|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 05:00 PM June 7th, 2004 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
Ray writes, "I find no fault with controlling hateful speech in schools, that offends the rights of groups of people based on their beliefs, but wonder why the rights and perceptions of males and heterosexuals are being ignored. Although the above statement of policy may on first glance seem all inclusive, the wording in the last sentence “past and continuing discrimination” may be troubling to males in particular as California’s politically correct institutions and curriculums do not recognize “males” as ever having been discriminated against as a group, rather it views them as privileged, patriarchal and oppressors. Therefore, it seems to me that males, especially heterosexual males have become the politically correct target of choice, for hateful discrimination, in many areas of California society and government. Many areas of America, suffer under similar circumstances as well."
Here is the actual bill and penal code that Ray is referencing:
La Kreul's Bill
Penal Code Section 422.6
The civil code reads:
422.6. (a) No person, whether or not acting under color of law, shall by force or threat of force, willfully injure, intimidate, interfere with, oppress, or threaten any other person in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him or her by the Constitution or laws of this state or by the Constitution or laws of the United States because of the other person's race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, gender, or sexual orientation, or because he or she perceives that the other person has
one or more of those characteristics.
(b) No person, whether or not acting under color of law, shall knowingly deface, damage, or destroy the real or personal property of any other person for the purpose of intimidating or interfering with the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to the other person by the Constitution or laws of this state or by the Constitution or laws of the United States, because of the other person's race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin,
disability, gender, or sexual orientation, or because he or she perceives that the other person has one or more of those characteristics.
(c) Any person convicted of violating subdivision (a) or (b) shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year, or by a fine not to exceed five thousand dollars ($5,000), or by both that imprisonment and fine, and the court shall order the defendant to perform a minimum of community service, not to exceed 400 hours, to be performed over a period not to exceed 350 days, during a time other than his or her hours of employment or school attendance. However, no person shall be convicted of violating subdivision (a) based upon speech alone, except upon a showing that the speech itself threatened violence against a specific person or group of persons and that the defendant had the apparent ability to carry out the threat.
Now as I read all of this it seems clear that the male heterosexual gender is INCLUDED in this protection. Specifically, it clearly states that a person or group of people cannot target a group or person "....because of the other person's race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, gender, or sexual orientation, or because he or she perceives that the other person has one or more of those characteristics."
Sounds like good law to me. It IS a law that we can use against law enforcement if they continue to target males only for false arrest under the current DV laws. It is this very law that my attorney cited, in addition to my constitutionally protected right of self-defense, to prevent a bigoted DA from prosecuting me.
When they threw my ass in jail under false arrest there was all kinds of recorded tapes showing me accusing the officer of targeting me for arrest on the basis of my gender, and there was a ton of physical evidence, witness testimony, and other materials to exonerate me.
There was no question but that I was trying to escape an attack. Without question, my attacker admitted that I was trying to escape (remove myself) to the police, but that wasn’t good enough because as she was chasing me she tripped over the edge of a hallway carpet. I really believe that this law in part saved my ass as my attorney confronted the D.A. with the code.
Now what does AB537 do? Basically, it states that the children must be taught the law as embodied in the penal code. That's a pretty good idea. We just need to change the spin.
We need to get the educational system to stop taking a bigoted spin on this law and include white males. For example, we do not deserve false DV arrests just because of our gender and skin color. That is what we need to challenge next using the feminist laws against them just like we do with the price discrimination laws.
We have seen in California that it is because of these feminists’ laws that we are able to sue for discrimination on the basis of price discrimination. Now we need to turn these very same laws against those that would oppress white males and place them under false arrest. We need to prosecute the police officers for their commissions of hate crimes.
Warble
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
