text:
(N.B. I am not the Devil's Kitchen)
Nick Broomfield made a tit of himself on This Week last night when he found that Andrew Neil and Michael Portillo—pissed though they invariably are—take child-rape a tad more seriously than a bunch of ignorant luvvies.
The scene was set with a clip of Peter Fonda using perhaps the most specious reasoning I have ever come across.
Interviewer: Do you think Mr Polanski should be punished?
Fonda: No. I think Dick Cheney should be punished.
Interviewer: Why?
Fonda: Because he's a criminal. He's a war criminal.
WHAT?!! Is this the Chewbacca defence? Hey man, it's like Bush is the real terrorist, yeah? Fucking hell-fire. After all these years, is the Iraq war really the only thing these Film Actors Guild twats can talk about?
Peter, it's not an either/or situation. I assume there is more than one jail cell in California so how's about using one of them for a guy who anally raped a 13 year girl, jumped bail and has spent 30 years evading justice?
As you will know, dear reader, Fonda isn't the only FAG spokesman to have spoken out in support of the Oscar winning kiddy-fiddler.
Polanski's friend, Swiss filmmaker Otto Weisser, was among the first to publicly run to his defense.
"This is for me a shock. I am ashamed to be Swiss, that the Swiss is doing such a thing to brilliant fantastic genius, that millions and millions of people love his work," Weisser said upon learning the director had been detained by Swiss authorities. "He's a brilliant guy, and he made a little mistake 32 years ago. What a shame for Switzerland."
A "little mistake"?
Polanski was initially charged with rape by use of drugs, perversion, sodomy, lewd and lascivious act upon a child under 14, and furnishing a controlled substance (methaqualone) to a minor. These charges were dismissed under the terms of his plea bargain, and he pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of engaging in unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor...
Geimer testified that Polanski gave her a combination of champagne and quaaludes, a sedative drug, and "despite her protests, he performed oral sex, intercourse and sodomy on her", each time after being told 'no' and being asked to stop
The number of luvvies leaping to the defence of this child-buggerer is astonishing.
"He is sweet and very strong and is very, very demanding, in the tradition of an auteur," said Sigourney Weaver about being directed by Polanski in 1994's "Death and the Maiden."
Yeah, Sigourney. It's so unfair isn't it? It's like that nice Fred West. No one ever mentions his lovely brick-work, they just keep banging on about all them women he killed.
Studio chief Harvey Weinstein told CNN in a statement: "We are calling every filmmaker we can to help fix this terrible situation."
And what, Weinstein, should these filmmakers do? Hold a rally to get the law changed so that anyone with an Oscar can go around butt-fucking kids? What is the matter with these people?
Goldberg, star of The Color Purple and Sister Act, said: "I know it wasn't rape-rape. I think it was something else, but I don't believe it was rape-rape."
You're right, Whoopi. It wasn't "rape-rape". It was child-rape. If you're implying that fucking a child isn't really rape if it's consensual then I think the law might take a slightly different view on what constitutes consent. If the male in question was 13 years old himself then you might—might—be tempted to turn a blind eye, but seeing as Polanski was 45 at the time, there really is no excuse.
Not that the victim did consent in any case:
"I said, 'No, no. I don't want to go in there. No, I don't want to do this. No', and then I didn't know what else to do," she said in an interview [in 2003].
This really couldn't be much more clear-cut. Polanski pled guilty to statutory rape. There is no statute of limitations on the crime. It makes no difference whether Polanski is or is not a threat to children today. He broke the law and then broke another law by jumping bail. The man is as guilty as sin and the fact that Sigourney Weaver thinks he's a smashing bloke is of absolutely no fucking consequence.
Which brings us to Nick Broomfield, who decided to go on This Week to present the FAG line to a British audience. Alas, he found Andrew Neil to be a tougher interrogator than his mates down the Groucho Club:
Andrew Neil: "Let me put a simple proposition to you. He was convicted of a pretty terrible crime. He should serve his sentence."
This rational line of enquiry threw Broomfield completely. After a brief pause, he replied:
"Yes. But I think we also need to ask another question, which is 'Why now?' and 'Is the law very expedient?'
I think with all this hoop-la, I rather agree with Peter Fonda. You'd think that Dick Cheney or Rumsfeld or somebody who'd really committed some big crimes was actually convicted."
Hell's teeth, man. Dick Cheney has got absolutely nothing to do with this. When will you tedious tub-thumping liberal tossers change the fucking record? And, last time I checked, drugging children and fucking them up the arse was a pretty "big crime", a crime that Roman Polanski, unlike Dick Cheney, has been convicted of.
As for the question of "Why now?" The answer is, as The Huffington Post points out, "Why the fuck not?"
The argument that he's been allowed to roam free for 30 years, therefore he should be allowed to stay free is moronic. Just because some lame-ass law-enforcement authorities had their collective thumbs up their asses for three decades does not give Polanski a get out of jail free card.
Should we not arrest Nazi war criminals because they've been living in Argentina for 65 years and might be "liked" by their neighbors? Who cares when justice ultimately gets served, as long as it gets served. Let's keep things in perspective here: the Los Angeles DA's office has not committed any crimes. Polanski has.
Michael Portillo exposed the hypocrisy of Broomfield's position by pointing out that no lefty fuckwits started yelling when Pinochet was arrested in similar circumstances. Nor would they be complaining if the same thing happened to Tony Blair.
Portillo: "When Pinochet was arrested in London after a very long time, I expect most of the greats of Hollywood thought it was a jolly good idea.
But the arbitrariness of the way these indictments are served up in different countries, I think, does raise some interesting questions for the future. And you may be quite pleased with what happens in the future.
Who knows whether Tony Blair one day will be passing through Spain and Balthazar Garzon takes out an indictment against him."
Broomfield: "I can't wait for the day."
Dianne Abbott: "Yeah!"
Should that day ever come, neither Broomfield, Fonda nor any other Hollwood pecker-head will be kicking up a stink and complaining that it was all a long time ago. Unless, of course, Blair gets done for child molestation, in which case—apparently—he'll just be one of the boys.
By The Filthy Smoker at October 02, 2009
Labels: barking insanity, lefty fuckwits
Hear, hear, FS; bang on the money, as usual.
"The number of luvvies leaping to the defence of this child-buggerer is astonishing."
And yet, not surprising...
Quiet_Man said...
Pretty much sums up my view of the whole matter, very eloquently put too.
http://conservative-vision.blogspot.com/
There is no doubt he sexually abused a girl of 13 some 30 years ago and should have served time. The only problem now is that the victim, who is now married with children, has openly said that she has no interest in pressing charges and that she had already settled for financial compensation out of court with Polanski years ago.
Also, he has been coming in and out of Switzerland openly for years, so why only now have they come after him?
Surely at his point the wishes of the victim, who is now old enough and mature enough to decide what she wants, should count for something, or are you all of the opinion that only the state has the right whether to decide if something is right or wrong.
If so, then take your alchohol and cigarette entitlement cards, ID cards, registered child minder listings and enjoy them.
The Filthy Smoker said...
The only problem now is that the victim, who is now married with children, has openly said that she has no interest in pressing charges
There's no problem. The case has already been settled and Polanski has already been found guilty. She doesn't need to press charges - she already has.
Who cares? At least justice has been served eventually.
Surely at his point the wishes of the victim, who is now old enough and mature enough to decide what she wants, should count for something
Her comments have been ambiguous, as if she's sick of talking about it, rather than has forgiven Polanski. Besides, now the court has passed judgement the views of the victim - which may well have been distorted by the money she has been paid - are no longer relevant. And, yes, the state (ie. the law) does decide what is right or wrong and the law must take its course. The victim's willingness to forgive does not change that.
Gnostic said...
Polanski should do the time, no argument. These luvvies are probably the same Hollywood shitheads who think we should be all taxed to hell and back over CO2 driven thermageddon. Which has now, by the way, been very thoroughly negated by real scientists using real empirical evidence and not some over-priced, inaccurate, technological fortunetelling machine (like the Met Office has).
It shows the complete moral vacuum in which they live. Their ego is everything; they imagine themselves in the same position and gasp "But I'm an artist, they can't do that!"
As the writer said, why not? Will the arts establishment be so good as to draw up a time limit, for each crime, after which you cannot arrest luvvies?
As for the victim, she doesn't want the thing to continue because of the press harassment she would receive. That's hardly a ringing declaration of clemency.
Southerner said...
If the 13 year old girl two doors down from you was raped by a 43 year old man on the next street, you wouldn't be talking about weighing his talent and brilliance against the 13 year old's suffering. The whole neighborhood would want to hang him before he did it again.
Polanski made a decision decades ago to run from the California judicial system. Every few years since the 70s (when I was in high school) there would be an article in the newspaper saying that the whole situation should be worked out so that Polanski could come back to Hollywood and make his movies instead of being exiled to Europe.
Apparently, being convicted in absentia of child rape didn't cause Polanski to re-examine his life, as numerous reliable sources (including photographers) have documented his continuing taste for underage girls while in exile.
He should have done prison time long ago, in which case he would have been a free man many years ago by now, although possibly still banned from the USA as an undesirable.
Finally, his friends keep bringing up the fact that he lost his birth family during WWII, and his wife and unborn child due to a murder. This is all tragic, but tragedy should lead you to a greater state of maturity, and give you greater compassion for other victims of tragedies, it should NOT turn you into a middle-aged man who drugs and rapes underage girls who have been lured to his home under false pretenses.
Polanski is a classic narcissist/sociopath with no true conscience. Other people were put on this earth for his use, and he is so special that ordinary laws and social norms simply do not apply to him.
What does the word "luvvie" mean?
It's English slang for an actor.
A certain type of actor, mainly, the ones who attend functions and air-kiss and gossip and would scratch each other's eyes out for a good part or just a good table at the Iny...
Anonymous Coward said...
@Southerner: From a deprecated theatrical habit of calling one another "love" or "darling" - a luvvie generally refers to someone who's in with the theatrical crowd, with overtones of cliquishness and name-dropping. It's a bit like calling someone a queen, I think, though not necessarily an insult.
Good post. The Pianist is among my favourite films - but said film didn't rape anyone, the director did.
the a&e charge nurse said...
Well, I can understand why you might want Polaski to be punished, FS, but anybody who has read Kenneth Anger's Hollywood Babylon can tell you the film industry has a dark and sordid past when it comes to the sexual predilections of some of its most famous icons.
I think this pervasive mood contributes far more to the utterances from Polanski's peers rather than any dominant political ideology?
Surrounding yourself with midgets and cocaine must eventually take its toll I guess?
North Northwester said...
"Surely at his point the wishes of the victim, who is now old enough and mature enough to decide what she wants, should count for something, or are you all of the opinion that only the state has the right whether to decide if something is right or wrong."
Maybe it should count for something - and it doesn't look like it'll be necessary for her to go into court, but it is legislators' duty to enact right into law (to some value of 'right') and it is for the courts and police to enforce such laws.
Drugging, raping and sodomizing children is wrong. Law exists to punish those who do such things to intimidate would-be child rapists.
A young girl's freedom, sanity and health were all assaulted by an adult man, and it'd be a better world if that man had not been lionized and enriched for work he did during an undeserved period of freedom. Law is for collective self-defence - especially but not only for the benefit of children who are pretty defenceless against ruthless and selfish adults.
His rightful imprisonment will serve as a lesson to those who think they can abuse children about them and maybe get away with it.
Anonymous, freedom is not some abstract value conjured up by the big foreheads of the past - it's a real and necessary condition of civilised life, and the victim's freedom - and this includes future victims, comes before the freedom of saggy old pedders like Polanski.
Send him back to the USA to be punished. Who he is or what talents he has is immaterial. If it was my child, or my sister, or my niece, I would want the man castrated, regardless of who he is. In fact, the more famous he was, the more severe the punishment it should be; pour encourager les autres. It would be nice to see some footballers jailed for their excesses. They seem to be the modern-day equivalent of the film star/producer/director.
Joe Public said...
Paul Gadd's looking for rehabilitation too.
I'll add that the articles in American newspapers over the years have been none-too-subtle about saying that Polanski's behavior would be "no big deal" in France or elsewhere in Europe, and that only the laughable Puritanism of Americans caused poor Polanski to be prosecuted in the first place for an offense that would have been overlooked in Europe.
The first time my children went to Europe as young adults, I reminded them that each country has its own set of laws, and that if they weren't positive that something was legal in whatever country they were visiting, they needed to be careful to avoid doing it or possessing it, etc. By the time you are 43, you should know that if you rape a 13 year old in Puritanical America, you better be on the first available flight to somewhere with no extradition treaty.
It is Polanski's bad luck that he has been returned to the US at a time when the average American has had a belly full of foreigners breaking every law, and signing up for benefits to which they are not entitled, and then saying that they shouldn't be punished because they come from a different culture, and don't speak much English, didn't realize they were committing a fraud, etc.
For instance, it is reportedly not considered to be a serious crime to kidnap and rape a woman in a number of countries, as long as you are willing to marry her afterwards. There have been a number of cases of foreigners pretending that they didn't understand America's customs well enough to know that this was a serious offense here. Sometimes this claim is made after they have already lived here for several years. We are just now finding out that the Somalis that we have given green cards to are returning to Somalia to attend Al Queda training camps to learn how to blow up trains and buildings when they return to America, etc. That's a completely separate matter, but there IS a rising sentiment that multiculturalism is a huge failure, and that if people prefer Sharia law or the Napoleonic Code, etc., they shouldn't live here.
"Not that the victim did consent in any case"
that was not accepted by the courts, which dropped the rape charge. The charge is "engaging in unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor". Given the time of the offence (77), attitudes are likely to have been very different to the gravity of the offence.
I would also like to understand what the problem is with the alleged misconduct of the trial judge in the plea bargain.
Tim Worstall said...
"There is no statute of limitations on the crime."
Not sure about that (genuinely don't know). There might well be a statute of limitations on statutory rape.
But even if there is it's irrelevant. For he's already been found guilty of it. Statutes of limitation in the US are about how long before a prosecution is started, not how long it goes on after it has.
It's also irrelevant because he is a fugitive from justice. And that's a crime he commits again each day by not turning himself in.
"There's no problem. The case has already been settled and Polanski has already been found guilty. She doesn't need to press charges - she already has."
He wasn't found guilty, he pleaded guilty.
Originally published in The Washington Post, August 10, 1977
Polanski, 43, pleaded guilty to one of six charges facing him, thereby avoiding a trial.
http://www.vachss.com/mission/roman_polanski.html
cartermagna said...
Um, where are these countries you speak of where a 45 year old man ass-fucking a child is considered just a little bit naughty rather than a major crime? I'm sure most European countries have a similar view on this.
He pleaded guilty rather than was found guilty? So he's guilty then. Still pretty simple.
Jules Wright said...
if you can't do the time, become an overrated director and then rely on liberal art-fart tossers to fight your corner when your fugitive sins catch you up.
tate, manson and his awful childhood nothwithstanding, he's a still a fugitive from a serious crime that he's never answered for - and in which the facts are documented and appear to be safely beyond dispute.
no special treatment. extradite him. justice better late than never.
Current said...
In Washington DC there lives a chap called "Roissy". He is a pickup artist and a complete arsehole.
His comments on this were hilarious...
http://roissy.wordpress.com/2009/10/01/roman-polanski-alpha-male/
I think his is correct about why so many women are rushing to Polanski's defense though.
Cartermagna, it has been a while since I have read about these cases, but I think that there was one defendant who was from a rural area of Mexico (there are areas of Mexico where the only language spoken by most locals is an indigenous Indian language rather than Spanish, and these people no doubt have very different customs.) I think that there have also been men from Kazakhstan or Uzbekistan who argued that it wasn't wrong to "carry off a bride."
I didn't mean to imply that Polanski's behavior was LEGAL in France, etc.
Junican said...
I know nothing about this guy, Polenski, but to the best of my knowledge, there was never a 'trial' in which evidence was produced. He may or may not have done what he was accused off - witness the fact that saint Jacko settled out of court - you know the case. It may well be that the whole rape thing was a put up job. Who knows?
Thirty years ago is thirty years ago. One would reasonably assume that a proper trial would have to be organised in order to ensure that justice was done. Where are the witnesses, where is the proof?
Mr Devil, your whole arguement is based upon hearsay. That will not do.
lotocoti said...
I know nothing about this guy...
Before you went any further, Junican, perhaps you should've perused the transcripts from his plea hearing.
John B said...
if the male in question was 13 years old himself then you might—might—be tempted to turn a blind eye
Not gonna dissent on the Polanski point - it wasn't proven to be rape, but a 4osomething-year-old man who fucks a 13-year-old girl needs jailed anyway.
But I'm disturbed by your use of 'might' above - you seem to be suggesting there might be circumstances when it's appropriate to prosecute a 13-year-old boy who has consensual sex with a 13-year-old girl, rather than taking the view that anyone who isn't mad would take on the topic.
Antipholus Papps said...
Re. Death and the Maiden: I hope Sigourney Weaver recognises the irony in defending the man who directed her in a film specifically about bringing belated justice to a man who had raped her character many years before.


Those looking for a quick whip to get them around town with relative ease have come to the right place. We present to you: The Wedge from Sector 9. A colorful cruiser that gives you a functional kick tail for ollies, manuals and beyond comes ready to rock and get you rolling.
Coming in hot with neon pink and blue colorways, this complete setup comes with a set of 180mm Paris V2 Trucks, a set of Dragon RACE Bearings and some pure white 60mm Fireball Tinder Wheels. With this board in your quiver, you'll be set to carve in and sound cars and cracks as you make your way through the city.


Matt Burkhart litigates complex commercial disputes and conducts investigations for clients. In particular, Matt helps companies investigate allegations of financial fraud, misuse of company assets and other serious employee misconduct. In court, Matt represents clients asserting or defending claims of trade secret misappropriation, breaches of contract, and other business negligence.
Matt represents clients in commercial disputes in state and federal courts, in matters involving allegations of business negligence and trade secret misappropriation. Matt formulates litigation strategy, drafts and responds to discovery, prepares for, takes and defends depositions, and appears in court for hearings and motion arguments. Having worked on complex commercial matters, Matt has experience helping clients collect large volumes of electronic discovery and other business records.
Matt conducts internal investigations to examine allegations of financial fraud, misuse of company assets and other types of serious employee misconduct.
Matt also helps clients respond to government inquiries and grand jury subpoenas. He works with clients to understand the scope of the government's request and advises through the information collection and review process.
In assisting clients with both internal and government investigations, Matt has worked with local, state and federal law enforcement agencies. Matt also has experience working with forensic analysts to examine electronic devices and review complex business records.
Arconic, Inc. v. Universal Alloy Corp.


Fun fact: I haven't worn make-up in almost half a year. Make-up is GREAT, but it's not really something I'm currently interested in.
I'm too tired for that in the mornings.
I have no time for that in the mornings.
I feel confident enough to go out without make-up.
It's not good for my skin, and clear skin is definitely more priority.
I'm not that great at applying make-up.
I DO almost always go out with some jewelry, though. I'm not a huge fan of rings or bracelets because they kind of bother me when I'm trying to do stuff. However, I absolutely love earrings and necklaces.
Hahah, I took the picture I took at EXO's concert to a store and printed it.
I'm currently obsessed with the song, Unravel. If I re-did My Top 10 Anime Openings post, this song would be up there somewhere near the top.


text:
Aided Cheit maic Mágach [] ("Der Tod des Cet mac Mágach") ist der Name einer irischen Sage aus dem Ulster-Zyklus um den Zweikampf zwischen Conall Cernach und Cet mac Mágach sowie die Hinterlist von Bélchú.

Inhalt
In der Sage Scéla mucce Meic Dathó ("Die Geschichte vom Schwein des Mac Dathó") streitet der Connacht-Krieger Cet mac Mágach mit Conall Cernach um den Heldenbissen. Der schwächere Cet gibt schließlich nach, beleidigt aber Conall schwer. Als Cet später bei einem Überfall auf Ulster mehrere Krieger tötet, erschlägt Conall Cet in einem blutigen Zweikampf, wird aber dabei ebenfalls schwer verwundet.

Ein Briuga (Großbauer) namens Bélchú nimmt den Verletzten in seinem Haus auf, kündigt ihm jedoch nach der Genesung einen Kampf auf Leben und Tod an. Da er aber Conalls Kampfkraft kennt, stiftet Bélchú seine drei Söhne an, den Schlafenden im Bett zu ermorden. Conall, der dies durchschaut, fesselt Bélchú ins Bett und dieser wird deshalb von seinen eigenen Söhnen mit den Speeren getötet. Dann erschlägt Conall die drei und schneidet ihnen und ihrem Vater den Kopf als Trophäe ab.

Siehe auch
 Mythen und Sagen aus Irland
 Liste keltischer Götter und Sagengestalten
 Keltischer Kopfkult

Literatur
 Bernhard Maier: Lexikon der keltischen Religion und Kultur (= Kröners Taschenausgabe. Band 466). Kröner, Stuttgart 1994, ISBN 3-520-46601-5.

Weblink
 Vollständiger Text (englisch): The Death of Cet Mac Magach In: The Celtic Literature Collective

Einzelnachweise

Keltische Sage
Literatur (Irisch)

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


text:
Texas Injury Lawyers Blog
Published By Carabin Shaw
Texas Injury Lawyer Blog
Texas Slip and Fall in a Hospital
By Carabin Shaw
In Reyes v. Memorial Hermann Health, a plaintiff appealed from the dismissal of her personal injury claims against the defendant. The case was dismissed because she failed to timely file an expert report under section 74.351 of the Texas Medical Liability Act (TMLA).
The case arose when a woman slipped and fell on a liquid substance inside the defendant's premises. There were no signs or other warnings about the unsafe flood conditions. She also claimed that the defendant knew or should have known about the hazardous condition, that it breached its duty of care, and that the breach caused her injuries. She claimed that her injuries and damages were proximately (legally) caused by the defendant's failure to use reasonable care. She did not state specific details about why she was on the property.
The defendant filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that it was a health care liability claim. and she had failed to file a timely expert report. She responded that her claims weren't health care liability claims and that she'd filed an expert report. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss.
On appeal, the defendant argued that the plaintiff had failed to preserve the issue that her claims weren't health care liability claims by raising them in trial court. The appellate court disagreed, noting that the plaintiff had disputed the defendant's argument that the plaintiff's claims were health care liability claims by noting that the case was based on a theory of premises liability and had nothing to do with health care services, aside from occurring on the premises of a health care provider. The plaintiff argued the same on appeal.
The TMLA defines a "health care liability claim" as a lawsuit against a health care provider or physician for treatment that departs from the standards for medical or health care, which legally causes injury or death to the plaintiff. Under section 74.351, a plaintiff filing a health care liability claim must serve on the defendant's attorney one or more expert reports on or before the 120th day after the date the defendant files its original answer. Failure to file the report in a timely fashion results in dismissal with prejudice.
The appellate court explained that while the appeal was pending, the Texas Supreme Court resolved a split among courts of appeals about whether a claimed departure from accepted standards of safety by a medical provider must be related to the provision of health care in order to be considered a health care liability case. The Court ruled that there must be a substantive connection between the supposedly violated safety standards and the provision of health care. The pivotal issue is whether the defendant's obligations as a health care provider are implicated.
The appellate court noted that the claim was based on safety standards. Two factors were relevant: (1) whether the negligence happened while the defendant was performing tasks in order to protect the patient from harm, and (2) whether the injuries happened in a place where patients might be while receiving medical treatment, such that the provider's obligation to protect those who require special medical care was triggered.
The court concluded that there was no substantial link between the violated safety standards and providing health care. The alleged negligence—spilling water—did not happen while performing tasks in order to protect patients or in a place where patients received care. It happened in the heart failure unit, but there was no evidence it happened where patients would be while getting treated. The appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and asked the trial court to conduct further proceedings.
If you're hurt in a slip and fall on somebody else's property, the experienced San Antonio personal injury attorneys at Carabin Shaw may be able to help you. Call our office for more information at 1-800-862-1260.
Tarrant County Judge Denies Jail Time to Teen Who Killed Four While Driving Drunk
Comparative Negligence in Drunk Driving Accidents in Texas
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Issues Updated Safety Ratings and Releases 2012 Traffic Fatality Statistics Revealing Texas as State With Highest Increase in Traffic Fatalities
Posted in: Premises Liability
Trucking Accidents (40)
Work Injury (25)
Construction Site Accidents (20)
Product Liability Cases (18)
ACCIDENT INJURY REPORT: Two People Killed in Houston Gas Explosion
ACCIDENT INJURY REPORT: Two Killed in Crash on Highway 181 Near Normanna
ACCIDENT INJURY REPORT: El Paso, Three Killed in Car Crashes
ACCIDENT INJURY REPORT – One Killed in Amarillo Car Crash
"TEXAS WE HAVE A PROBLEM!" Swimming Pool Deaths
Phone: 1 800-862-1260Fax: 210-222-1480
Main Office – San Antonio, TX
Visits with Attorneys in any and all branch offices are by appointment only.
Copyright © 2020, Carabin Shaw

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Saint-Flour-Sud is een voormalig kanton van het Franse departement Cantal. Het kanton maakte deel uit van het arrondissement Saint-Flour. Het kanton is opgeheven bij decreet van 13 februari 2014, met uitwerking op 22 maart 2015.

Gemeenten
Het kanton Saint-Flour-Sud omvatte de volgende gemeenten:

 Alleuze
 Cussac
 Lavastrie
 Neuvéglise
 Paulhac
 Saint-Flour (deels, hoofdplaats)
 Sériers
 Tanavelle
 Les Ternes
 Ussel
 Valuéjols
 Villedieu

Saint-Flour-Sud


text:
oDR: Opinion
"Your traditions, our blood!": The struggle against patriarchal violence in Kyrgyzstan
In Kyrgyzstan, it appears that the police and nationalist groups are increasingly conspiring to push organised feminism off the streets.
Mohira Suyarkulova
Artist Tatyana Zelenskaya illustrated her own detention by police on International Women's Day in Bishkek
Image used with author's permission
This year's International Women's Day and its aftermath demonstrated once again how women are denied the status of political subjects in Kyrgyzstan. Albeit in different ways, this was the case for those who attacked the peaceful march on 8 March and the people who came out in its defence two days later.
In both cases, the feminist activists who organised the march in Bishkek, including the author of this article, were not seen as "proper" or "real" women. Apparently, we fail to live up to the ideal of Kyrgyz woman which conservatives and progressives fantasise about. Nor are we seen as political subjects capable of representing ourselves and speaking on our own behalf: instead, in the fantasy world of Kyrgyzstan's conservatives and progressives, a "good" woman always needs defending. Yet the reality for too many real women is that our homes and city streets are not safe. And the very people who are supposed to protect us are very much part of the problem.
In Kyrgyzstan, it appears that the state has adopted a strategy of intimidating civic activists by engaging masked vigilantes to attack meetings, gatherings and events. Nationalist-patriotic groups (such as Kyrk Choro, or Forty Knights), or those who pose as such groups, are informally joining the police and the authorities to do the latter's bidding.
On 1 May 2019, for example, activists from the 8/365 Movement gathered for a Labour Day picnic in a park in Bishkek, the country's capital. But when we reached the designated area, we found police and plain-clothes secret service officers there. They were accompanied by a group of youths in tracksuits and ak kalpaks, a traditional male felt hat, looking to beat up "the gays". We promptly informed the chief police officer of the threat, who responded that he "didn't see anyone" threatening. No sooner had we moved to a park on the other side of the city, than we noticed the police reporting us to the group of masked men. The latter soon re-appeared and proceeded to pelt us with eggs under the watchful eye of the police who did not lift a finger to protect us. Luckily, we managed to leave quickly enough to avoid serious harm.
The same scenario played out this year on 8 March, during a peaceful march for International Women's Day.
The 8/365 Movement - which unites feminist and women's initiatives, organisations and individual activists representing groups of various life experiences and with intersecting forms of discrimination - was again planning an 8 March event this year. As in previous years, the march demanded an end to femicide and showed solidarity with all those fighting violence against women, including by providing medical, psychological and legal support to survivors. And just like in previous years, the Bishkek municipal authorities tried to stop the march.
This time, they used a court order banning all public gatherings in the district where the march would be held, citing coronavirus as the rationale (there being no registered cases in Kyrgyzstan at the time). So we changed the route of the march to avoid the ban. This was planned in accordance with the Constitution and the laws of the Kyrgyz Republic: there was no legitimate reason to limit our right to peaceful assembly.
We are grateful to all those who show us solidarity, but cannot accept some people's solidarity if it comes with reservations. That is not our path
The police and the Sverdlov district administration were notified of the route of the march, as evidenced by the presence of police officers on Victory Square in Bishkek city centre before the march started. When unknown vigilantes wearing masks attacked participants, instead of detaining the attackers, the police proceeded to arrest us. In effect, police officers became de facto accomplices to the attack.
About 70 participants and journalists were then taken by force to the district police station and unlawfully detained there for three hours. We were not told why we were being held and what we were accused of, despite repeated questions from our side. The unlawful actions of the police were recorded in countless videos and photographs of the events, which were widely reported by both the national and international media, leading to widespread condemnation.
Civil activists, non-governmental and international organisations, foreign embassies expressed their solidarity with the participants and organisers of the march, criticising the actions of the attackers and the police. A few members of parliament voiced concerns, posed questions and demanded an official investigation from the state. Since then, dozens of participants have filed complaints against the district police force responsible.
Meanwhile, a group of outraged citizens decided to hold a solidarity rally two days after the march, spontaneously and without consultation with most of the organisers. The latter were still reeling from the deep emotional and physical traumas of the attack, not to speak of the material costs and the damage to relationships. In this context, the rally organisers positioned themselves as not necessarily supporting "those crazy feminists" and the LGBTQ community, but as citizens outraged by the actions of the police and the nationalists' attack on women.
The 10 March rally was held with the approval and under the protection of the Bishkek police. Indeed, the organisers repeatedly thanked law enforcement agencies in public, while emphasising how the police "got it slightly wrong on 8 March". The event became a show of a politics of respectability, epitomising the "good citizens" who only oppose violence against "respectable" women, rather than all women, including lesbians, trans, sex workers, and HIV positive women.
In their eyes, the only "real" women are able-bodied, fertile, married, heterosexual, and middle-class. It is ironic that an event that was aimed at showing solidarity with "what we represent", was actually organised without us. This rally instrumentalised our story to advance a politics of respectability, completely missing the point of what we stand for.
But even "proper" women as defined by the majority are not guaranteed safety. On 25 March, the Kyrgyz government introduced a state of emergency in order to stop the spread of the COVID-19 epidemic. Today, constitutional norms have been suspended in response to what is perceived as an existential threat. Yet there is another ongoing public health crisis that has not been similarly prioritised.
For many women, children and LGBTQ people under lockdown, having to stay in their family homes poses more of a danger than any virus. It is a well-known fact that the home is not a safe place for women, who are statistically more likely to be killed by a current or former partner or spouse. Having to stay at home for prolonged periods of time is correlated with an increase in cases of domestic violence. For instance, during the long break for the New Year holidays in Kyrgyzstan, multiple reports of gruesome murders, torture and abuse appeared in the local press.
Fabric patchwork banner reading "Your traditions, our blood!" created by Mohira Suyarkulova for the 2020 Women's Day march. The banner was torn by unknown assailants on 8 March, 2020 | Photo courtesy of the author
Although Kyrgyzstan's prime minister Mukhammedkalyi Abylgaziev responded with a statement that "an atmosphere of categorical non-acceptance of violence against women and children" should be created in the country, and the Ministry of Social Welfare reported that they are actively working on preventing domestic violence, in reality the Ministry of Finance has refused to allocate money for new government-funded shelters. In 2020, battered women and children in Kyrgyzstan have literally nowhere to go.
Out of the 14 existing NGO-run crisis centres, only two - one in Bishkek and one in Osh - offer temporary housing to survivors of abuse. The police, courts and other state structures are thus complicit in the structural violence against women. The domestic tyrants, rapists and murderers are enabled by criminal indifference, corruption and a culture that normalises violence. Often it is difficult to distinguish between the law enforcement agencies and criminals in Kyrgyzstan. Two days before the 8 March march, a former judge killed his wife and stabbed his nine-year-old son five times, before killing himself.
Women in Kyrgyzstan have been fighting the system of patriarchal violence for years. It is high time that our struggle is supported and our victories recognised. But we do not wish to become either metaphors or symbols of "progress" or "decay", nor the bearers of an ill-defined "honour of the nation" and its future. We are real: living, breathing, thinking, acting women and people of all genders, neither metaphors, nor symbols of the nation.
We are grateful to all those who show us solidarity, but cannot accept some people's solidarity if it comes with reservations. That is not our path. We are not going to bargain with patriarchy. Our executioners dress up in ethnic garb and pretend to speak on behalf of the "people" and to protect sacred traditions. We do not accept traditions that demand our blood. Our traditions are found in the glorious struggles for freedom, equality and justice. And a real woman is a living woman!


To walk the streets, roses in hand, amid the throng of local people intent on having a good time, was to share in a general joie-de-vivre and to have a precious opportunity to talk to enthusiastic lovers of books. Beautiful displays of roses and red and yellow striped ribbons and flags adorned street corners and pavements everywhere. Music filled the air and the sun shone.
On a more business-like level, I feel that there may be something for us to learn from this. It did strike me at the time that Catalan booksellers are fortunate in being able to place such confidence in the weather; I could imagine a similar event in London or Leeds being suddenly dampened (in every sense of the word) by a sharp shower. And World Book Day is a remarkable achievement, a miracle of co-operation and generosity between all the elements of the book industry and a huge army of volunteers. Nevertheless, no-one was being given anything in Barcelona: roses came at €3 each; books were sold at full price. In a sense, it was all about celebrating the skills of booksellers themselves and the pleasures that they bring… and showing that they are worth paying for. We in the UK should honour our booksellers more and they should learn to expect and accept our homage gracefully and with attitude.
Aww…lovely mental pic of you and OH + romance and roses. You do have a very adventurous and interesting existence.
Looking forward to joining the celebration in August.
Books, flowers, music … my idea of heaven!!
Barcelona in the springtime is pretty much my idea of heaven, with its celebration of St. George for even greater happiness. Thanks, Jo.