Thoughts on the Realengo Girl Massacre, by Valéria Fernandes of Uma Voz Feminista

photo of Valéria Fernandes is from here

What follows was sent to me and was translated into English by Lauren Asrael. Underneath that is the original text in Portuguese. I want to thank Valéria and Lauren for their feminist activism.

Lauren provides this preface:

Last Thursday morning, a 24 year old man entered a public school in Realengo, a suburb of Rio de Janiero, Brazil. A former student, he told the staff that he was there as a guest lecturer.

He entered a classroom, pulled out his gun, and shot over twenty students, mostly girls. Wellington de Oliveira killed ten girls and one boy, and wounded thirteen girls and three boys. He shot the girls in the head and the boys in the arms and legs, telling one boy, “Don’t worry, fatty, I won’t kill you.” The media refuses to call this a misogynist crime or a hate crime and continues to use the word ‘alunos’ (male students in Portuguese) when talking about the girls and boys. The girls and boys murdered and wounded were between the ages of 11 and 13. Wellington de Oliveira shot himself. He left a suicide note about sexual chastity and purity.

This is a response to the shooting and the sexism by Brazilian blogger Valéria Fernandes of Uma Voz Feminista.


Thoughts on the Realengo Girl Massacre

Valéria Fernandes

I’m writing this with anger and resentment. The crime in the Realengo public school, eleven ‘alunas’ dead – yes, female students – because it was ten girls and just one boy, leaves me deeply saddened and bitter. We’ve made it to the First World, we now have our own version of Columbine. The number of girls murdered compared to boys (10-1) and wounded compared to boys (13-3) leaves my hair standing on end. The suicide note, full of religious cries (Christian, not Islamic, as some were hoping) of sexual chastity and purity leaves no room for doubt. This was a misogynist hate crime. It is reminiscent of the shooting at the University of Montreal in Canada and at the Amish school in the United States.

In 1989, in Montreal, a guy entered the Polytechnic School, went into an engineering classroom, pulled out a gun. He separated the women from the men and said he was fighting feminism. He shot nine of the women, six of them died. In his suicide note was a list of famous feminists he wanted to murder.

The case of the Amish school is more recent. In 2006, a guy entered an Amish school (doesn’t this just remind you of the film “Testament”?) held a class of students hostage, kept the girls at gunpoint, let the boys go. He killed five girls, and had meant to kill them all, but when he saw the police coming he shot himself.

Someone please tell me where you can find a classroom (excluding Nursing school) with ten girls to every boy. I’m a teacher, and this may true for some schools, but it was not the case in Realengo. Some are saying, “he shot more girls than boys because girls sit in the front row.” I teach teenagers, and I can tell you that both boys and girls sit in the front row.

I just do not believe he shot randomly. I don’t think anyone is at fault – this is not something you would ever imagine happening in a Brazilian school. No one can buy guns that easily unless they are involved in organized crime. I am praying that this does not become a trend. I sincerely believe this was a misogynist hate crime, and the patriarchal view that hides the number of female victims – girl victims, is deeply offensive. I can only hope that the wounded survive and do not join the numbers of the dead.

Here is the post as it appears on the blog of Valéria Fernandes from 7 April 2011. Please click on the title to link back to her blog.

Minhas Considerações sobre as Meninas Massacradas em Realengo

Estou abrindo esse post por pura especulação e indignação. Primeiro, o crime da escola em Realengo, as 11 alunas mortas, sim, no feminino, porque foram 10 meninas e 1 menino, me deixaram profundamente triste e amargurada. Agora, sim, estamos no primeiro mundo! Temos nosso Columbine... ou algo do gênero. Em segundo lugar, as proporções de 10 meninas para apenas 1 menino entre os mortos e de 13 meninas feridas para somente 3 meninos feridos, me deixaram de cabelo em pé. A carta do assassino, carregada de surtos religiosos (*cristãos, não islâmicos, como muita gente começou a inventar*) e sexuais sobre castidade e pureza, me deixou muito, muito desconfiada. Para mim, e estou fazendo essa afirmação sem nenhuma informação posterior, trata-se de um crime de ódio. Ofereço, para quem duvida, dois outros crimes semelhantes em números: o da Universidade em Montreal, no Canadá e o da Escola Amish, nos EUA.

Em 1989, Montreal, um sujeito invadiu a École Polytechnique, entrou em uma sala, rendeu todos, separou homens de mulheres e disse que estava lutando contra o feminismo. Atirou em nove moças, matou seis. Deixou uma carta de suicídio com uma lista de “feministas” que queria matar. O caso da escola Amish é mais recente. Em 2006, um sujeito invadiu uma escola Amish (*Lembram do filme A Testemunha?*), tomou uma classe como refém, liberou os meninos, ficou com as dez menininhas. Matou cinco, e não terminou o serviço, porque ao perceber a aproximação da polícia, ele se matou.

Agora, alguém me diga qual escola do Rio de Janeiro ou de qualquer lugar do Brasil que não seja curso normal, enfermagem (*e aqui pode nem ser*) ou algo semelhante que tenha uma proporção próxima de 10 meninas para cada 1 menino em sala. Eu lecionei em curso normal e a proporção chegava perto disso. Esse não era o caso da escola do Realengo. Contudo vem alguém e me diz que temos estes números, porque as meninas sentam na frente. E, sim, ninguém se mexeu. Eu dou aula para adolescentes, posso até ter mais meninas na frente, mas a proporção é quase meio a meio.

Desculpem, mas meu desconfiômetro está ligado aqui. Não acho que existam culpados. Não é algo que se espere que aconteça em uma escola brasileira, ninguém pode comprar armas de forma indiscriminada neste país salvo se estiver envolvido com o crime, e torço para que não tenhamos ninguém imitando o criminoso em outras escolas por aí. Eu realmente acredito que ocorreu um crime de ódio e o uso do masculino, o suposto universal, que esconde o número de vítimas mulheres, meninas, na verdade, é ofensivo. Torço, também, para que nenhuma das feridas morra e estou incluindo os três meninos.

Quanto ao assassino, era alguém que sofria de transtorno mental. Deveria estar internado, mas o Estado abriu mão de tratar de forma adequada os doentes mentais, para cortar custos. Claro, que tudo é disfarçado em belas teorias que dizem que é melhor o paciente estar com os seus familiares... Sei! Nem sempre isso é possível e/ou aconselhável. Eu defendo o tratamento humanizado, que hospitais psiquiátricos não pdoem ser prisões, no entanto, é preciso dar todo o apoio especializado aos parentes e ao paciente. Isso, o Estado não tem feito. Eis a minah crítica. Outra coisa, vi gente especulando que o policial executou o sujeito. Armado do jeito que ele estava (*vi a foto dele morto no jornal O Dia, com os carregadores em volta do corpo. Se abrir, está avisad@!*), se o policial o matou, fez o que deveria ter feito naquelas condições. Não lamento isto, eu lamento, sim, pelas crianças. E que me chamem de fascista se quiserem, pois assumo integralmente o que digo. Cabe agora investigar como o sujeito conseguiu as armas, tanta munição e os carregadores rápidos (speed loaders). Qual o significado do seu traje imitando a indumentária militar? E o conhecimento e o treinamento que, apesar de ser mentalmente doente, ele certamente possuía? Isso, sim, é importante!

---

O relato de uma das meninas sobreviventes (*1-2*) só reforça que o criminoso tinha um modus operandi. a cosia foi planejada e ele escolheu matar meninas. Meninas mesmo, já que ele entrou e a primeira pessoa que encontrou foi uma professora.

Global Misopedia Ring Committing Atrocity Links White Het Men in Canada and the Netherlands

For anyone who thinks the distinct social/political/economic separation of these atrocities: incest, rape, pornography production, trafficking, pimping, procuring, sexual slavery, and gross sexual exploitation and assault of women and children is possible, or--if in even more denial--is actually occurring in any meaningful and "liberating" way, please pay attention to this story and any other story about internationally sexually abused children and women. And please note that the countries involved are sexually liberal, not so conservative. Please drop abstracted theory when reality is presenting itself to you in all its grim horror.

Please stop supporting actions and arguments that "some women" and "some children" are liberated by being able to do "sex work" in societies where both sex and work are exploited to practically incomprehensible and soul-destroying levels. The understanding here of what constitutes liberation is not individualistic, but is collectivist. While some are enslaved and raped, what is the political function of arguments that "some of us" aren't harmed by gross sexual and economic exploitation? How, exactly, does that help the most exploited and harmed?

And, please also note that media will always make it seem as if white het men are heroes, even when that is the key population involved in sexually assaulting girls and women internationally. It is, primarily, women and girls of all colors who are involved in activist and other social efforts to stop prostitution, trafficking, and sexual slavery. Please keep that in mind as you read what follows. Because whether the issue is child sexual abuse, poverty and the rampant spread of disease, such as in Haiti, or nuclear power plant horror and terrorism, such as that which is going on in Japan currently, it has been women at the front lines of activism, advocating for radical social change, for decades.

What follows is cross-posted from *here*. But you can also link back by clicking on the title just below.

Europol's Rob Wainwright says police arrested 184 suspects in a global investigation into a Dutch-based international pedophile ring. Peter Dejong/Associated Press

Global pedophile ring probe nets 2 Canadian charges

Online forum involved rescue of child victims of abuse in 30 countries

CBC News

Posted: Mar 16, 2011 8:24 AM CST

Last Updated: Mar 16, 2011 11:03 AM CST

Beginning of Story Content

Two Canadian men have been charged in connection with an alleged international pedophile ring based in the Netherlands that involved the rescue of 230 children.

The charges in Ontario and Saskatchewan come as police in Europe said Wednesday they had rescued the child victims of abuse and arrested 184 suspects, part of a three-year investigation involving law enforcement officials from 13 countries, including Canada.

Philip Publuske, 40, has been charged with one count of possessing child pornography and one count of distributing child pornography, Waterloo Regional Police spokesman Olaf Heinzel told CBC News.

Publuske, who has been in custody since November, has a lengthy criminal record, including for sexual assault and possession of child pornography, police said.

Meanwhile, Saskatoon police said John William Lapage, 68, of Abernethy, Sask., has been charged with accessing child pornography, possessing child pornography and making child pornography available.

There was no word yet on whether any of the victims or other suspects are Canadian, but police said 670 suspects have been identified around the world.

Europol, the European Union police agency, said the investigation code-named Operation Rescue has identified and rescued children in more than 30 countries.

The alleged ring was based around an online forum and was "probably the largest online pedophile network in the world," Europol director Rob Wainwright said Wednesday.

The forum, based in Amsterdam, had up to 70,000 members, police said.

With files from The Associated Press

 

Related Links

Border child-porn busts on rise: customs

 

Sara and Julian Discuss Trans/Feminist Issues, part 5: On Rape, Domestic Violence, Bigotry, and some Queer and Trans Politics

image of patriarchal domestic violence wheel is from here

Dear readers and visitors,

I have written to Sara that I wish to put this one response of hers from this comments-section discussion in part 2 of the series, *here*, as the focus of its own post. There are so many issues here for me that I'd like to discuss that just adding a few more broken-up comments to the already long list over at the original post site didn't meet my needs to have these issues more widely read and discussed further, by Sara and me, and by you, the reader.

I welcome your feedback, readers. Comment away! I'd prefer it if women, queer people, and trans people commented, especially.

JR wrote:
"And to the extent that lesbian women don't choose to "regularly sleep with men--or one man", they are not putting themselves at the same risk for rape as those women, often heterosexual or bisexual, who do regularly sleep with men--or one man."

Sara responded:
I'm not sure what are the rape statistics amongst lesbian and bisexual women. So I can't say much there.

We would, I think have to include the rape rates of girls who become bisexual and lesbian woman. And we know the sexual assault rates against girls varies from one-in-four girls, in the general population, to one-in-three girls in Indigenous populations and in places where white men live (or live near in the case of reservation land).

So the question then becomes how many of the girls who are raped/incest/molested/assaulted become bi and lesbian? From my experience and friendship circles, the stats are--or ought to be--profoundly alarming and a call to collective action against all forms of heteromale supremacist violence, especially and including those systems, institutions, and industries that promote and require the rape of girls and women.

In the view of this blog, those forms of organised, protected, defended patriarchal violence include all economic systems that require or defend the existence of desperation, poverty, hunger, vulnerability, and slavery; all systems, institutions, and industries that teach men that girls and women are "wh*res-by-nature"; all ideologies and value systems that protect men's self-proclaimed entitlements; all organised practices that promote and protect and defend men's "right wrong of access", such as pornography, prostitution, advertising, dominant media, any and all systems and institutions that foster, reinforce, or glorify racism, classism, heterosexism, and misogyny, such as the military, academics, dominant patriarchal religions, and medicine, among others.

JR wrote: "Heterosexual women are more likely to be battered and abused by a man than by a woman.

Sara responded: That's for sure. The reverse is true also. Heterosexual men are more likely to be battered and abused by a woman than by a man, at home (cause let's not mix in street violence and mugging).

But, Sara, battery of men by women in the home isn't a social problem, it's a false charge claimed by MRAs who wish to pretend that we don't live in a patriarchal society with intimate male supremacist violence against women, by men. Humans who live together in relatively enclosed spaces have a kind of intimate access of proximity and privacy that allows abuses to happen that may be less likely to happen were the spaces not enclosed, or more communal. Not that communal spaces, like school systems, haven't been "breeding grounds" for racist/misogynistic/misopedic abuse, such as in white Christian-ruled boarding schools through most of the 20th century that functioned (and endeavored) to commit a heinous form of "living genocide" by not exactly killing the children who were Indian/Indigenous person, but by attempting to culturally and spiritually killing the Indian/Indigenous person in the children.

Heterosexual men are more likely to be battered by men, period, regardless of where men live; boys are most likely abused physically by male parents/"care"-givers than by female ones. Not by women they live with. So please be careful not to perpetuate MRA myths about domestic violence.

Sara wrote:
While gay men might be more likely to be battered and abused by men, at home.

I don't wish to deny or minimise lesbian- and gay-relationship domestic violence, including battery. But we must keep in mind that of the population of "couples living together in a home", a small percentage of them are lesbian and gay--whether or not there's abuse and violence in those relationships. Most of what's happening in the home is men beating the shit out of women. Period.

And men hunting down women who leave them, and murdering them for leaving them. Period.

Sara continued:
and Men are just less likely to be raped by women, but DV is an equal opportunity crime.

"DV is an equal opportunity crime" might be true in some abstract way, but not in practice. In practice it is almost always misogynistic and misopedic. In practice it is a cornerstone of male supremacist society, not ever a female supremacist one. In practice it is a form of terrorism and brutality against women by men. Period.

Your statement, as do others you've made elsewhere, participate in a kind of liberalism that, when practiced socially, puts most women at great risk for more violence. I hope you will take that to heart before you promote such ideas. Please consider being more responsible with the way you phrase things.

I can see how your point might be that "in any home, there is the possibility of domestic violence, whether the homes are heterosexual, lesbian, gay, or none of the above. But the obfuscation of MEN'S violence against WOMEN, in the home and beyond it, is a North American emergency, as well as in the UK and Australia and many other regions of the world. There's no international emergency of men being beaten and killed by women in the home.

Sara wrote:
I'm pretty sure the rate of DV isn't lower amongst lesbian and bisexual women than amongst any other groups.

Given how male supremacist privileges and entitlements are acted out intimately, women are safer in lesbian relationships, generally speaking, than in relationships with men.

Sara wrote:
It's about mental problems, stress, substance abuse, self-control problems, anger issues, entitlement to attention/sex/money/gifts/kids, revenge, and more.

The "more" that you leave out is the problem, for me. The part left out is "patriarchal custom and common practice". Why do you repeatedly take the focus off of patriarchal/misogynistic abuse as a function of living in a patriarchal/misogynistic society? I'm perplexed why you would seek to do that. Men don't batter the women they live with in the home primarily because of "mental problems, "stress", "substance abuse", "anger issues", or "entitlement to attention/money/gifts/kids", Sara.

I find the mention of "mental problems" to be ablist and insulting to anyone with mental illness, frankly. Battery causes physical, spiritual, emotional, and psychological problems for the survivors. Mentally healthy men beat the shit out of women. Normal, mentally healthy men rape women and girls, and molest children of all genders. "Normal" men seek out sex with underage people, as Dateline NBC's "To Catch a Predator" series of programs demonstrated conclusively. "Normal" men use pornography and pornography teaches normal men how to sexualise and traumatically act out misogynistic abuse against girls and women.

If men's issues with substance abuse, anger management, and mental health was the problem, why don't teens with those same problems beat the shit out of their fathers, systematically? Why don't women outside of systems of prostitution, with those same problems, beat the shit out of their husbands and boyfrinds, systematically? Why dont' women in systems of prostitution, with those same problems, beat the shit out of their pimps, systematically? Why don't men, with those problems, beat the shit out of the sources of their stress, such as their bosses, systematically

It's the view of this blog, and by many feminists, that men abuse women in the home because THEY CAN GET AWAY WITH IT and because THEY WANT TO DO IT. They do it because they can do it and not usually suffer any meaningfully negative consequences, other than destroying the relationships they claim to want.

Sara wrote:
Controlling someone is what happens from it if it continues over a long enough period. And it certainly isn't limited to men, to want to control things.

I find this a completely untenable viewpoint and question how you even arrived at it. As I see it, you'd have to not know about or be in profound denial about men's violence against women, on how many different ways men control women--including how rich white men control women globally through trafficking, slavery, and globalised racist patriarchal capitalism, to conclude what you do. Once again, your political statements are very much in line with that of MRAs.

Why do you align your views with theirs? Do you think their viewpoints on rape and DV are accurate and valid?

Sara:
Feeling more or less entitled things go your way is a rather primal human reaction against things not going your way enough. It's the anti-doormat instinct. A reaction against perceived selfishness. A healthy ego will feel it at a reasonable time.

I'm not sure if I understand what you are saying here. Let me see if I get it. Are you saying that "feeling entitled to make things happen in a way that is considered by the perpetrator/controller as "my way" is a primal/natural/biological/evolutionary reaction/impulse to having things "not go my way"? Are you saying that men being violently controlling, terroristically domineering, and grotesquely violent against children and women is "human" but not also "patriarchally specific" and "patriarchally conditioned"? Are you saying that "we're all selfish sometimes, and so we're all capable of being violent against those we say we love? And, are you saying it is "healthy" for some of us to feel a form of entitlement to harm others some of the time? I'd say it's normal, but not healthy. This is also a way of viewing political terrorism in completely psychological, apolitical, asocial ways. Why do you perpetuate this CRAP-denying mythology about "why we're abusive"? In which acts of violence does CRAP have no controlling role whatsoever?

I'm not saying that any system is completely determining--that because we live in a patriarchal society, that means ALL men will rape and batter ANY women they live with, if they live with women. I'm saying that whenever a man beats or rapes a woman, CRAP is there, white het male supremacy "lives" there. And to pretend that's not the case, and that battery and rape are sometimes "just what some people do" irrespective of the political structure of the society we live in, is a dangerous way to speak about why we behave in controlling and oppressive ways sometimes. Because the actions take on various layers of meaning--the man's fist in the woman's face isn't just physically harmful, for example. It's also part of a larger series of systemic and systematic patriarchal patterns of violence.

This brings us back to another point in another post of our conversation: that you "bigotry", for example, is all the same: it's all "bigotry". I think that's a dangerously abstract way to view things like bigotry. Because it does matter if it is men or if it is women, re: the dualistic gender binary, who are "bigoted". Gay men and queer males being "bigoted" about het men is not the same issue, not the same danger, as het men being bigoted AGAINST gay men and queer males. Black and Brown people being "bigoted" about white folks isn't "the same as" whites being bigoted AGAINST Black and Brown people.

And I'd argue that any woman being bigoted about transgender or transsexual women is not the same threat, the same danger to transgender and transsexual people that men being bigoted against ALL women, trans or not, is. And to pretend all the bigotry is [allegedly] "equally" problematic means that those of us who are trans and intergender can believe that targeting radical feminists is a useful use of our time and energy, while the men go on and on oppressing, violating, and otherwise abusing all of us. This is why it is important for those of us who are marginalised by sex and gender to join with radical feminists in fighting the good fight to challenge and stop all racist heteropatriarchal atrocities and completely compost CRAP.

A problem I have with the underlying and overarching worldview I experience you as presenting, that I also see in a lot of contemporary queer politics, agendas, perspectives, and explanations of social phenomena, that I also see in some versions of trans politics, is that variations on this same worldview and value system are each steeped in what feels to me like an unexamined and irresponsible antifeminist liberalism that is white male supremacist in practice. I don't see how people who are white and Western, or male and/or men--queer and not-queer, trans and non-trans, can be responsible allies with most of the world's women if we embrace and uphold liberal values and practices. I look forward to your reply to this.

Polaris Project: National Day of Action against the Sexual Trafficking and Exploitation of Children

image is from here

All that follows is from The Polaris Project's website, *here* and at the link just below. Links to many parts of their website appear at the bottom of this post. Be a part of the National (Call-In) Day of Action 11/17/2010

Participating in our National (Call-In) Day of Action on Nov. 17 is as easy as 1,2,3!

Each year in the United States at least 100,000 children are victims of commercial sexual exploitation. Our children are being sold for sex on street corners, through escort services, and online. These victims need safe shelter and treatment, but in the United States today there are only 80 beds available for them. That leaves thousands of sexually exploited children who are unable to access shelter beds or other services.

On November 17, the National Coalition to End Domestic Minor Sex Trafficking, of which Polaris Project is a part, is organizing a National Day of Action to pass the Domestic Minor Sex Trafficking and Victims Support Act (H.R. 5575). If passed, this legislation would provide victims of human trafficking with access to much needed services and shelters. H.R. 5575 would also provide grants to state and local governments who work with social service agencies to train law enforcement and increase investigations.

Being a part of our National (Call-In) Day of Action on Nov. 17 is as easy as 1,2,3:

1. Find your representative in the U.S. House of Representatives on the top right of this webpage.

2. Call the House operator at (202) 224-3121 and ask to be connected with your representative's office. Once connected, say:

"Hi, my name is ________ , and I am a constituent living in[town/city]. I'm calling to urge Congress(woman/man) ______ to co-sponsor and support H.R.5575, a unique bi-partisan bill introduced by Representatives Maloney and Smith that seeks to combat and address the sex trafficking of children across America. It would allow more trafficking survivors to access restorative care services and increase resources for law enforcement to arrest and prosecute the traffickers and predators that victimize our children. The number of children at risk of being trafficked across the U.S. is on the rise and it's time for Congress to act. Will the Congress(woman/man) co-sponsor and support this important legislation?"

3. Be Counted!  Sign our petition here so we can track our impact!

Taking action on Nov. 17 will take less than 5 minutes and our collective action can give thousands of young sex trafficking victims across the U.S. the care and support they need and deserve.

The National Day of Action is being sponsored by the National Coalition to End Domestic Minor Sex Trafficking. Members include (partial list): A Future. Not A Past., ECPAT-USA, Polaris Project, Rebecca Project, Shared Hope International and the Women's Funding Network.

• • Human Trafficking 101
  • The Trafficking Victims
  • The Traffickers
  • The Demand
  • The Facilitators
  • Human Trafficking FAQ
  • Recognizing Trafficking
• THE FRONTLINES
  • Survivor Testimonies
  • Recent Federal Cases
  • Media Spotlight
  • Daily News Feed
• TAKE ACTION
  • Featured Actions
  • Sign Up for Updates
  • Tell a Friend
  • Donate Online
  • Raise Funds
  • Advocate for Policy
  • Report Trafficking
  • Raise Awareness
  • Volunteer
• GIVE
• RESOURCES
  • National Hotline
  • U.S. Policy
  • Books
  • Movies and Films
  • Video Clips
• ABOUT US
  • The Action Center
  • Media Coverage
  • Contact Us
  • Apply for Jobs
  • Apply for Fellowships
• POLARIS IN THE COMMUNITY
  • Community Activities
  • Star Activist

Anderson Cooper, John Walsh, and Dr. Phil Call Out Amazon.com for Selling Books That Teach Men How to Molest Children and Get Away With It

Below is an article from CNN about this issue. The link to it on CNN is *here*. Some discussion of this subject by me appears below the article.

(CNN) -- "The Pedophile's Guide to Love and Pleasure: A Child-Lover's Code of Conduct" was pulled from Amazon.com, a spokesman confirmed Thursday, after thousands of users posted angry comments and threats to boycott the site.

The self-published e-book was available on the site for download until late Wednesday for $4.79.

Company spokesman Drew Herdener would not comment on the controversy or respond to questions about the company's guidelines for digital publication.

On Wednesday, Amazon defended selling the book in response to a report published on BusinessInsider.com.

"Amazon believes it is censorship not to sell certain books simply because we or others believe their message is objectionable. Amazon does not support or promote hatred or criminal acts, however, we do support the right of every individual to make their own purchasing decisions."

Before it disappeared from the site Wednesday night, the listing had more than 2,000 user comments. The vast majority of them condemned the book's stated content, as well as Amazon's decision to make it available.

"It is ILLEGAL to molest children, and for Amazon to promote such is insane. I'm an abuse survivor, and am OUTRAGED Amazon would choose to promote this nonsense. I will not be purchasing anything from your website until this is removed," one user wrote in a comment that summed up the feelings of many others.

In its product description, the book's author described it as "my attempt to make pedophile situations safer for those juveniles that find themselves involved in them, by establishing certian [sic] rules for these adults to follow."

"I hope to achieve this by appealing to the better nature of pedosexuals, with hope that their doing so will result in less hatred and perhaps liter [sic] sentences should they ever be caught," he said.

Author Phillip R. Greaves II told CNN that he published "The Pedophile's Guide" to address what he considers unfair portrayals of pedophiles in the media.

"True pedophiles love children and would never hurt them," the Pueblo, Colorado, man said in a phone interview Wednesday night.

Greaves, 47, told CNN that he has not had sexual contact with a child as an adult, but did when he was a teenager. He also said he "was introduced to oral sex when I was 7" by an older female, but did not provide specifics.

A small contingent of Amazon.com users defended the author's right to free speech, and a discussion on the site titled "Why Amazon is Right" delved into the constitutional implications of the controversy. Others floated the possibility that the e-book was a hoax or a law enforcement trap for pedophiles.

"While I think 99.9 percent of us object to pedophilia (even though I think this particular book was a publicity stunt/joke), I think we can all agree that we don't want someone else censoring a subject matter that we may be interested in. Religion, atheism, homosexuality, etc. are some subjects that spring to mind ... and they have been censored in the past until we realized that it's best to let all information in (even if we don't like some of it), rather than allow some authority or individual decide what we can and can't know about based on their own opinions or motivations," one user wrote.

In its form as a written piece, "The Pedophile's Guide" is protected under the First Amendment right to free speech, CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin said.

Child pornography is illegal as images. But text, which can be considered "works of advocacy," has won protection in the courts under the First Amendment, Toobin said.

"There is an argument that some works of advocacy are incitement, but the courts have been very, very narrow in interpreting that as a crime," Toobin said.

"I think this one is well safe under the protection of the First Amendment."

*          *          *

What we can note is that only WHM, with the exception of Anderson Cooper, who is gay, are empowered by media to speak about this issue. The time has ended when feminists who work to stop men's sexual violence against children and women are allowed to speak on major media. No feminist perspectives are allowed on rape, battery, incest, child molestation, trafficking, sexual slavery, pornography, or prostitution, unless the perspective is liberal and individualistic--in which case the liberal feminist is promoting prostitution and pornography and other sysstems and conditions that make rape inevitable.

We also must note that father's rights groups are working very hard to maintain their right to abuse children, by winning custody battles in courts that won't allow testimony about the father being an abuser in the home. This is an outrage--children are being taken from caring women and handed over the the men who are incesting them. This is a global problem and is egregiously happening in Australia, the UK, and across North America, where Father's Rights groups--many with wealthy WHM lawyers working for them and with them, are winning case after case against the best interests and safety of children.

Also, we should be clear that it is women doing most of the work to stop child molestation, not men. That the media promotes two or three well-known WHM as THE spokespeople, the "experts" on this issue, denies what is so obviously the case: the female victims themselves are the experts, and many feminists know this experience personally. Why aren't these women allowed to speak out on these issues? This media from CNN only makes the White Het Male Hero/Moral Person myth stronger, while invisibilising women who are working with no acknowledgement, within the U.S. and globally, that they are doing this extremely dangerous work in the trenches where the abusers prey on children and women.

What you also need to know is that there has been an activist diligently exposing networks and individuals promoting or protecting child molesters abusing children. Her name is Nikki Craft. She has spent the last 35 years speaking out against men's sexual violence against women and children, with nothing much to show for it except her websites. Imagine working for 35 years with no pay, only getting hateful comments from people who want to preserve the right of men to molest children and rape women. That's been Nikki's life. Goddess Bless Her. Below are some of her websites where she carefully documents this atrocity. And please click on the link coming right up in this sentence to a page all about Nikki Craft's activism. Please take a moment to write to her, at the email address *here* on her website, to thank her for all her very difficult and  thankless work she has done over these many. many years, calling out crimes way before the media was.

http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/NudistHallofShame/index.html

http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/NudistHallofShame/WilcoxDuncanCross.html 

http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/NudistHallofShame/FifteenMinutesofFame.html

http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/NudistHallofShame/Wanner.html

http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/NudistHallofShame/Tampico.html

850 Afghan Children Dead: If Yemen Killed 850 U.S. Children on U.S. land, what do you think the response would be from the U.S.?

this exceptionally disturbing photograph of U.S. warfare-murdered children in Afghanistan is from here If the U.S. military murders anyone at all, it is never, ever "terrorism" not matter how terrifying the assaults and invasions are on human beings. When any aggression, or threats of aggression, or possibilities of explosives being on planes headed to the U.S., our media will call it "terrorism" even while no one was terrorised, raped, bombed, or murdered. Does that make any sense to you? What follows is from WarIsACrime.org.    Another Day, Another 850 Afghan Children Dead Submitted by davidswanson on Fri, 2010-10-29 16:48 Afghanistan Bamiyan Diaries – Day Five By David Smith-Ferri “Is This Normal?” In a small storage shed at the edge of town, we watched as fourteen-year-old Sayed Qarim signed a simple contract agreeing to borrow and repay a no-interest, 25,000 afghani loan (roughly $555). Daniel from the Zenda Company, the loan originator, counted out the crisp bills and handed them to Qarim, who smiled broadly and shook hands. Qarim, whose family farms potatoes and wheat, plans to use the funds to purchase a cow and her calf. “There are great benefits of owning a cow,” Qarim explains. “Our family gets to use the milk, and we can sell the calf for a good profit.” No one walking by outside on the narrow dirt road would have known an important business transaction had just occurred, one that could in fact help a young man and his family gain economic traction and greater security. The transaction didn’t take place in a bank. No village leaders were present. Only a fourteen-year-old boy, the representative of a private business company, and a witness. And while the signed agreement constitutes a business relationship, the Zenda Company sees it as primarily personal. Qarim was recommended for a loan by Faiz and Mohammad Jan, two other young men who live in his village and who have themselves recently received and repaid loans. Following this recommendation, Zenda spent much time getting to know Qarim, meeting with him, assessing his knowledge, his resources (such as access to grazing land), and his character, answering his questions, and describing to him his responsibilities as a borrower. Now that the transaction is complete, Qarim is required to send a picture of the cow and her calf as “proof” that the money was used as agreed. In addition, Hakim, another Zenda Company representative living in Bamiyan, who is fluent in Dari, the local language, will visit Qarim periodically. Along with Faiz and Mohammad Jan, he will try to provide whatever support Qarim needs to succeed. Eighteen months ago, Mohammad Jan borrowed funds to purchase a cow and her calf. Three times in the intervening months, he has fattened the cow, raised the calf, sold them and used the money from their sale to purchase another cow and calf. He has repaid the loan in full and netted a profit thus far of nearly 7,000 afghanis. Faiz has been equally successful, using borrowed funds to purchase lambs; he repaid his loan, took out another, and now owns ten sheep and two goats, prized locally both for their meat and for their fleeces. Zenda Company’s small business loan program has evolved gradually through trial and error in Bamiyan, and Hakim, a Singaporean medical doctor and ex-pat living now in an outlying village, is central to its success. Hakim (a name given to him by local people which means “learned one”) originally came from Singapore to Quetta, Pakistan, on the Afghanistan border, where he worked for two years with Afghan refugees. “I essentially lived within a refugee settlement, and I was treated as a local.” While there, however, Hakim wanted to do more than treat the symptoms of war. Six years ago, he came to Bamiyan as a development worker with an international Non-Governmental Organization (NGO). Today in Afghanistan, NGOs involved in development work are as thick as wheat stalks in a field, and their presence and operation has a significant impact in the country. But Hakim found that “the NGOs, too, have problems. They hold all the aid power, because they have all the money.” Because of this, says Hakim, despite their intentions, despite their mission, despite even their best efforts, international NGOs in Afghanistan often have a colonial relationship with Afghan communities, encouraging dependence rather than local initiative and sovereignty. And then there is the intractable question of results. As one Afghan person told us, “The world says it is helping us. Where is this help? None of it reaches the people who need it. Here in Afghanistan it has been going on so long that we have to joke and laugh in order to manage our anger and disappointment.” Seven months ago, Hakim left his position with the NGO. When he first arrived in Bamiyan, he was invited to visit and later to move into a small village. “The villages are very conservative. The only way to enter the community, even for a visit, is to be invited.” Hakim has been in the community now for six years, living as people in the village do, eating only what people in the village have to eat. Like a member of the family, he participates in work. “I help in the fields, too,” he says with a self-effacing laugh, “but I’m not very good at it. I cannot work nearly as long or as fast as others. “With time,” he says, “I’m realizing what it takes to practice what a young Afghan boy once told me, that without peace, life is impossible.” As he sees it, “morality, democracy, and intellectual honesty are dying. Here we have forty-three countries (in the ISAF) trying to solve the problem of violence in Afghanistan. How can we allow these countries to say that more violence will solve the problems of violence, without asking them for evidence, for results? Where is intellectual inquiry? Moral skepticism? Why is war always the next solution? Why not reconciliatory talks; who dictates that talks are impossible for human beings? Why are we so willing to accept that violence and terror are the norm? If ordinary people don’t question this, academics at least should, but they don’t. A local shepherd boy knows this is not normal.” In a country where villagers typically do not farm enough land to actually subsist, where malnutrition and stunted growth are in fact the norm, and where the situation is worsening as land is divided and passed on to children, Hakim began to realize that peace cannot be pursued separately from economic security and food security. With this in mind, Hakim took his current position with Zenda Company. Through Zenda’s revolving loan fund, dozens of Afghan individuals have borrowed money for business start-up. These businesses include not only loans to villagers for livestock purchase, but also loans to shop owners, and a number of loans to existing street vendors, who might, for example, benefit from having the funds to purchase a cart as well as additional inventory. The repayment terms on these loans are simple: one half due at the end of one year, and the full amount due at two years. People interested in applying for a loan do so by supplying a simple handwritten proposal. At present, Zenda has received requests for loans totaling far more than it has funds to lend. According to the United Nations, during the period 2005-2010 in Afghanistan, life expectancy at birth was less than forty-four years (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy). Child mortality (before the age of five) is the highest in the world, and mortality for women in childbirth is among the highest. 850 children die daily in Afghanistan. According to UNICEF, in the 2003-2008 period, an astounding 59% of Afghan children under the age of five are considered “stunted,” and for 9% of Afghan children under five, malnutrition is so severe it is considered wasting. “Is this normal?” Hakim asks. Kathy Kelly, Jerica Arents, and David Smith-Ferri are Co-Coordinators of Voices for Creative Nonviolence (www.vcnv.org). They are currently traveling in Afghanistan.

Dr. Laura, Dr. Oz, and Dr. Phil: one of the three "get it" about White Het Male Supremacist Abuse and Terrorism: can you guess which one?

photo of Dr. Mehmet Oz is from here

photo of Dr. Phil McGraw is from here

These are two white het male doctors who owe their fame and great financial success to Oprah Winfrey: Dr. Phil and Dr. Oz. (We get to Dr. Laura shortly.)

The first man, who has a PhD in Clinical Psychology, supported her during a trial the commercial/atrocity-protecting meat industry put her through for simply stating her own point of view on the subject of burgers. The second is am M.D. who is a heart surgeon and is a proponent of complimentary medicine, to promote several less invasive methods of treating heart disease. He's also more infamously known for showing Oprah's audiences deceased humans' diseased organs and talking about healthy pooping. He's got some very good things to say--generally I like him and his style, and he's got a good bed-side manner, unless you're a battered woman in a hospital bed, that is. I also sometimes like Dr. Phil, when he isn't using his television series to exploit conditions and people and instead sincerely tries to alleviate human suffering, usually in the context of personal relationships. While I've seen Dr. Phil hold men accountable for the violence they do to women, I've never seen Dr. Oz do this.

I realise he didn't study sociology, social psychology, or the sexual politics of psychopathology, but Dr. Oz couldn't be more clueless about the reality and dynamics of men's war against women. He actually discusses inner brain structure to explain why it may be that some women kill their terrorist husbands or battering boyfriends. He doesn't seem to get that women who are terrorised and sadistically abused do not usually kill anyone, while the terrorists often kill a whole lot of people: most commonly the women in their lives, the women who leave them, and their children, in disgustingly horrid ways. But Dr. Oz's brain structure discussion isn't about THE TERRORISTS. He's concerned about the brain structures of the TERRORISED WOMEN who [usually don't] kill. What are the sexual politics of THAT?

In a case linked to below, he tries to explain to the audience why a woman guest may have killed the male terrorist in her life. He is wrong at every turn, and fortunately he has another "expert" guest on to set the audience clear on what is really going on. Unfortunately, it is yet another white man. (To be clear: Dr. Oz's family's background is Eastern European and Turkish. Dr. Phil is all white.) How it is that white and light-skinned het men have become the people women should turn to for expert advice on anything and everything, is a trick of the trades called WHM supremacist media and education. What undermines feminist knowledge and activists, scholars and doctors, is the owners and producers of mass media talk shows refusing to make women of any color the experts in matters that impact women--and men.

Well, there IS Dr. Laura, who has a PhD in physiology--which is not at all why she's on the air. At least Dr. Oz and Dr. Phil are discussing matters that usually fall within their own educational areas of study. She gives anti-woman, overtly racist, anti-gay relationship advice. She's way more WHM supremacist than Dr. Phil or Dr. Oz in her public advice. She should be removed from the airwaves. Immediately, as she should have been years ago for calling "homosexuals" deviant.

photo of Dr. Laura Schlessinger is from here

She is in the news this week for her arrogantly privileged racist-misogynist assault against a Black woman caller who wanted wise counsel on how to deal with a white husband who, along with his friends, makes racist remarks in front of her. He obviously enjoys trying to humiliate her. Would Dr. Laura pick up on that? Well...

Dr. Laura used the question--while berating and abusing the questioner--as an opportunity to pretend that THE ISSUE is African Americans who are the problem population who uses the n-word and COMPLAIN when whites do the same. Dr. Laura managed to work the word into her radio show eleven times in way fewer minutes than that. The caller, understandably, was totally taken aback and very respectfully attempted to call Dr. Laura's attention to the problem of turning this problem back on a Black woman, which only led Dr. Laura to intensify her own vitriolic volume, utterly silencing the woman seeking wise counsel. Dr. Laura understood the caller's predicament about as well as Dr. Oz understands why [very few] women kill terroristic men. NOT. AT. ALL.

While I think Dr. Phil makes mistakes many times with regard to appropriate forms of advocacy for women-in-patriarchy, too often presuming a kind of level playing field that patriarchal societies will never let exist, I'll say this: he's way ahead of where Dr. Oz and Dr. Laura will probably ever be on the matter of understanding that far too many men terrorise and grotesquely abuse women--and that men's use of physical violence is NEVER the women's fault! Proof of this difference between the two male doctors is in very intense (and potentially very triggering) programs each recently did about the subject of domestic violence leading to murder.

Dr. Oz's show wasn't about patriarchal abuse. It was about how the brain sometimes doesn't work right so some people cannot moderate their violent impulses. And he means women's violent impusles, not men's!

Dr. Phil's program was a VERY good program, if also deeply disturbing and triggering, about the FAILURE of FAMILY COURTS across the U.S. when it comes to adequately protecting children and women from adult male terrorists. His show centered around one case, in which a woman's baby was murdered by her ex- and the baby's father, after she repeatedly went to the court for orders of protection for herself and the baby--each time she was told by the white het male misogynistic judge that she was lying and had no evidence, even when she brought evidence. But there was another interview he did with a teenaged young woman who is a survivor of incest and witnessed a court give custody of her little sister to the incest perpetrator, after she testified about his abuse of her. Yes. It happened. The audience was also filled with women who had similar stories to tell, which appeared to have a VERY supportive effect on anyone who spoke out on this horrendous issue of VIRULENT PATRIARCHAL PREDATION PROTECTIONISM in family courts across the country.

What gets revealed is that the terrorists and their attorneys, along with generally misogynistic society, have effectively convinced the courts to not believe mothers if they raise "domestic violence" as a factor in why those mothers should get custody of their children, not the fathers. Even the women's attorneys are counseling women to not bring up the fact that the ex-husband is a batterer or incest perpetrator because too many judges hear that as a big ol' lie--an allegedly sure sign that the woman is trying to manipulate the court against the interests of the fathers' "right" to have more access to their children. When it comes to court manipulation, however, look no further than the battering, raping, incesting men and their attorneys, who convince the courts that the lack of evidence presented means they aren't sadistic brutes. In this case, the rule "presumed innocent until proven guilty" cannot apply, because no one's attorney will let the proof into the courtroom to begin with.

This is the case across the white het male supremacist globe, from the U.S., to the UK, to Australia. That there are WHM organising to undermine women's credibility in the courtroom even more is despicable and evil. There's nothing loving or just about such efforts by these misogynazis (fascistic, terrorising woman-haters) at all.

To note how this impacts U.S. women, compare these two episodes of programs that, one would hope, are supporting both physical/emotional health and human rights:

Dr. Oz: http://www.doctoroz.com/videos/tuesday-dr-oz

vs.

Dr. Phil: http://www.drphil.com/shows/show/1442/ 

But I cannot write about Dr. Phil without noting this CLEAR FORM OF MISOGYNY he regularly engages in. HE REFUSES TO STOP SAYING THE B WORD WHEN REFERRING TO WOMEN, and as an adjective (b-word with a y at the end). He a conservative guy, socially-politically, in many ways, and doesn't welcome cursing on his show, generally. I'm not sure you can get away with saying ASS on his show without it being bleeped! But he says the b word like it's going out of style, which of course it won't while he and other major media personalities keep legitimising it on TV. Please write to him and ask him why that's the only derogatory curse term he allows on his show.

And visit *here* for more on the Dr. Laura story of the week. TRIGGER WARNING for OVERTLY RACIST LANGUAGE AND GROSS MISTREATMENT OF A BLACK WOMAN BY A WHITE WOMAN.

Billionaire Misopedic Misogynist Rapist Jeffrey Epstein, with Egg-Shaped Penis, Goes Free

[image is from here]

File this one under "How WHM Supremacy WORKS to protect and defend rapists." Especially the rich rapists. All that follows is from YouTube and *here*. NOTE: he's not a pedophile; he's a serial raper of girls; there's nothing "child-loving" about it.

Billionaire Pedophile [sic] Goes Free
Conchita Sarnoff Conchita Sarnoff – Wed Jul 21, 12:05 am ET

NEW YORK – Hedge fund mogul Jeffrey Epstein became a free man Wednesday, five years after he was first accused of sexually abusing underage girls. After months of reporting, The Daily Beast’s Conchita Sarnoff reveals exclusive details of the investigation and the legal wrangling that saved him from a long prison term.

She reports:

• Palm Beach’s police chief objected to Epstein’s “special treatment” and gave The Daily Beast an exclusive look at his nine-hour deposition about the investigation.

• Earlier versions of the U.S attorney’s charges, including a sealed 53-page indictment, could have landed Epstein in prison for 20 years.

• Victims alleged that Epstein molested underage girls from South America, Europe, and the former Soviet republics, including three 12-year-old girls brought over from France as a birthday gift.

• The victims also alleged trips out of state and abroad on Epstein’s private jets, which would be evidence of sex trafficking—a much more serious federal crime than the state charges Epstein was convicted of.

• Epstein’s attorneys investigated members of the Palm Beach Police Department, while others ordered private investigators to follow and intimidate the victims’ families; one even posed as a police officer.

• Then-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales told The Daily Beast that he “would have instructed the Justice Department to pursue justice without making a political mess.”

Film director Roman Polanski is not the only convicted pedophile to walk free this month and return to a life of privilege. On Wednesday, hedge fund manager Jeffrey Epstein completes his one-year house arrest in Palm Beach, which has been even less arduous than Polanski’s time at a Swiss ski chalet.

During Epstein’s term of “house arrest,” he made several trips each month to his New York home and his private Caribbean island. In the earlier stage of his sentence for soliciting prostitution with a minor—13 months in the Palm Beach Stockade—he was allowed out to his office each day. Meanwhile, Epstein has settled more than a dozen lawsuits brought by the underage girls who were recruited to perform “massages” at his Palm Beach mansion. Seven victims reached a last-minute deal last week, days before a scheduled trial; each received well over $1 million—an amount that will hardly dent Epstein’s $2 billion net worth.

With that, the known victims of Epstein’s sexual compulsion have been officially silenced, and the case against him is closed unless new ones come forward. According to banking sources, he has been moving assets out of the U.S. and may well follow Polanski into a luxurious exile.

But the question remains: Did Epstein’s wealth and social connections—former President Bill Clinton; Prince Andrew; former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak; New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson; and former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers were just a few of the prominent passengers on his private jets—allow him to receive only a slap on the wrist for crimes that carry a mandatory 20-year sentence? Was he able, with his limitless assets and heavy-hitting lawyers—Alan Dershowitz, Gerald Lefcourt, Roy Black, Kenneth Starr, Guy Lewis, and Martin Weinberger among them—to escape equal justice?

Michael Reiter, the former Palm Beach police chief, certainly thinks so. He gave The Daily Beast exclusive access to the transcript of his nine-hour deposition for the victims’ civil suits, in which he explained how the case against Epstein was minimized by the State Attorney’s Office, then bargained down by the U.S. Department of Justice, all in an atmosphere of hardball legal tactics and social pressures so intense that Reiter became estranged from several colleagues. At the time, Reiter, who retired in 2009 and now runs his own security firm, objected both to Epstein’s plea agreement and to the flexible terms of his incarceration in the county jail rather than state prison. Asked during the deposition whether he thought Epstein received special treatment, he answered “yes.”

In March 2005, Reiter’s department, acting on a complaint from the Florida parents of a 14-year-old girl, launched an investigation that would eventually uncover a pattern of predatory behavior stretching back years and spanning several continents, knowingly enabled by Epstein’s associates and employees. Two or three times a day, whenever Epstein was in Palm Beach, a teenage girl would be brought to the mansion on El Brillo Way. (“The younger the better,” he instructed Haley Robson, a local teenager who was paid to bring other girls to the house, and who declared, on a police tape, that she was “like a Heidi Fleiss,” the infamous California madam.) Advised that she would be giving a “massage,” the girl was then pressured to remove her clothes, submit to fondling and a large vibrator, and sometimes lured into more invasive sexual contact. Each girl was paid $200 or more, depending on how far things went, by house manager Alfredo Rodriguez, who was instructed always to have $2,000 cash on hand.

The Palm Beach Police Department identified 17 local girls who had contact with Epstein before the age of consent; the youngest was 14, and many were younger than 16. And that was just at one of Epstein’s many homes around the world—he also owns property in New York, Santa Fe, Paris, London, and the Caribbean. Subsequent investigation by the FBI, reaching as far back as 2001, indentified roughly 40 victims, not counting Nadia Marcinkova, whom Epstein referred to as his “Yugoslavian sex slave” because he had imported her from the Balkans at age 14. Now 24, Marcinkova became a member of the household and is alleged to have participated in the sexual contact with underage girls.

Epstein quickly got wind of the investigation, and progress on the case got messy very quickly. He hired a squad of lawyers and private investigators and dispatched influential friends to pressure the police into backing off. Instead, local detectives pressed on and brought the matter to the attention of the FBI. The detectives asked their federal colleagues whether the fact that some victims appeared to have traveled out of state on Epstein’s planes—plus the use of interstate phone service to arrange assignations—might be violations of the federal 2000 Trafficking Victims Protection Act, which carries a minimum sentence of 20 years. (Florida enacted the federal TVPA in 2002.)

So when State Attorney Barry Krischer, who also ran Florida’s Crimes Against Children Unit, proved reluctant to mount a vigorous prosecution of Epstein, saying the local victims were not credible witnesses, Chief Reiter wrote the attorney a letter complaining of the state’s “highly unusual” conduct and asking him to remove himself from the case. He did not, and the evidence his office presented to a state grand jury produced only a single count of soliciting prostitution. (Krischer has since retired and would not comment for this article.) The day after that indictment was returned, Reiter was relieved to have the FBI step in and take over the investigation.

The details that eventually emerged were often shocking and occasionally bizarre. For Epstein’s birthday one year, according to allegations in a civil suit, he was presented with three 12-year-old girls from France, who were molested then flown back to Europe the next day. These same civil complaints allege that young girls from South America, Europe, and the former Soviet republics, few of whom spoke English, were recruited for Esptein’s sexual pleasure. According to a former bookkeeper, a number of the girls worked for MC2, the modeling agency owned by Jean Luc Brunel, a longtime acquaintance and frequent guest of Epstein’s. Brunel received $1 million from the billionaire around the time he started the agency.

The non-prosecution agreement executed between Epstein and the Department of Justice states that Epstein and four members of his staff were investigated for “knowingly, in affecting interstate and foreign commerce, recruiting enticing and obtaining by any means a person, knowing that person has not yet obtained the age of 18 years and would be caused to engage in commercial sex act”—that is, child sex trafficking. Yet the agreement allowed Epstein to plead guilty to only two lower-level state crimes, soliciting prostitution and soliciting a minor child for prostitution.

Although the police investigation was officially closed, Chief Reiter tried to stay abreast of the federal case against Epstein. He was particularly concerned that Epstein be registered as a sex offender, which was part of the final deal, and that a fund be set up to compensate his victims—which was not, although Epstein agreed to bankroll their civil lawsuits. Attorney Dershowitz says Epstein’s agreement to pay attorney fees for the victims and agree to civil damage claims—without admitting guilt—amounted to “extortion under threat of criminal prosecution.”

But exactly which crimes did the Department of Justice threaten to prosecute? The Daily Beast has learned that there were several earlier versions of the U.S Attorney’s charges, including a 53-page indictment that, had he been convicted, could have landed Epstein in prison for 20 years. Brad Edwards, attorney for seven of the victims, confirms the existence of an earlier draft of the non-prosecution agreement, officially under seal, in which it appears that Epstein “committed, at some point, to a 10-year federal sentence.” But in the end Epstein’s legal team refused that deal and threatened to proceed to trial. And that’s where the question of whether the case was “winnable” before a jury again came into play, according to a source in the U.S Attorney’s Office, which shared the state attorney’s view that the prosecution was far from a slam dunk.

For one, it was clear from the start that Epstein would spare no legal expense and that his team of veteran lawyers, whose cases ranged from O.J. Simpson to the investigation of Clinton’s relationship with an intern, would play rough. When the Palm Beach police started to identify victims, according to Detective Joe Recarey’s report, Dershowitz began sending the detective Facebook and MySpace posts to demonstrate that some of these girls were no angels. Reiter’s deposition also states that he heard from local private investigators that Dershowitz had launched background checks on both the police chief and Det. Recarey. Dershowitz denies all of that. According to Reiter, both he and Recarey also became aware that they were under surveillance for several months, without knowing who ordered it. And the Florida victims began to complain that they and family members were being followed and intimidated by private investigators who were then linked to local attorneys in Epstein’s employ. In one reported instance, the private investigator claimed to be a police officer, and Reiter considered filing witness-tampering charges.

The credibility of the victims was also an issue; they had never complained of their treatment by Epstein until they were contacted by police, and they may have voluntarily returned to the Palm Beach mansion several times. Many of the girls came from disadvantaged backgrounds or broken homes, and they were susceptible to Epstein’s cash, intimidation, and charm. Those who were 16 when they went to El Brillo Way would have been in their 20s by the time they took the stand, and Epstein’s investigators had dredged up every instance of bad behavior in their pasts. According to an exchange in the Reiter deposition, a few of the victims had worked in West Palm Beach at massage parlors known as “jack shacks.” Each new compromising detail was immediately forwarded to the State Attorney’s Office, where staff met frequently with Epstein’s lawyers.

The Florida statutes are clear: Any person older than 24 who engages in sexual contact with someone under the age of 18 commits a felony of the second degree. The victim’s prior sexual conduct is not relevant; ignorance of her age is no defense. She needn’t resist physically to cast doubt on the issue of “consent.” For a child under 16, even lewd behavior short of touching is a felony of the second degree. But convincing a jury that a sexual encounter is a heinous crime is difficult if the victim can be made to appear willing and unharmed, not to mention vulgar and mercenary. It wasn’t hard to imagine some of the victims quickly being discredited in court by Epstein’s crack legal team, who repeatedly noted that the age of consent is lower in many other states.

But that doesn’t quite explain why the Department of Justice would forgo the child-trafficking charges, which pertain regardless of a girl’s attitude or character. Epstein’s final sentence is so out of line with the statutory guidelines for that crime that it appears the department may have been influenced by the existence of his many powerful friends and attorneys. A highly intelligent man who once taught math at the Dalton School in New York without a bachelor’s degree, Epstein has been a serious and respected player in the highest reaches of politics and philanthropy. He has made substantial contributions to political candidates, served on the Council on Foreign Relations, and donated $30 million to Harvard University.

Moreover, many of his high-powered acquaintances availed themselves of Epstein’s private jets, for which the pilot logs, obtained by discovery in the civil suits, sometimes showed that bold-face names were on the same flights as underage girls. A high-profile trial threatened to splash mud over all sorts of big players, just as both Gov. Richardson and Bill Clinton’s wife were running for president. Also, a hedge fund prosecution in which Epstein offered to give evidence was heating up. Alberto Gonzales, who was U.S. attorney general throughout most of the Epstein investigation and resigned just before the non-prosecution agreement was signed, told The Daily Beast that he “would have instructed the Justice Department to pursue justice without making a political mess.” But that may have been an impossible mandate, given the players involved.

Instead, said attorney Brad Edwards, “Epstein committed crimes that should have jailed him for most of his life…he was jailed for only a few months.” And this week he walks through his door a free man.

Conchita Sarnoff has developed multimedia communication programs for Fortune 500 companies and has produced three current events debate television programs, The Americas Forum, From Beirut to Kabul, and a segment for The Oppenheimer Report. She is a contributor to The Huffington Post and is writing a book about child trafficking in America.

Watch Jeffrey Epstein Storm Out of a Deposition When Asked About His Penis

From YouTube, on Jeffrey Epstein:

MusicTechnologyJules | September 20, 2009

Just dont ask millionaire Palm Beach sex offender Jeffrey Epstein about his privates.

Local attorney Spencer Kuvin did during a deposition Sept. 2, and Epstein walked out — 100 seconds after it started. And it was all caught on the video above.

Epstein, 56, did answer the first question: What is your name?

But he balked at the second: Is it true that . . . you have an egg-shaped penis?

After an objection from his attorney, Mike Pike, and another attempt from Kuvin, Epstein took off his microphone and left.

It cost the Wall Street prodigy Epstein: He was fined $800 by the West Palm Beach court currently hearing civil lawsuits filed by women whom Epstein paid for sex when they were underage.

While Epstein claims he never even met several of his accusers, they painted a not-so-pretty picture of Epsteins junk to prove he exposed himself.

It absolutely was an important question, said Kuvin. If he claims to have never met them, then we should know whether the victim is telling the truth.

Kuvin represents a suburban girl who, at 15, was enticed to visit Epsteins Palm Beach home under the pretense she would receive $200 to massage the man. But the massage allegedly turned into much more until the girl allegedly walked out in disgust. She is now in college.

The deposition has been reset for Oct. 8, and Epstein should expect the same question.

Epstein was released from a county correction camp this summer after serving 13 months of an 18-month sentence for his guilty plea on two felony prostitution charges.

Child Molestation: How to Help Prevent It, Hopefully, and Knowing Who To Watch Out For: Clue--Men who are around your children

 

[image is from here]

I haven't read either book, and if anyone has, I'd be interested to know how helpful they are. I am always dubious about things like this, after watching an Oprah show. As you may know, Oprah Winfrey is a survivor of child molestation and incest and has worked to make sure predators are caught and arrested.

The program featured mom's who had done all the right things in teaching their daughters about child sexual abuse and came to find out that their daughters were survivors, because the perps had threatened, shamed, humiliated, controlled, and terrorised the girls.

And I HATE the term "pedophile" as much as I'd hate the term "gynophile" for "serial rapist". The term, if we're going that route, is "misopedist". But "child molester" or "incest perpetrator" or "raper of children" suffices. Information on two books follows. I'm not linking to the site where I found this because it's weird. What comes next is all from *here*, as is the image above.

Child Molesters

Predators and Child Molesters: What Every Parent Needs to Know to Keep Kids Safe

robinsax.com
Predators and Child Molesters by Robin Sax is the first book to be awarded Amber Alert Book of the Year Award.
There is no crime not even murder that worries and sickens parents more than child sexual abuse. Parents wonder how to protect their children when almost every day the news reports another incident of someone in authority arrested on suspicion of child abuse from clergy and teachers to family members themselves. Even law enforcement has had trouble defining the problem and only recently has the Department of Justice begun recording statistics of sexual assault against children. Amid the confusion generated by sensational news reports and uncertainty regarding the nature and extent of child sexual abuse, what can parents do?
In this straightforward, clearly written guidebook, veteran sex-crimes prosecutor and Los Angeles deputy district attorney Robin Sax answers one hundred questions that she has most often encountered in her fifteen years of experience. From the definition of abuse to the profiles of a predator to how to report an incident and to whom, Sax provides practical, reassuring, and appropriate information.
For ease of use, the book is organized into six major sections:
-Recognizing predators: molesters, pedophiles, and opportunists

-Talking to kids about risks and identifying potential problems

-Recognizing abuse

-Reporting sexual abuse

-Going to court

-Healing and moving on
Sax makes it clear that protecting children begins with every parent in the home. Parents must view protecting children from the potential of sexual assault as a priority. Teaching children preventive measures should be viewed as important as teaching kids how to dial 9-1-1.
Sax concludes by emphasizing that the best defense against sexual offenders is information. Her book provides realistic answers to empower parents and educators, even in the face of one of life's scariest threats.

Author: Robin Sax
Paperback:  179 pages ISBN13: 9781591027126, Condition: NEW, Notes: Brand New from Publisher. No Remainder Mark.
Company: Prometheus Books  (2009-04-21)
ISBN: 1591027128
List Price: $17.98
Amazon Price: $6.11
Used Price: $5.10

---

Predators: Pedophiles, Rapists, And Other Sex Offenders

A world-renowned expert provides a psychological profile of serial sex offenders-how they think, how they deceive their victims, and how they elude the law. What motivates sexual abusers? Why are so few caught? Drawing on the stories of abusers, Anna C. Salter shows that sexual predators use sophisticated deception techniques and rely on misconceptions surrounding them to evade discovery. Arguing that even the most knowledgeable among us can be fooled, Salter dispels the myths about sexual predators and gives us the tools to protect our families and ourselves.

Author: Anna Salter
Paperback:  288 pages ISBN13: 9780465071739, Condition: NEW, Notes: Brand New from Publisher. No Remainder Mark.
Company: Basic Books  (2004-03) (2004-03-30)
ISBN: 0465071732
List Price: $17.95
Amazon Price: $8.10
Used Price: $7.01