bruce has some good things to say about this type of behavior from them. The ACLU is not a good organization gone bad. It is a bad organization that has been allowed to take its natural course.
Thou claimest to be a friend yet breahtest mine air? Off with his head!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm reserving opinion on this one. It seems like we're jumping all over the ACLU's position on this because their position, in this case, is endorsed by feminists, but I'm not yet convinced that this is a detriment to men. Don't get me wrong, I have many other issues with the ACLU, like their interpretation of the First Amendment and the very broad separation it drives between church and state, or thier failure to recognize men (usually) in their interpreation of the Fourteenth Amendment. But I would point out that they recently took the side of a man in Pennsylvania who had been accused of DV (I forget the particulars). I didn't study the issue in detail, but I did read what the ACLU says this amendment will do (or at least what they're willing to admit it will do), and it seems to me that this could well provide additional protections for men falsely accused of DV and rape.
I'd like to hear Marc's considered opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 06:13 PM April 13th, 2004 EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
I thought I heard that the ACLU was divided into regional/state chapters. The local chapters may support things that the national organization won't touch (for instance, I heard that it was a New York chapter that defended the rights of Neo Nazis to march, not the national level of the ACLU).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:22 PM April 13th, 2004 EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
I believe you're right that there is variation by region/chapter. Scott gives a good example of them perhaps being with us in a subsequent post about NH, and the ACLU's recent acts of helping release men who were denied due process in child support contempt actions was admirable, I'd say. Overall though I do see an anti-male bias among them. The CA chapter, so far as we have seen, has shown no interest in stopping the government from enforcing paternity fraud, and I bet they would get involved if it were only happening to women. Years ago we also went to them with the evidence that male DV victims were being denied shelter and even being excluded in state laws (which we're currently challenging). The intake person appeared to agree and said he has lots of males coming with serious problems with DV and in family court, but he said it would be tough to convince his superiors, which indicated even he felt there was a bias among the higher-ups. I never heard back. Surprisingly, though, after that we learned that they refered at least one man to us for a child support matter, and we saw the referral sheet that he brought us. I doubt all chapters would have done that. Who knows. It's unfortunate that they don't follow the opinion of one of their own former state leaders, Robyn Blumner, who wrote this outstanding article on DV and the arrests of men.
http://www.sptimes.com/News/120599/Perspective/Dom estic_abuse_law_tr.shtml
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I know the ACLU is going to get a lot of flak here, and I don't deny that they are a very left-leaning organization that has championed women's rights while remaining silent (or even badmouthing) the injustices that men face.
However, in NH, men's rights activists have been in talks with the ACLU chapter and we have been getting more and more interest from them regarding the blatant disregard for civil liberties that the family court systems have shown, particularly in the area of ex-parte restraining order hearings and the not-quite-legal tricks marital masters and judges often use to plow through cases in divorce court.
It would be a very significant asset to have the ACLU on our side during legislative hearings on men's issues (this has happened once already). My point is that simply damning them doesn't accomplish much but trying to work with them strategically (knowing that they're not just going to disappear) could be used to our advantage.
Scott
PS - A much more balanced civil liberties org that I support is FIRE - the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. They have put pressure on a lot of universities to uphold academic freedom and free speech, and have made many inroads opposing unfair political correctness:
http://www.thefire.org
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Even if you think ACLU is still all in all a good organization for whatever reasons, do you still not agree that what they are doing in their second talking point is worng? If so, please contact them, whether you support them overall or not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:55 AM April 14th, 2004 EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
You're OPPOSED to the right to a fair trial?
Don't forget that 102% of men accused of rape and abuse are falsely accused. I suppose you oppose their rights as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Don't forget that 102% of men accused of rape and abuse are falsely accused."
102% ?? WTF?(@@)!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 06:27 PM April 14th, 2004 EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
[quote]102% ?? WTF?(@@)!
[/quote]
Wow its really bad haha
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm with the ACLU on this one.
The proposed amendment weakens the presumption of innocence, and that's wrong in my book.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you think ACLU is against us what about ERA?
http://www.uexpress.com/dearabby/?uc_full_date=200 40413
We have a lawyers association like this in Canada, so far they have not offered their services gratis.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
