WTF Sh*t's F*cked Up and Bullsh*t - a "Who Cares" thread for news

[Innula Zenovka]

I wasn't sure whether to put this in books or here (I decided here, obviously) but it really needs to be memorialised as what can only be described as a monumental clustefuck (I don't normally use bad language, but it's the only possible term) in the London media and publishing scene, epic even by Julie Burchill's standards.

It's come to something when there's a story about a row between Burchill and her publisher in which Burchill is the sane and decent one, and at this point the story becomes grotesque, with white nationalist publishers outed by rival white nationalists for publishing anthologies about mental health by Black poets and writers.

Julie Burchill agrees to pay Ash Sarkar 'substantial damages' in libel case

Columnist apologises to journalist, acknowledging social media posts included ‘racist and misogynist’ comments

www.theguardian.com

Julie Burchill fires new publisher identified as a white nationalist

A supporter of the far-right group Patriotic Alternative identifying herself as Tabatha Stirling has been recorded apologising for publishing authors of colour

www.theguardian.com

Unbelievable.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

Entire Pride in London advisory board resigns citing 'hostile environment'

Exclusive: resignation letter accuses LGBTQ+ rights group of failing to support volunteers of colour

www.theguardian.com

 

[Romana]

Thread. Yikes!

 

[Free]

 

[Romana]

 

[Free]

Court: Rape victims not 'mentally incapacitated' unless forcibly intoxicated

The far-reaching decision also gives a man convicted of third-degree sexual assault a new trial.

www.startribune.com

In Minnesota, a person who is sexually assaulted while intoxicated isn't considered "mentally incapacitated" if he or she consumed alcohol or drugs voluntarily, according to a new state Supreme Court decision that could have far-reaching consequences for rape victims.

The state's highest court released the opinion Wednesday, also granting Francios Momolu Khalil, a man convicted of criminal sexual conduct, a new trial. In 2017, Khalil picked up a woman who had been refused entry from a Dinkytown bar for being too intoxicated. Khalil offered to take her to a party, but instead brought her back to his north Minneapolis home. She passed out and woke up to Khalil raping her.

A jury found Khalil guilty of third-degree criminal sexual misconduct, determining the victim was mentally incapacitated from alcohol and a prescription narcotic.

The 6-0 Supreme Court decision, written by Justice Paul Thissen, says the lower court's definition of mentally incapacitated in this case "unreasonably strains and stretches the plain text of the statute" because the victim took intoxicants before encountering her attacker. The statute "means that a person under the influence of alcohol is not mentally incapacitated unless the alcohol was administered to the person under its influence without that person's agreement," wrote Thissen. Justice Margaret Chutich did not participate in the case.

Based on the court's interpretation, a person who sexually assaults a voluntarily intoxicated person would likely face a gross misdemeanor, rather than a felony, meaning they would not be placed on the Minnesota Predatory Offender Registry.

The legality of ones intoxicated state is dictated by HOW you got intoxicated. Amazing.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

Court: Rape victims not 'mentally incapacitated' unless forcibly intoxicated

The far-reaching decision also gives a man convicted of third-degree sexual assault a new trial.

www.startribune.com

The legality of ones intoxicated state is dictated by HOW you got intoxicated. Amazing.

The agreed facts are that

• The defendant penetrated the complainant with his penis.
• The complainant was unconscious at the time, and thus incapable of consenting to this.
• The defendant did not reasonably believe the complainant consented.

What is that but rape, and what's her being drunk or sober got to do with anything?

The legal definition of rape in the UK

What is it Georgia Minnesota?

 

[Dakota Tebaldi]

"This has been a problem specific to Minnesota for a long time," said Lauren Rimestad, spokeswoman for the Minnesota Coalition Against Sexual Assault.

More than a half-dozen states, including Wisconsin, have laws on the books that outlaw engaging in sexual contact with a person who is too intoxicated to consent. But Minnesota's statute makes it "difficult to impossible" to successfully prosecute these cases, said Rimestad.

"Judge Thissen's decision just clarifies that our law needs to be fixed through the Legislature, not through courts," she said.

I get that the "unstated point" of the supreme court ruling is to expose the poor language of the particular law, not to absolve the rapist. But I can't help but think there had to be a better way of doing this than forcing a new trial and re-traumatizing the victim.

 

[Jolene Benoir]

Court: Rape victims not 'mentally incapacitated' unless forcibly intoxicated

The far-reaching decision also gives a man convicted of third-degree sexual assault a new trial.

www.startribune.com

The legality of ones intoxicated state is dictated by HOW you got intoxicated. Amazing.

Just, WTF. Sooo..predators can go trawling for drunk young females, lie about where they are taking them, take them wherever they like, then rape them. Next thing you know it will be serial killer victims fault for having gotten into the car of the murderer, taken god knows where and murdered.

I wonder, if it hadn't been rape but murder how the decision would have fallen. Either way, I suspect, woman just don't have as much value to the justices, so doubt it would have been much different.

 

[Soen Eber]

Thissen's one of the good guys and the far right hasn't been able to touch the State Supreme Court, so it's not the justices, it's the [obviously] outdated law. I will be shocked and heart-broken if it doesn't get fixed next session.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

Thissen's one of the good guys and the far right hasn't been able to touch the State Supreme Court, so it's not the justices, it's the [obviously] outdated law. I will be shocked and heart-broken if it doesn't get fixed next session.

From the Washington Post:

At issue in Khalil’s case was a state law that says a person is only considered “mentally incapacitated” and incapable of consenting to sex if they are intoxicated on substances “administered to that person without the person’s agreement,” like if someone spikes a punch bowl at a party. In Khalil’s case, Justice Paul Thissen wrote in an opinion, no one disputes that the woman chose to become drunk.

“If the legislature’s intended meaning is clear from the text of the statute, we apply that meaning and not what we may wish the law was or what we think the law should be,” Thissen wrote.

Words fail me. If that's the law, then the court has no choice, but what on earth do Minnesota's legislators think they're playing at, leaving laws like that on the books?

 

[Katheryne Helendale]

Pro-life my ass!

 

[Jolene Benoir]

From the Washington Post:



Words fail me. If that's the law, then the court has no choice, but what on earth do Minnesota's legislators think they're playing at, leaving laws like that on the books?

Minnesota, despite its progressive reputation, still has many old laws on the books. We were one of the very last states to retract "blue laws" involving selling automobiles on a Sunday, or opening up drinking establishments on a Sunday or even allowing liquor sales on a Sunday (that just came about a few years ago).

We still refuse to allow widely available use of medicinal marijuana, including for what other states consider usage for people with the worst diseases.

I guess what I am saying is that we have one reputation, but the laws on the books are entirely different. We still have that edge of old laws created by Lutheran Protestants and Catholics. They are still officially the law. Obviously, they need to be challenged, one case at a time and overturned.

 

[Katheryne Helendale]

From the Washington Post:



Words fail me. If that's the law, then the court has no choice, but what on earth do Minnesota's legislators think they're playing at, leaving laws like that on the books?

You'd be amazed at the bizarre, and even draconian, arcane laws are still on the books from days gone by. Most are comical, but some, like this one, are abominable. If the Minnesota legislature doesn't strike that law as soon as possible, then there's no hope.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

These are issues that British, Canadian, Australian and New Zealand courts were all wrestling with back in the 1980s and 90s -- I remember because a friend of mine was the junior for the defence in one of the landmark Court of Appeal cases (consent can be withdrawn at any time, at which point it becomes rape if he continues).

Eventually, Tony Blair's New Labour government passed the Sexual Offences Act 2003, but that pretty much codified what the Court of Appeal and the Lords (as then they were) had decided over the last 10 or 20 years rather than broke new ground, at least as far as consent was concerned,

It's astonishing to learn that 30 years later it's still an issue in parts of the US, that's all, since law of consent is not some forgotten statute that's never enforced, but a fundamental issue in an extremely serious crime with which the courts have to deal all too frequently.

 

[Jolene Benoir]

These are issues that British, Canadian, Australian and New Zealand courts were all wrestling with back in the 1980s and 90s -- I remember because a friend of mine was the junior for the defence in one of the landmark Court of Appeal cases (consent can be withdrawn at any time, at which point it becomes rape if he continues).

Eventually, Tony Blair's New Labour government passed the Sexual Offences Act 2003, but that pretty much codified what the Court of Appeal and the Lords (as then they were) had decided over the last 10 or 20 years rather than broke new ground, at least as far as consent was concerned,

It's astonishing to learn that 30 years later it's still an issue in parts of the US, that's all, since law of consent is not some forgotten statue that's never enforced, but a fundamental issue in an extremely serious serious crime with which the courts have to deal all too frequently.

Yes, wouldn't I love some overriding court, say the Supreme Court to supercede all of these old laws, negating them or at the very least the Supreme Courts of each state to overrule them. As you know, we have his whole, State's Rights thing so it has to happen at the local level, but it's SO disheartening to see our own local courts going along with an obvious travesty by following "the letter of the law". Yeah? You have the power to change it but choose not to, Why? Especially in the face of such an injustice. It is ridiculous, allows predators even more power and your average person just trying to get by to be made a victim, lawfully. I don't get it and never will. There is a definite sexist bias to it, which makes it even worse; destroys lives all in the name of the letter of the old laws on the books that were created by some sexist bastards.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

Yes, wouldn't I love some overriding court, say the Supreme Court to supercede all of these old laws, negating them or at the very least the Supreme Courts of each state to overrule them. As you know, we have his whole, State's Rights thing so it has to happen at the local level, but it's SO disheartening to see our own local courts going along with an obvious travesty in "the name of the law". Yeah? You have the power to change it but choose not to, Why? Especially in the face of such an injustice. It is ridiculous, allows predators even more power and your average person just trying to get by to be made a victim, lawfully. I don't get it and never will.

If that's what the statute says, then that's what it says and the courts don't have any choice in the matter, though -- they have to deal with the law as it is rather than as they would like it to be, after all.

However, it seems to me astonishing that the matter hasn't arisen before, or that no one Minnesota has thought to do anything about it -- it's difficult to believe that Minnesota's superior courts have never been asked to consider the question before, or that Minnesota lawyers and legal scholars were unaware of the issue.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

 

[Free]

PUT YOUR FUCKING CARTS WHERE THEY BELONG.

In the parking spot next to yours.

 

[Jolene Benoir]

If that's what the statute says, then that's what it says and the courts don't have any choice in the matter, though -- they have to deal with the law as it is rather than as they would like it to be, after all.

However, it seems to me astonishing that the matter hasn't arisen before, or that no one Minnesota has thought to do anything about it -- it's difficult to believe that Minnesota's superior courts have never been asked to consider the question before, or that Minnesota lawyers and legal scholars were unaware of the issue.

They are putting the onus on the legislature. We have our very own version of Mitch McConnell here. He usually just lets anything remotely progressive die on the vine. Obstruction at its finest. Most initiatives of this sort never even make it to a vote, due to him.