She is the darling of the Democratic party. The anointed heir to the so-called "Kennedy Seat" for Massachusetts in the United States Senate. But according to Dorothy Rabinowitz of the Wall Street Journal, she has manifested what can only be described as unspeakable misandry against a man named Gerald Amirault. Mr. Amirault, his sister and their mother were charged with preposterous, outlandish, and completely untrue sexual crimes supposedly perpetrated against children at the daycare school they ran in the 1980s.
All three went to prison, but the women were released. Gerald was singled out for special treatment. The Wall Street Journal notes that the horrific abuse charges against all of the Amiraults -- Mr. Amirault and two female family members -- were "identical in nature." So why was Mr. Amirault singled out as the depraved ringleader of the trio?
Why do you think?
". . . from the beginning, prosecutors cast Gerald as chief predator—his gender qualifying him, in their view, as the best choice for the role. It was that role, the man in the family, that would determine his sentence, his treatment, and, to the end, his prosecution-inspired image as a pervert too dangerous to go free."
Read that again: ". . . his gender qualifying him . . .as the best choice" for the role of "chief predator."
Why let the facts get in the way of a good gender stereotype, so long as the person being negatively stereotyped is male?
Martha Coakley took over as the new Middlesex County district attorney in 1999. Not only would she not entertain the possibility that Mr. Amirault was mistreated, Martha Coakley bought into the anti-male gender stereotype that justified treating Gerald different from the women, lock, stock and barrel. According to the Wall Street Journal:
"When women were involved in such cases, the district attorney explained, it was usually because of the presence of 'a primary male offender.' According to Ms. Coakley's scenario, it was Gerald who had dragged his mother and sister along. Every statement she made now about Gerald reflected the same view, and the determination that he never go free. No one better exemplified the mindset and will of the prosecutors who originally had brought this case.
"Before agreeing to revise [Gerald's sister] Cheryl's sentence to time served, Ms. Coakley asked the Amiraults' attorney, James Sultan, to pledge—in exchange—that he would stop representing Gerald and undertake no further legal action on his behalf. She had evidently concluded that with Sultan gone—Sultan, whose mastery of the case was complete—any further effort by Gerald to win freedom would be doomed. Mr. Sultan, of course, refused.
"In 2000, the Massachusetts Governor's Board of Pardons and Paroles met to consider a commutation of Gerald's sentence. After nine months of investigation, the board, reputed to be the toughest in the country, voted 5-0, with one abstention, to commute his sentence.
"Editorials in every major and minor paper in the state applauded the Board's findings. District Attorney Coakley was not idle either, and quickly set about organizing the parents and children in the case, bringing them to meetings with Acting Gov. Jane Swift, to persuade her to reject the board's ruling. Ms. Coakley also worked the press, setting up a special interview so that the now adult accusers could tell reporters, once more, of the tortures they had suffered at the hands of the Amiraults, and of their panic at the prospect of Gerald going free.
"On Feb. 20, 2002, six months after the Board of Pardons issued its findings, the governor denied Gerald's commutation.
"Gerald Amirault spent nearly two years more in prison before being granted parole in 2004. He would be released, with conditions not quite approximating that of a free man. He was declared a level three sex offender—among the consequences of his refusal, like that of his mother and sister, to "take responsibility" by confessing his crimes. He is required to wear, at all times, an electronic tracking device; to report, in a notebook, each time he leaves the house and returns; to obey a curfew confining him to his home between 11:30 p.m. and 6 a.m. He may not travel at all through certain areas (presumably those where his alleged victims live). He can, under these circumstances, find no regular employment."
Martha Coakley's treatment of Mr. Amirault, her willingness to negatively stereotype him because of his gender, and her efforts to keep him imprisoned on preposterous, inane, fabricated charges solely because he had the "privilege" of being born male, causes Lady Justice to weep. And Martha Coakley's candidacy for the United States Senate should cause every person of good will to weep as well.
Read the entire piece here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704281204575003341640657862.html?mod=rss_Today's_Most_Popular
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
27 comments:
Thanks for covering this: this is REAL reporting and exactly the sort of reason I read this blog. I'm sure it will show up on CNN or Fox News... not.
It's always good to know which of our elected officials are particular enemies of men. This Senate candidate is, without a doubt, someone who falls into that category, and that alone should be enough to disqualify her from receiving any votes from men.
Gerald Amirault was an innocent man.
His mother and sister made the required false confessions to be freed from prison and registering as sex offenders. Gerald always refused.
The debate concerning Civil Committment is raging right now. Gerald Amirault is a prime example of why this MUST be stopped - an innocent person is considered 'most dangerous'.
It also goes to show you that Democratic politicians are every bit as "law and order" tough as Republicans -- and feminist, to boot.
All politicians have juumped on the Law And Order bandwagon - it's political suicide if they don't.
Feminist Gulag: No Prosecution Necessary
Written by Stephen Baskerville
Thursday, 07 January 2010 00:00
Liberals rightly criticize America’s high rate of incarceration. Claiming to be the freest country on Earth, the United States incarcerates a larger percentage of its population than Iran or Syria. Over two million people, or nearly one in 50 adults, excluding the elderly, are incarcerated, the highest proportion in the world. Some seven million Americans, or 3.2 percent, are under penal supervision.
Many are likely to be innocent. In The Tyranny of Good Intentions (2000), Paul Craig Roberts and Lawrence Stratton document how due process protections are routinely ignored, grand juries are neutered, frivolous prosecutions abound, and jury trials are increasingly rare. More recently, in Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent (2009), Harvey Silverglate shows how federal prosecutors are criminalizing more and more of the population. “Innocence projects” — projects of “a national litigation and public policy organization dedicated to exonerating wrongfully convicted people through DNA testing” — attest that people are railroaded into prison. As we will see, incarcerations without trial are now routine.
The U.S. prison population has risen dramatically in the last four decades. Ideologically, the rise is invariably attributed to “law-and-order” conservatives, who indeed seldom deny their own role (or indifference). In fact, few conservatives understand what they are defending.
Conservatives who rightly decry “judicial activism” in civil law are often blind to the connected perversion of criminal justice. While a politicized judiciary does free the guilty, it also criminalizes the -innocent.
But traditionalists upholding law and order were not an innovation of the 1970s. A newer and more militant force helped create the “carceral state.” In The Prison and the Gallows (2006), feminist scholar Marie Gottschalk points out that traditional conservatives were not the prime instigators, and blames “interest groups and social movements not usually associated with penal conservatism.” Yet she names only one: “the women’s movement.”
Do you have any idea how many additional young men would be in prison if the feminists were correct about the number of rapes that occur in America? We would be spending most of our tax dollars building new prisons. I mean that literally. Colleges would see the male enrollment plummet.
If the feminists are correct, then Houston---we have a problem.
Build those jails.
But they aren't. That's the point.
http://www.lakeshorelaments.com/?p=5336
I think in this day and age, a fascist such as this lady could still get into the senate. Look at our Secretary of State: "Women are the primary victims of war."
Even if articles like this are politically motivated, and they are, it's good to air stuff like this so people can behold the misandrist fascists.
Regarding the Baskerville quote above, Paul Craig Roberts is a great guy. He even responded to one of my emails once about a relatively trivial topic, and he probably gets at least a couple hundred emails every day even though retired. (I think he used to be Undersectetary of the Treasury - let me know if I have the wrong guy.)
p.s.
again regarding Baskerville, he's talking about apples and oranges at the end of the quote, and he's really reaching - it is as if he is saying that without the initial push from women's groups, we wouldn't have as much of the wrongful incarceration due to law-and-order conservatives.
That's obviously a bunch of hoakem.
sorry,
hoakum.
p.p.s.
why is a 'feminist scholar' complaining about a militant women's group?? I know there's supposed to be fair-minded feminists out there, but aren't the ones in academia the worst of the ideologues?
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/culture/family/2705-feminist-gulag-no-prosecution-necessary
The rest of the article goes on to explain how the women's movement is involved in behind the scenes policy making.
It's a good read.
I've seen Baskerville excerpt on misandryreview.com and hertticalsex.blogspot
The first politicized crime was rape. Suffragettes advocated castrating rapists. Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony, who opposed it for everyone else, wanted rapists executed.
Aggressive feminist lobbying in the legislatures and courts since the 1970s redefined rape to make it indistinguishable from consensual sex. Over time, a woman no longer had to prove that she was forced to have non-consensual sex, but a man had to prove that sex was consensual (or prove that no sex had, in fact, happened). Non-consent was gradually eliminated as a definition, and consent became simply a mitigating factor for the defense.
Men accused of rape today enjoy few safeguards. “People can be charged with virtually no evidence,” says Boston former sex-crimes prosecutor Rikki Klieman. “If a female comes in and says she was sexually assaulted, then on her word alone, with nothing else — and I mean nothing else, no investigation — the police will go out and arrest someone.”
"how the women's movement is involved in behind the scenes policy making."
A much more extensive source of this is the book "Legalizing Misandry" by Nathanson and Young.
Still doesn't change what I said about Baskerville's quote.
JRM,
ditto the above.
Archivist said...
It also goes to show you that Democratic politicians are every bit as "law and order" tough as Republicans -- and feminist, to boot.
Jan 15, 2010 12:16:00 PM
Have you known a suckcessful politician who wasn't owned by feminsts?
Including our current president.
Norm said...
p.s.
again regarding Baskerville, he's talking about apples and oranges at the end of the quote, and he's really reaching - it is as if he is saying that without the initial push from women's groups, we wouldn't have as much of the wrongful incarceration due to law-and-order conservatives.
That's obviously a bunch of hoakem
How so?
Anon,
what I meant by 'due to...' is precisely that - the very basis. 'Get tough on crime' is a mentality all its own. (The Old West was around before feminism, wasn't it?)
Wasn't 'perteckin' the women folk' what generated 'get tough on crime'?
Are men in all male situations big on 'get tough on crime'?
"Have you known a suckcessful politician who wasn't owned by feminsts?"
Ronald Reagan. George H.W. Bush. George W. Bush. There are many, many others.
they aren't so much owned by feminists, as by the fact that they need women's votes. Even women who aren't feminists will tend to vote for whatever gives them advantage.
wasn't Wyatt Earp more interested in train robbers or something?
As far as Kitty, she could take care of herself. No need for victimhood there.
What a case of stark misandry.
Nice blog as for me. It would be great to read more about that theme. Thank you for giving that information.
Post a Comment