Media Matters, the self-proclaimed "progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media," attacked Geraldo Rivera for suggesting that the "new immigration racquet" is for immigrant women to claim they've been raped in order to stay in this country.
In fact, Mr. Rivera did not say that this occurs in "all instances," as Media Matters asserts, but Media Matters is correct that Mr. Rivera did not provide evidentiary support for his assertion.
Then Media Matters writes this: "Sadly, attacks by the media on women who have reported being sexually assaulted are not new. But Rivera did more than merely attack the victim here; he used this opportunity to dismiss all instances in which immigrant women are the victims of rape as "a scam," further claiming that these are plots by greedy women to steal from 'hapless' American men. And he pushed these offensive claims based on nothing but one story. Rape is a serious and horrific crime made even worse by denying it or condemning the victim."
Given the context, it is clear that Media Matters referred to DSK's accuser as "the victim."
Not all women who report being sexually assaulted are necessarily "victims," and that includes DSK's accuser.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
16 comments:
Why are they lumping all women who claim rape in the same category? Not only is that an immoral assault on DSK and other false accusation victims, it's also stupid.
They are guilty of doing what they are wrongly accusing Geraldo of doing: stereotyping victims.
Media Matters is a very Liberal website, but unfortunately, it's all too common for even relatively unbiased sources to call alleged victims "victims".
Regardless, I don't know if there is any evidence of this alleged racket, or even if the DSK case would be an example of an immigrant woman claiming rape in order to stay in this country. As far as I know, she was already granted asylum. Or are they referring her claim of being raped in Africa? Either way, both seem to be an awfully peculiar laws.
If their argument is "undocumented immigrants who are victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, and sexual slavery will not report the crimes against them to authorities for fear of deportation", then why doesn't it apply to other crimes as well? Wouldn't it be just as important to report non-sexual assault, and violent felonies outside the home? Male citizens are much more often the victims of violence than female citizens, so why would it differ for men who are not citizens?
Anon at 4:19: Excellent points.
Anon at 1:13: I'd add that by lumping all rape claimants in one grand stew, they do a disservice to all the true victims. I would venture to assert that true rape victims do not want to be associated with the liars.
These gender-feminists would be without a leg to stand on if their "manufactured statistics Alliance" with American law enforcement were to be "broken" on the grounds that its unconstitutional.
Anonymous - ”If their argument is "undocumented immigrants who are victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, and sexual slavery will not report the crimes against them to authorities for fear of deportation", then why doesn't it apply to other crimes as well?”
Actually, it would only be applicable to those “other crimes”, as thanks to VAWA, woman facing deportation can invoke what is known as a Cancellation of Removal, specifically citing such crimes (against woman) as domestic violence and rape as reasons not to be deported.
A primer here: (http://www.legalmomentum.org/assets/pdfs/www3_4_vawa_cancellation_of_removal.pdf)
And, even if not already facing deportation, they can apply for what is designated a “U” visa: (http://www.usimmigrationsupport.org/visa-u.html)
To be eligible for the "U" visa, the immigrant must have suffered substantial physical or mental abuse resulting from criminal activity that violated a U.S. or local state or municipal law. Examples of qualifying crimes include: rape, domestic violence...
Other crimes are also included as being eligible, but it’s the ones that are seen as crimes against woman that tend to be taken at “face value” (so long as it is reported to law enforcement), as opposed to requiring extensive “evidence” of the alleged crime actually occurring.
I’d be curious if anyone has any info on the specifics of what Rivera has brought up, such as the number of rape/DV claims made by women facing deportation? My “gut” tells me that if they wrote it into the law, women are taking advantage of it.
A great analogy of the perversion that has consumed American law enforcement.
To get the most harvests from deer hunting, only a certain amount of female deer can be harvested each year, so they can go on to breed more deer.
I believe the same is true for American law enforcements phenomena of "farming and harvesting violence".
U see, by arresting the males, and letting the females go, they know these violent females will go on to breed more violence into the community. By arresting or (harvesting) the males, and (catch and releasing the females) law enforcement can bloat their budgets by in effect "farming violence".
And one wanders why America is collapsing under the weight of its debt.
S - ”To get the most harvests from deer hunting, only a certain amount of female deer can be harvested each year, so they can go on to breed more deer.”
Damn! Your theories just get weirder, wilder, and more disjointed all the time.
So, law enforcement is engaged in some sort of “criminal husbandry”? Because they make money and “bloating their budgets” by doing so how?
You do realize that each and every crime that occurs and is reported ends up costing LE to handle it, right? More crime means more expense, but that does not guarantee them any more money budgeted to them. As it is now, virtually every LE agency across the country is being asked to do more with less.
And, you might want to do just a bit of research before you make foolish assumptions. Deer populations naturally skew female. The issue for game management is making sure that enough does are taken so that the populations do not grow too large (one male can make lots of fawns, it just depends on the number of does available to him). Thus, there is no effort towards taking a disproportionate share of bucks (that is what must actually be limited, as most hunters would prefer to take a buck – the biggest and most reproductively “fit” at that).
Here, try this: http://www.dec.ny.gov/outdoor/47743.html
America is collapsing under the weight of it’s debt for many reasons, the cost of crime is but one reason. But, Le doesn’t need to engage in long-term-to-pay-out schemes like the “criminal husbandry” you’ve most recently imagined. They could, for instance, simply let more criminal aliens into the country. That way they don’t have to wait for them to be born and grow up before LE can “reap the benefits” of their crimes (more like endure the costs, dangers and frustrations thereof).
And, if LE was really in a grand conspiracy to breed more criminals, why do they spend so much money on crime prevention and at-risk juvenile interdiction? How do you explain that? [silly me, as if you’d ever actually try to explain any of this BS of yours]
And, just how does law enforcement have anything at all to do with anything said by Media Matters anyway?
You should start your own blog, where you can repeat the same few sentences over and over again to your hearts delight (and see if anyone agrees with you).
Mr Werner, If American law enforcement started holding women accountable for their violence, instead of the "catch and release program" they are currently using...VIOLENCE AND CRIME WOULD DRASTICALLY DROP, ACROSS THE BOARD, ACROSS THE US.
It seems so simple and self explanatory, does it not??
S - "If American law enforcement started holding women accountable for their violence, instead of the "catch and release program" they are currently using...VIOLENCE AND CRIME WOULD DRASTICALLY DROP, ACROSS THE BOARD, ACROSS THE US.
It seems so simple and self explanatory, does it not??"
Not just a gross oversimplification, but easily disproved as well.
Even though law enforcement is woefully deficient in charging those women who make false allegations (even if the only applicable legal statute is misdemeanor false reporting), every year more and more women are charged, tried, and convicted of violent crimes.
So, has holding more women accountable (as you suggest) actually cut the violence being committed by women. The statistics clearly indicate that it has not. Not only is violence by women increasing, it is increasing faster than the corresponding rates committed by men.
And, frankly, men have been being held accountable for crimes even more so than women, and yet men continue to commit crimes. By your simplistic reasoning, both the facts that men are held accountable should have reduced crime, and that more women are also being punished should have reduced female crime. Your attempt at logic fails you.
Look, maybe I should just ignore you and let you post whatever inane idiocy you like without challenge. Perhaps others here enjoy the comic relief you must provide.
But, my concern is that if your foolishness is left unchecked, some of the seriously F'd up sh*t you post will give our enemies ammunition to use against us, and potentially to even get this site shut down. [You know, crap like American Law Enforcement selectively breeding for criminality, and the ridiculous lie that Kanin's research found the leading cause of FRA's was women being late to work. You do come up with some truly asinine "material"].
So, how about before posting your latest drunken "revelations", why don't you do the minimum in due diligence and search for something (anything) to back you up. That way you just might avoid such embarrassing faux pas as your one's about Kanin's research conclusions and about deer herd (game) management.
Yeah, enough with the weird conspiracy theories already. The real situation is bizarre enough without making up stories about cops husbanding false rape accusers.
Bizarre conspiracy theories??
Have you ever heard the term "entrepreneurial bureaucracies"?? Its unique to the free enterprise system, and its main characteristic is that bureaucracies "bloat themselves" on taxpayer dollars by fostering in-efficiency.
To those that don't understand this concept, it seems like some abstract, ???"bizarre conspiracy theory"?? To those that do understand this term "entrepreneurial bureaucracy", it's no longer a "bizarre conspiracy theory".
Mr Werner says
"So, has holding more women accountable (as you suggest) actually cut the violence being committed by women. The statistics clearly indicate that it has not."
I say, American Law enforcement holding women accountable for their lies and their violence is a very recent development, but will prove effective in the years to come.
S - ”I say, American Law enforcement holding women accountable for their lies and their violence is a very recent development, but will prove effective in the years to come.”
Based on what? The success that holding men accountable has been in reducing violent crimes? The comparable success already seen in regards to female violent offending? [/snark]
Women who make FRA’s absolutely need to be charged with what ever counts can be applied – if only because it is the right and just thing to do. But the hoped-for deterrent effect is going to remain highly muted so long as misdemeanor charges are the top counts available to be applied. Do you really think a cheating wife who needs an alibi for her activities is really going to be concerned that she might face a small fine and community service if her FRA-for-alibi plans fall through? Or a pissed off at the guy who F’d-n-chucked her? The woman regretful about a hookup who’s trying to salvage her reputation? Or even the women looking for attention?
If they even stop to think about the consequence should they be found out, it’s not going to be very persuasive vs. what they are hoping to gain.
Maybe the woman who wished to skip-out on a cab fare would reconsider. But not the one who desperate to get her hands on some victims assistance money. What’s community service (as a deterrent) to some one who needs money but can’t find the employment to get it fast? [A: since she doesn’t have to pay back the money, it’s like a government job where she gets her paycheck first, then does some work for it no deterrent there.]
Real deterrence will only come when felony-level charges are made available to LE in response to FRA’s, and when FRA’s are recognized as a crime against the falsely accused – allowing them, as a victim of a crime, to ask the prosecutor not only to try the case, but to also ask for court-ordered restitution as part of any adjudication of the case.
When they face doing real time, and paying real costs, then we’ll see the kind of deterrent that will actually get the attentions of woman contemplating a self-serving FRA.
Anonymous said...
"I say, American Law enforcement holding women accountable for their lies and their violence is a very recent development, but will prove effective in the years to come."
Aug 2, 2011 9:40:00 PM
I doubt it. There's too much feminist indoctrination and chivalry in LE.
I agree with both points of view, they are not mutually exclusive.
Yes, first and foremost we need change at the Federal political level to change the misandrist and unconstitutional misuse of police power,but we also need to realize that once POWER is given to a group they are reluctant to relinquish that power.
Women's power to point a finger and send a man away to doom.
Police power to arrest at will on a false pretense.
Judicial power to subvert the constitution and extort money from a designated group unto lawyers.fems, the SGI, and other special interest groups.
I will ad to your statement to the effect that change will only occur when the laws are changed to include that change will only occur when it is no longer profitable to do so.
As a man, if you gave me the same kind of power to send an unwanted woman off to the catacombs the same way the fems have it now, I would want that nuclear option for myself.
Women would fear my use of police power, not the other way around!
Yes, give me that power.I would only use it for good.
( sure, sure I would)
I just made the comment about the extra-judicial power VAWA fueled FRA's give to LE and judges.
I need to make something so very clear to your readers: I do not hate police officers.They do a hard job to the best of their ability.
It so happens I know the family of the officer killed in South Dakota,and I've spent the day choking back my tears.
All I am saying is: employee's learn to please their employers.
God Bless our men on the street, that thin blue line that maintains what is left of our civilization.
They just need a proper mandate and education to act properly, and frankly it would be easier on everyone, so the sooner the better.
Best wishes for the other two officers in critical care.
There is enough senseless violence w/o creating false charges just to "empower women."
My God men,look at the big picture.
Post a Comment