GOP to America: rape is awesome

News & Cars

Moderators: Ice Cream Jonsey, AArdvark

Post Reply
Lysander
Posts: 1694
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2003 12:39 pm
Location: East Bay, California.

GOP to America: rape is awesome

Post by Lysander » Tue Mar 02, 2010 5:12 am

Old-as-fuck news but I forgot to post it here when it was new, so.

So Al Frankin decides to introduce an amendment to the 2010 defense contract stating that America will refuse to do business with private contractors that have statements in their employee contracts to the effect of "if we rape you, you can't take us to court." follow this link to make a note of the 30 senators who opposed this, all from the GOP.

The stated reasons for voting against this amendment--"Frankly I just don't think that sexual abuse should be tried in court", "My God man we can't take the time to actually do research on the companies we hire to do things for us!" and the most popular, my personal favorite, "Not allowing companies to sweep their employee-on-employee gangrape and kidnap parties under the rug would strangle free enterprise, and America is not in the business of deciding what companies we do business with based on the practices of said companies! ...unless it's ACORN" are all laughably shallow excuses that don't hold up to so much as a moment's scrutany. There is no reason for anyone to vote against this bill. And yet every single Republican senator with a pair of testicles does,regardless. Why? Because they're fucking assholes.
paidforbythegivedrewbetterblowjobsfundandthelibertyconventionforastupidfreeamerica

User avatar
Tdarcos
Posts: 5608
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 9:25 am
Location: Arlington, Virginia
Contact:

Re: GOP to America: rape is awesome

Post by Tdarcos » Wed Mar 03, 2010 7:50 pm

Lysander wrote:Old-as-fuck news
What, is that a new cable network?
Lysander wrote:So Al Frankin decides to introduce an amendment to the 2010 defense contract stating that America will refuse to do business with private contractors that have statements in their employee contracts to the effect of "if we rape you, you can't take us to court." follow this link to make a note of the 30 senators who opposed this, all from the GOP.

The stated reasons for voting against this amendment--"Frankly I just don't think that sexual abuse should be tried in court",
Supreme Court of California wrote:By its very nature, rape displays a ‘total contempt for the personal integrity and autonomy' of the victim; ‘{s}hort of homicide, {it is} the "ultimate violation of self."' Coker v. Georgia 433 U.S. 584, 597, 603 (1977). Along with other forms of sexual assault, it belongs to that class of indignities against the person that cannot ever be fully righted, and that diminishes all humanity. Mary M. v. City of Los Angeles 54 Cal.3d 202,222 (1991) {285 Cal.Rptr. 99; 814 P.2d 1341}
Or quite simply because the item is unnecessary. You can't include a provision in a contract to permit a violation of law and such provision would be illegal. It's a term called "against public policy." Now, if I am wrong and Huffington Post has evidence of case law where such a provision was held to be valid - that a company was allowed to completely escape liability for misconduct by other employees - that's a completely different matter.

I've read Huffington Post, they're typically on the far end of the liberal slant, sort of the way Faux news tends to be "somewhere to the right of Anthony Comstock."

What I think the issue is over is a provision in employee contracts that require any workplace issues to be settled by arbitration rather than by suing in court. The problem with these is that the awards tend to be lower, the ability to get discovery is less, they cannot be filed as a Class Action, and the results are not public record, unlike a trial over the issue. What we should do is exclude condoned misconduct from issues that an employer can use arbitration to hide what has happened and allow lawsuits for egregious cases.

This would be the sort of thing I suspect would be more reasonable as it would not give companies incentive to ignore misconduct (if something happens that executive management knew was likely but does nothing to stop, the worst that happens is an arbitration award that isn't published), but in the case where someone does something wrong and the company was not expecting it, (the Fort Hood shooting, the Hawaii Xerox shooting) they would have less liability exposure.

This whole point is really irrelevant; most businesses do not correctly structure themselves to make themselves effectively judgement proof. They sit around as big, fat targets with deep pockets. Organize a company correctly and they wouldn't even care about lawsuits, they would be unlikely to be sued in the first place.

But the fact is - and you misspelled his name - Al Franken is a Democrat, and it doesn't matter what he proposed, the Republicans are basically trying to "run out the clock" until the next election when they think they can get enough republicans in office to get back control of Congress.
"I know what you're doing, I see it all too clear."
- Duncan Sheik, Barely Breathing

Lysander
Posts: 1694
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2003 12:39 pm
Location: East Bay, California.

Post by Lysander » Wed Mar 03, 2010 11:42 pm

Agree with you on huffingtonpost, but I mean it's not like you can put a liberal slant on a list of people who voted against a bill. And what you said at the end is kind of what I just said in a different way. Sorry about misspelling the guys name, my eyes aren't what they used to be since BEFORE I WAS BORN

Yes, the idea of the bill was to put an end to a system where you can go to a foreign country to help reconstruction efforts, get kidnapped, gangraped and locked inside a shipping container and then when you try to get some justice, be told that you can't prosecute them in the criminal justice system or even sue the pants off of them and that, instead, you'll have to let a panel appointed by the company the rapists belonged to decide what's best for you. Because, y'see, that's kinda fucked up.

I mean, let's just go ahead and assume that the company is not actively evil and that employee-on-employee gangrape isn't something tacidly allowed to continue by the corporate overlords. Which, considering the company was given the job (illegally) by Dick Cheney, described by all who meet him in person as "a man surrounded by an aura of evil" [1], is itself a pretty big assumption to make. It's still not in the best interests of the company for it to become public knowledge that the contractors chosen by the US government spend their time and our money raping and pillaging to their nonexistent hearts' content.

So naturally they'd be predisposed to covering it up. I can't think of a reason why you'd want to have that clause in a contract unless you were afraid of the regular way of doing things making your company look bad, which you shouldn't be afraid of if you're confident that your employees are not a bunch of dirty rapists.

Rape wasn't the only thing covered in the amendment, it's just the most focused-on part. The amendment also covered not awarding contracts to companies with similar clauses for other kinds of sexual abuse as well as various forms of assault and descrimination. Which, again, why would these people not want to have these offenders tried in courtrooms unless they already know or are pretty certain that the accused are guilty?

It is entirely possible that the clauses are not legally enforceable, and it's something that we're finding out right now as the victem of this is currently going through years and years of legal hell. The writing on the wall doesn't look at all good for her, by the way, but the bottom line is I don't care because that's completely irrelevant. This isn't an issue of whether or not it's legal for people to force their employees into this spot, it's an issue of not having our national image sullied any worse than it already is by choosing to do business with fucking RAPISTS, for Christ's sake. Sending people who commit murder, assault, rape and hate crimes into countries filled with terrorists who take every opportunity to make us look as evil as possible is fucking stupid. We're the goddamn United goddamn States of goddamned America, goddamnit, and if we award people who help the perpetrators of these horrible crimes by making them difficult to prosecute with hundreds of billions of dollars of our money, how are we any better than the people we're fighting over there?

[1] cited from: my girlfriend's friend's personal account. NPOV enforced, thank you and goodnight
paidforbythegivedrewbetterblowjobsfundandthelibertyconventionforastupidfreeamerica

Post Reply