Feminists have achieved another victory in the People’s Republic of California. Senate Bill 358 was just signed by Governor Moonbeam Brown, under which “Female workers in California will get new tools to challenge gender-based wage gaps…”
One of the most interesting parts to note about this bill is that employers accused of discrimination will have to prove themselves innocent, which is the complete opposite of how the U.S. Justice System is supposed to work. Men are no longer innocent until proven guilty under this legislation.
“The bill by Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson, a Santa Barbara Democrat, expands California’s existing equal pay law and goes further than federal law by placing the burden on the employer to prove a man’s higher pay is based on factors other than gender.”
No longer is it the burden on the accuser or prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that one is guilty. The burden of proof is now on the accused. Let’s look at more of what is in this news article.
“‘The stratification and the pay disparities in California and in America, probably in the world, are something that really eats away at our whole society,’ Brown said…”
Has Governor Brown looked into why there are “pay disparities” in the workplace? Is it really that businesses simply pay women less for doing the same work as men? Why would so many business waste their time hiring men if this was true? Capitalists are evil and money-grubbing in the eyes of progressives right? I suppose that doesn’t apply if we’re talking about the Patriarchy. Damned male privilege.
It’s also interesting that progressives never really talk about liberty or freedom that often. They’re more likely to use the words equality or fairness. I think that this shows where the priorities of progressives lie. It’s not about allowing individual citizens to make their own choices, but rather, a guaranteed equality of results. If the government has to use significant force to do what progressives believe should be done, so be it. Let’s look at what Ezra Klein had to say about liberty in her article: “Yes Means Yes” is a terrible law, and I completely support it.
“Every discussion of the Yes Means Yes law needs to begin with a simple number: A 2007 study by the Department of Justice found that one in five women is the victim of an attempted or completed sexual assault while in college.
“Critics worry that colleges will fill with cases in which campus boards convict young men (and, occasionally, young women) of sexual assault for genuinely ambiguous situations. Sadly, that’s necessary for the law’s success.”
What business do college administrators have in adjudicating any such matters? Rape is a matter for courts to deal with, not for college administrators to decide that someone needs to be deprived of their liberty. She is just talking about “sexual assault” and not rape though. What does Ms. Klein define as sexual assault? The innocent being punished doesn’t seem to matter to feminists.
“Or take another common situation: consent that may or may not have been delivered by someone who may or may not have been too drunk to deliver it.”
What if they’re both drunk? Is no one able to give consent? Did they rape each other? Why would the onus be on just the man?
“Then there’s the true nightmare scenario: completely false accusations of rape by someone who did offer consent, but now wants to take it back. I don’t want to say these kinds of false accusations never happen, because they do happen, and they’re awful. But they happen very, very rarely.”
Of course, the author offers no proof to back up her assertions. She’s made it apparent that she doesn’t care how many innocent citizens are imprisoned.
“Colleges have settled into an equilibrium where too little counts as sexual assault, where the ambiguity of consent gives rapists loopholes in which to hide, and forces women to spend their lives afraid.”
The author doesn’t take the time to describe what “sexual assault” is herself. I notice that she only once used the word “rape” in her article, and even then, it was in reference to false accusations. I wonder why? No need for progressives to think of liberty or freedom, the State and Party™ will determine what is best for individual citizens. It’s getting close to the world of Next Tuesday™ in California.
I suppose that Hillary and the President won’t talk about the religious angle of the shooting. They’ll talk about “common sense” gun controls laws. But of course, Dear Leader hasn’t actually said during his speeches what such legislation would look like. He just complains that Congress isn’t doing what he wants it to and that the majority of citizens want “common sense” gun control laws.
Let’s hear Dear Leader Obama discuss his thoughts on the shooting:
Let’s break down some of what the President had to say about this matter:
“It’s not enough. It does not capture the heartache and grief and anger that we should feel. And it does nothing to prevent this carnage from being inflicted someplace else in America,”
“Somebody somewhere will comment and say, ‘Obama politicized this issue,'” and “This is something we should politicize. It is relevant to our common life together, to the body politic.”
At least this part of his speech is honest. Is the President going to politicize the gunman’s hate for Christians? Silly thought, only Muslims and persecuted LGBT party members receive such consideration from progressives.
“The notion that gun laws don’t work, or just will make it harder for law-abiding citizens, and criminals will still get their guns – it’s not borne out by the evidence,” and “We know that other countries in response to one mass shooting, have been able to craft laws that almost eliminate mass shootings.”
Of course, Dear Leader doesn’t take the time to cite any evidence. I wonder how citizens of Chicago feel about this? In 1997 Australia enacted the National Firearms Agreement in response to the Port Aurthur massacre. There were actually “mass shootings” in Australia prior to In the years immediately following the extremely tight (though not complete ban) gun control laws, violent crime didn’t go down. Perhaps the reasons for crime are more complex than simply allowing citizens to carry guns?
Let’s take a look at some of what is written in this document:
“Because of the large proportion of violent crime that is unreported (that is, what criminologists call the “dark figure of crime”), the dramatic increases observed in violent crime as measured by the police may be directly related to improved effectiveness and efficiency with which the police record crime. In other words, the police may be recording more crimes of violence because they are recording crimes that in previous times would not have been recorded. Increases in police records of violent crime might reflect the shrinking of the dark figure of crime rather than an increase in underlying violence in the community.”
So with better technology and better enforcement crimes are simply being reported more often? Seems reasonable enough.
“Furthermore, the increase that did occur between the 1951-70 period and the 1971-88 period is most likely explained by the changing demography of the Australian population. The proportion of the population accounted for by young males was at an historically low ebb during the middle part of the century and the resurgence in the strength of this sector is the most conservative explanation for the observed change in the homicide rate.”
People commit crimes, not guns. People can commit crimes with blunt objects, knives, vehicles, or make bombs with common chemicals. Crime occurred before the advent of handguns, shotguns, and “assault rifles”. One needs to look at why people are committing crimes, not just say that they did so because they had guns.
“A number of criminologists have argued that it is police productivity and not real increases in violence that explain increases in police recorded violence. For example, and most recently, O’Brien (1996) examined the differences between police records and victimisation survey findings in the United States. As in Australia, it is only the police figures that are suggesting increasing levels of violence, both the homicide rate and victimisation survey findings suggest the level of violence has not changed over the last 20 years.“
As stated earlier in the publication, changes in data collection and police enforcement can also affect crime statistics.
“Compared with other similar western countries such as New Zealand and Canada, Australia’s homicide rate is moderate, suggesting the prominent role of socio-cultural factors rather than any particular or peculiar aspect of Australia’s policy, practice or population.“
Progressives would apparently disagree with this statement. According to them, we could stop murder if we could just pass some laws.
“Australia’s homicide rate increased by a third between the 1951-70 period and the 1971-88 period. Similarly, between 1955 and 1971 the proportion of Australia’s male population that was aged 18 to 24 increased by a third. It is interesting to note that throughout the 20th century the proportion of Australia’s population accounted for by this sector has been steady or falling slightly.”
I’m OK with blaming rises in crime on baby boomers.
“Gartner and Parker’s analysis is important in illustrating that violence is not the result of a single cause or even a single category of causes. Rather, the rate of violence, as reflected in the homicide rate, is an expression of multiple factors and complex interactions. The pressure to conceptualise violence as the result of simple or singular phenomena needs to be resisted. Some of the relevant factors may be changing in such a way as to reduce violence while others are pushing in the opposite direction.“
Someone needs to inform the President of this. I would think that a college educated man would’ve heard that “correlation doesn’t prove causation” at some point. That’s not important when you need to politicize something before you have any facts though.
“This brief consideration of trends in violent crime in Australia has emphasised the complexity of the task and the inadequacy of the data. The limitations discussed point to the need for cautiousness in interpreting the rates. Certainly, and most importantly, the popular understanding that violence in this country has increased dramatically and consistently in recent years is unfounded. “
Really, someone needs to inform Mothers Demand Action about this. I guess that reason and logic aren’t as important as emotion though.
Back to what the President has to say though.
“I would ask that news organizations put facts forward, have news organizations tally up the number of Americans who have been killed through terrorist attacks over the last decade and the number of Americans who have been killed by gun violence; and post those side by side on your news reports. This won’t be information coming from me it will be coming from you.”
Why would the President care to present his own data or evidence on this matter? He’ll get the media to do it for him. I’m sure that MSNBS will be more than happy to comply.
“If you think this is a problem, then you should expect your elected officials to reflect your views. And I would particularly ask America’s gun owners who are using those guns properly, safely, to hunt, for sport, for protecting their families, to think about whether your views are properly being represented by organizations that suggested speaking for you.”
Considering that the Democratic Party did horrible in the 2014 election, I think that it’s safe to say that the Republican gains in Congress were a refutation of the policies Obama has instituted and wants to enforce upon the American people. I’m still wondering what “modest” gun control would look like to the President?
For anyone who still doesn’t understand the groupthink and doublethink, Communist News Network (CNN) Comrade Camerota explains in detail why Pamela’s horrendous actions should not have been performed. Perhaps it is time for the evil, imperialist, cis-gendered, racist, bigoted, and capitalist Pamela Geller to be report to the nearest Kommissar for re-education.
As you can see, I’ve posted up more of Charlie Hebdo, though not many depictions of Muslims this time since some will always decry how Charlie Hebdo only “minimally” castigates other religions. What do those of you reading this think, that Charlie Hebdo had it coming, they’re hypocritical, or is everything they’ve done free speech?