Showing posts with label when cops are dicks. Show all posts
Showing posts with label when cops are dicks. Show all posts

Sunday, September 7, 2014

Please take one minute to sign this Change.org petition to revoke the bail of a cop who serially rapes Black women


First, here's the link to the Change.org petition:

https://www.change.org/p/gov-mary-fallin-revoke-the-bail-for-accused-serial-rapist-daniel-holtzclaw

With great thanks to Son of Baldwin: Twitter: https://twitter.com/SonofBaldwin, Tumblr: http://sonofbaldwin.tumblr.com/.

A few thousand more signatures will make a difference. So please share the Change.org link via Twitter and other social media. Thank you!

From Change.org's petition page:

Revoke the Bail for Accused Serial Rapist Daniel Holtzclaw

Revoke the Bail for Accused Serial Rapist Daniel Holtzclaw

Petition by

Son of Baldwin

Dear Governor Fallin:

We are outraged that Oklahoma City District Court Judge Timothy Henderson saw fit to offer bail to accused serial rapist (and possible murderer) Police Officer Daniel Holtzclaw. Not only did the judge offer an initial bail of $5 million, but REDUCED it to $500,000 for the sole purpose of allowing Holtzclaw to obtain his freedom. We believe the public safety is at risk for as long as Holtzclaw is allowed to remain outside of prison. 

Holtzclaw has been accused, by EIGHT WOMEN, of abusing his power and resources as a police officer as a means to rape them without consequence. These testimonies, given by women who do not know one another, are remarkably consistent and credible and, in the interest of social justice, we demand that Holtzclaw's bail be revoked so each of these women, and every other woman in the community, can be assured that Holtzclaw, through his considerable connections through the Oklahoma City Police Department, will not be able retaliate or enact some sort of revenge against his accusers. 

Anything less than that does not serve the public interest and will not only seem to be a suspicious and concerted strategy on the part of the local government to protect one of its own, but also an attempt by the local government to perpetuate institutionalized and systemic racism and sexism, as all of Holtzclaw's victims are black women. 

So much sympathy and concern have been placed with Holtzclaw and his family. Well, what about the victims and THEIR families?

We cannot imagine a single American agency allowing Holtzclaw mercy, much less bail, if he were black and his victims were white.

Please join us in our efforts to show the world that the United States of America is not a rape culture where rapists are protected and excused. Please show the world that the lives of black women do, indeed, matter. Instruct Judge Henderson to revoke Daniel Holtzclaw's bail.

Signed,

The Concerned Citizens of the World



To:
Gov. Mary Fallin, Oklahoma-05 
Revoke the Bail for Accused Serial Rapist Daniel Holtzclaw
Sincerely,
[Your name]

Tuesday, June 1, 2010

Challenging Users and Abusers of Prostitutes, including Traffickers and the Police: The Radical Feminist Work of Ruchira Gupta's organisation, A2W2, and of Sheila Jeffries

[a2w2 poster image is from here]

What does Audre Lorde mean when she says,
"the masters tools will never dismantle the masters house"?

From a larger sense, Lorde is suggesting that the notion of empowerment and reclamation of voice can only happen when there is a pure transformation of paradigm. Individuals that seek to enhance voice and discourse can only do so when they are committed to increasing power and sharing it with these voices. For example, if a company is not committed to racial and ethnic inclusion, but installs a person of color in their bevy of vice presidents or other executives, little, if anything, changes. The "master's house" is still present as well as the repression of voice. Simple and shallow forms of inclusion do not alter the imbalance of power in dynamics and relationships. Only when there is a true transformation, or dismantling of "the master's house," can there be change to the house and those who inhabit it. [source: here]


"Unless law enforcement agencies take action against
traffickers, no human rights programmes
for victims and survivors can be implemented."

"India must change its anti-trafficking law to
dismantle the system of prostitution immediately."

-- Ruchira Gupta, Geneva, 2010

One of many arguments put forth by pro-prostitution activists including pimps and procurers is concern for women's safety and how to assist in making the lives of women in some systems of prostitution safer. It is a matter that warrants careful review--not because pimps and procurers claim to care (I don't accept that they do). It ought to be a concern because the safety to women is an overarching concern, well beyond the scope of systems of prostitution, but within those systems, particular emotional, physical, and sexual abuses happen that are somewhat system-specific. So, for example, while men battering women ought to be an overarching concern for anyone concerned with human rights violations and social justice, pimps and procurers battering women in systems of prostitution (hereafter, s.o.p.) has its own dynamics, that aren't necessarily replicated in other systems. It is not, in the U.S., under general law, illegal for a woman outside s.o.p. to report a man battering her. But for a woman in prostitution, reporting abuses can result in her arrest and detainment in prison.

A pro-legalisation argument, often supported by procurers who want their 24/7 access and don't want it to be impeded by prostitutes being in jail, is that prostitutes could organise within brothels, possibly without a pimp, and have protections due to not having to be vulnerable on the street or when meeting men in places in which they are unfamiliar and know no one. At the end of this post is a counter-argument to that one, noting what is changing, due to technology, regarding procurement strategies. I stand with the girls and women of A2W2 and many other human rights organisations and activists across the globe who do not support legalisation of prostitution as a means of creating a better world for women inside and outside s.o.p. Any approach that legalises a form of white male supremacist activity and abuse is clearly using the master's tools.

First, though, is a report from the Times of India, focusing on some of the brilliant and brave work of Ruchira Gupta and the many girls and women who have escaped s.o.p., including those who were trafficked and enslaved. It is these girls and women to whom I look for guidance, particularly in that region but also beyond, on how best to deal with the overlapping in intricately interlinked het male (and frequently white) supremacist problems of prostitution, pimping, procurement, trafficking, and sexual slavery.

Both pieces are linked to by clicking on their respective titles.

CM vows to free girls from brothels
TNN, Jun 1, 2010, 06.11am IST
PATNA: During his Vishwas Yatra in Araria district on Sunday, chief minister Nitish Kumar visited Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidyalaya Girls' Hostel at Forbesganj and promised an inmate, Juhi Nat, rescued from a brothel, that he would ensure release of her friends from the clutches of human traffickers.

This residential school is being run by an organization `Apne Aap Women Worldwide (A2W2)'. The girls petitioned the CM for prompt action against traffickers who had forcibly taken away their fellow students for purpose of sexual exploitation.

"I will ensure action on this," Nitish told the girls. In fact, a few months back, the A2W2 had lodged a complaint with the CM and government officials and a team had visited the institute for an on-the-spot study. Some actions were also initiated, but the traffickers forcibly took away some teenaged girls and have allegedly detained them in home-based brothels in Rampur redlight area at Forbesganj where they are being sexually exploited.

Three 12-year-old girls, the institute complained, are trapped in home-based brothels for prostitution in spite of repeated complaints to the police and local authorities since January.

A couple of days before the CM visited the institute, founder president of A2W2 Ruchira Gupta took the case of the victim girls to an international seminar in Geneva, Switzerland, and explained how some brave girls and women, and men were in a face off with human traffickers and police.

Gupta was attending a seminar on `A Human Rights Approach on Combating Human Trafficking: Challenges and Opportunities' organized by the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights at the United Nations Office in Geneva.

"Unless law enforcement agencies take action against traffickers, no human rights programmes for victims and survivors can be implemented," she said. "India must change its anti-trafficking law to dismantle the system of prostitution immediately," said Gupta.

She appealed to member states, including India, to change their law based on the UN Protocol and put addressing the demand for trafficking, exploitation of victims and abuse of a person's vulnerability at the centre of the amended laws.

*          *          *
Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State and Society

Volume 17, Number 2, Summer 2010

E-ISSN: 1468-2893 Print ISSN: 1072-4745
Sheila Jeffreys

"Brothels without Walls": the Escort Sector as a Problem for the Legalization of Prostitution
Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State and Society - Volume 17, Number 2, Summer 2010, pp. 210-234

Oxford University Press

Abstract:
This article examines a developing trend in the prostitution industry in the western world, the boom in escort prostitution. Escort prostitution, operating through mobile phones and the Internet, is supplanting the brothel as the major form in which prostituted women are delivered to male buyers. Policy-makers who promote the legalization of the prostitution industry have argued that this policy will make prostituted women and girls safer and combat organized crime. These assumptions are based upon the idea that prostitution will take place in brothels which can institute health and safety codes, and enable easy identification of the illegal brothel industry which can be closed down. Escort prostitution provides particular challenges to the regulation of prostitution because there is no way in which it can be controlled or made "safe." Alongside the other harms associated with prostitution which are exacerbated in legalized regimes, this development provides a significant reason why the policy of legalization is doomed to fail in achieving its objectives. The problems associated with the escort boom will be examined in relation to the state of Queensland in Australia, and the Netherlands, jurisdictions in which the prostitution industry has been legalized.

Saturday, May 15, 2010

Ramona Africa, Sole Survivor of the U.S. "City of Brotherly Love"'s Militaristic Warriors Bombing Supposedly Free Citizens in order to "evict" them: MOVE, 25 years ago on 13 May 2010ECD

[this protest poster featuring Ramona Africa is from here]




25 Years Ago: Philadelphia Police Bombs MOVE Headquarters Killing 11, Destroying 65 Homes

1985_move_bombing_copy
Today marks the twenty-fifth anniversary of a massive police operation in Philadelphia that culminated in the helicopter bombing of the headquarters of a radical group known as MOVE. The fire from the attack killed six adults and five children and destroyed sixty-five homes. Despite two grand jury investigations and a commission finding that top officials were grossly negligent, no one from city government was criminally charged. MOVE was a Philadelphia-based radical movement that was dedicated to black liberation and a back-to-nature lifestyle. It was founded by John Africa, and all its members took on the surname Africa. We hear from Mumia Abu-Jamal and speak with Ramona Africa, the only adult survivor of the bombing.
Guest:
Mumia Abu-Jamal, journalist on death row in Pennsylvania. From a radio commentary recorded for PrisonRadio.org.
Ramona Africa, only adult member of MOVE to survive the 1985 bombing. She escaped with major burns by crawling through a basement window with a thirteen-year-old boy then known as Birdie Africa. Ramona went on to serve seven years in prison on a riot charge.



JUAN GONZALEZ: 
Today marks the twenty-fifth anniversary of a massive police operation in Philadelphia that culminated in the helicopter bombing of the headquarters of a radical group known as MOVE. The fire from the attack killed six adults and five children and destroyed sixty-five homes, an entire neighborhood. Despite the two grand jury investigations and a commission finding that top officials were grossly negligent, no one from city government was criminally charged.

MOVE was a Philadelphia-based radical movement that was dedicated to black liberation and a back-to-nature lifestyle. It was founded by John Africa, and all its members took on the surname Africa.

We’ll be joined in a moment from Philadelphia by Ramona Africa. At the time of the bombing, she was the sole adult survivor in the house. She escaped with major burns by crawling through a basement window with a thirteen-year-old boy then known as Birdie Africa. Ramona went on to serve seven years in prison on a riot charge.

But first, here’s a clip from Mumia Abu-Jamal’s latest commentary from death row.

May 13th at twenty-five. May 13th, 1985 is more than a day of infamy, when a city waged war on its own alleged citizens, but also when the city committed massacre and did so with perfect impunity, when babies were shot and burned alive with their mothers and fathers, and the killers rewarded with honors and pensions, while politicians talked and the media mediated mass murder. On that day, the city, armed and assisted by the US government, dropped a bomb on a house and called it law. The fire department watched buildings ignite like matches in the desert and cut off water. The courts of the land turned a blind eye, daubed mud in their socket, and prosecuted Ramona Africa for having the nerve to survive an urban holocaust, jailing her for the crime of not burning to death. Eleven men, women and children died, and not one killer was even charged with a misdemeanor.

But on that day, more than MOVE members died. The city died, too. Its politicians died, its media died, its courts died, and its churches and houses of worship died, for they ceased to function, and they served power and money. In a very real sense, the city massacred itself, for one’s faith in such institutions died. They became empty, hollow and dead, but for the shell. May 13th, 1985 is a day that shall live in infamy, but for far more reasons than the obvious. It was the death knell of a system committing suicide. It proved that a man called John Africa spoke powerful truths when he spoke about the nature of the system as corrupt, as flawed, as poisoned. Every day past that date has only proved it even more.

From death row, this is Mumia Abu-Jamal.
AMY GOODMAN: 
Mumia Abu-Jamal also a former Philadelphia reporter, that commentary courtesy of the Prison Radio Project. 

Ramona Africa joins us now from Philadelphia on this twenty-fifth anniversary of the MOVE bombing.

Ramona, welcome to Democracy Now! Go back twenty-five years ago. You were the sole adult survivor of the police bombing, May 13th, 1985. Describe what happened as the bomb was falling on your house.

RAMONA AFRICA: 
OK, the first thing I want people to understand is that that bombing did not happen because of some complaints from neighbors. This government had never cared about black folks complaining about their neighbors or any other people complaining about their neighbors. They bombed us because of our unrelenting fight for our family members, known as the MOVE 9, who have been in prison unjustly going on thirty-two years now, as a result of the August 8th, 1978 police attack on MOVE. I just wanted to make that clear.

In terms of the bombing, after being attacked the way we were, first with four deluge hoses by the fire department and then tons of tear gas, and then being shot at—the police admit to shooting over 10,000 rounds of bullets at us in the first ninety minutes—there was a lull. You know, it was quiet for a little bit. And then, without any warning at all, two members of the Philadelphia Police Department’s bomb squad got in a Pennsylvania state police helicopter and flew over our home and dropped a satchel containing C4, a powerful military explosive that no municipal police department has. They had to get it from the federal government, from the FBI. And without any announcement or warning or anything, they dropped that bomb on the roof of our home.

Now, at that point, we didn’t know exactly what they had done. We heard the loud explosion. The house kind of shook. But it never entered my mind that they dropped a bomb on us. But the bomb did in fact ignite a fire. And not long after that, it got very, very hot in the house, and the smoke was getting thicker. At first we thought it was tear gas. But as it got thicker, it became clear that this wasn’t tear gas, that this was something else. And then we could hear the trees outside of our house crackling and realized that our home was on fire. And we immediately tried to get our children, our animals, our dogs and cats, and ourselves out of that blazing inferno.

The adults were hollering out that we’re coming out, we’re bringing the children out. The children were hollering that they were coming out, that we were bringing them out. And we know that the police heard us. But the instant, the very instant, that we were visible to them, you know, trying to come out, they immediately opened fire. We were met with a barrage of police gunfire. And you could see it hitting all around us, all around the house. And it forced us back in to that blazing inferno, several times. And finally, you know, you’re in a position where either you choke to death and burn alive or you possibly are shot to death.

So we continued to try to get out of that house. And I got out. I got Birdie out. You could hear the shots hitting all around us. A cop grabbed Birdie, took him into custody, grabbed me, they threw me down on the ground and handcuffed, you know, me behind me, in the back of me. And I just knew that everybody else had gotten out. They were right behind me. And I didn’t find out until police took me to the homicide unit of the police administration building that there were no other survivors.

AMY GOODMAN: Ramona Africa, the sole adult survivor. Six adults, five children killed that day. Juan, you were a reporter for thePhiladelphia Daily News.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Yeah.

AMY GOODMAN: You were there on the corner when this happened.

JUAN GONZALEZ:
Yeah. Well, Ramona, as you recalled, it was a—it was May 13th, but it was a Sunday that year, and it was Mother’s Day. And I’ll never forget, because the confrontation started early in the day and went for most of the day, and I remember precisely when that helicopter dropped the C4, because I was about a block away with my fellow Philadelphia Daily News reporter and longtime friend Linn Washington. And we saw the helicopter hovering overhead, and we said, “What’s that helicopter doing?” But we didn’t understand what it was up to at that point. We turned around, when all of a sudden the explosion goes off.

But the aspect that many people are not aware of, that as that fire raged, we remember the fire trucks, as you mention, that had been hosing down the building beforehand, suddenly the firefighters were just ordered to stand down, and they allowed the fire to rage, I would estimate, for—it must have been about an hour. And of course, eventually, the flames not only destroyed your house, but then destroyed sixty-five other houses, all in the entire neighborhood. But the firemen just stood there, under orders not to douse the fire, because they were trying to basically force you out.

The other aspect of the story, I think, and as you mentioned, was what happened in the rear as they attempted to shoot the MOVE members as they went out, because the stories the next day, in my newspaper then, in the Philadelphia Inquirer, were, because basically they came from police sources, that the MOVE members had tried to shoot their way out, when it was actually a—it later clearly—your story was backed up by the commission, that basically the police ended up shooting you down—

RAMONA AFRICA: And by Birdie Africa.

JUAN GONZALEZ: —as you attempted to come out. And—but the—

RAMONA AFRICA: You know—

JUAN GONZALEZ: Go ahead.

RAMONA AFRICA: Why MOVE people talk about how this system intended to kill MOVE, that this was not an attempt to arrest. They came out there to literally wipe MOVE out, exterminate MOVE. People want to poo-poo us and act like, “Oh, you’re just taking it out.” But the fact that they deliberately shot at us as we tried to exit the building and the fact that you just brought up of how, you know, firefighters stood there and allowed that fire to burn, I defy people to tell me, you know, when William Richmond or really any other fire commissioner or firefighters had made a decision to let a fire burn in a building, a row house, where there are men, women, babies and animals inside. I mean, firefighters are known for running into burning buildings to save people. Now, William Richmond tried to excuse or explain away, you know, their actions by saying he wasn’t going to have his firefighters, you know, in danger or come under fire from MOVE. But for hours, when there was no fire, they put—they had four deluge hoses, each of which pump out 10,000 pounds of water pressure, according to them. They aimed those water hoses at our home for hours in the morning of May 13. Now, why wasn’t it a danger then? It’s only a danger when in fact there is a fire? I mean, it is very clear to any fairminded person looking at this situation that their intent was to kill. Wilson Goode said he wanted a permanent end to MOVE. That’s what he said.

JUAN GONZALEZ: And, of course, this was the second confrontation between the police and MOVE, following the 1978 shootout that occurred, where Police Officer Ramp was killed and where Delbert Africa was beaten senseless in front of all the television cameras as he attempted to surrender after that standoff. Could you talk about the impact—

RAMONA AFRICA: Yes. 

JUAN GONZALEZ: —that that had on how you regarded, as you were in that house, what could happen to you?

RAMONA AFRICA: 
Oh, absolutely, it had an impact on, you know, our realization of May 13th, 1985. We know that in 1978 they came out to kill MOVE then, too. I mean, you had cops testifying during the later trial that it was dark in the basement of MOVE headquarters in ‘78, so they couldn’t really see, but they emptied their guns, reloaded, and emptied them again in corners where they heard babies crying. Now, that’s not an attempt to kill? What crime had the babies committed, you know?

It is obvious that MOVE did not kill Officer James Ramp, by their own, you know, admissions. James Ramp was shot with the bullet traveling on a downward angle. That’s what the system’s medical examiner determined and stands by. How could anybody in a basement shoot somebody standing on street level above them on a downward angle? It’s physically impossible. Second of all, why would the city send a demolition team out within hours after arresting MOVE people and completely demolish the scene of the crime? Vital evidence in a murder case where a cop is killed. They would have preserved every bit of evidence they could get their hands on if they really believed that MOVE killed a cop, you know?

So we know what their intent was, and knowing that they were coming after us again, we knew that they were going to try to come stronger than they did in ‘78, because they were upset, they were angry, they were pissed off, that they had not killed MOVE in 1978. So, coming out there to Osage, you know, after MOVE again, we knew their intent was to really get the job done this time. It wasn’t about an arrest. Both situations, they keep using this word “eviction,” that they were coming out to evict MOVE. Since when are evictions held, you know, carried out, by hundreds of cops armed for war? In ’85, they had—

AMY GOODMAN: Ramona, we have five seconds.

RAMONA AFRICA: —nine-millimeter Uzis, .50-caliber machine guns. OK, well, they came out there with the weaponry of war. War. Their intent was to kill.

AMY GOODMAN: Ramona Africa, sole adult survivor of the May 13th, 1985 police MOVE bombing that killed eleven people, five of them children. That does it for our broadcast. Juan Gonzalez, a reporter for the Philadelphia Daily News at the time. You can go to our website at democracynow.org to see some of the images.

Thursday, March 18, 2010

Think Dick Tracy: "Dick" is a Synonym for Cops who are Detectives for a Reason, too often

[image is from here]

What follows after my short rant is a cross post from Stop Sexist Remarks blog, here. I am sorry to hear that any woman would have to hear this kind of infuriating CRAP from any law enforcement personnel, but the law is, after all, WHM supremacist. So why am surprised. I'm not. I'm infuriated. I've encountered this shit before. Immediate job termination for any police detective should be mandatory should an officer of the law make a woman feel responsible for men's violations of her. To the cop mentioned below: FUCK YOU!

To Cynthia: I'm sorry this happened. It's disgusting what he said/did. And what the other guy did, of course. Blaming women for being violated by men OUTSIDE THEIR HOMES because the women dress comfortably INSIDE their own homes... Grrrrr. Classic misogynist blaming of the victim. And of course some asshole men blame women for "enticing" them. To those men: get your balls cut off and stay inside your own homes, with shades drawn so you can't be "enticed" by what a neighbor woman is wearing in her own home.

The Serious Nature of Sexist Remarks

One summer night soon after I had graduated from college oh so many years ago, I settled into my favorite chair to talk by phone with the man I was seeing. We were in the final throes of summer, the weather was warm, and light had begun fading a little earlier each evening. The windows of the small house I was renting were open, the shades flapping gently with the breeze. As dusk descended, I glanced up from our engaging conversation to see what looked like a man staring in one of my windows.

My friend told me to hang up, call the police, shut all the windows and then call him back; he would stay on the phone with me until the police arrived. The lone male officer who showed up did a quick tour of the perimeter of my property and returned to my front door to report that he hadn’t seen anyone and if there was someone at the window, they must have moved on. As he was leaving, he turned around and said, “You probably shouldn’t sit around your house wearing shorts like those.”

I was startled then and I am angry now when I think about that remark. If a man broke into my home, was I to believe that I caused him to do so because I was wearing running shorts in the privacy of my living room? Was I not allowed to leave my curtains open because to do so was an invitation to others to come onto my property to watch what I was doing? (It should be noted that you could not see into my living room from the street.) When I think about that comment, it reminds of the importance of the work we are doing to stop sexist remarks.

The messages that we send to women by suggesting that they adjust their behavior in light of the potential actions of others is dangerous. It establishes boundaries that women must live within to be safe or acceptable and therefore—oh so subtly—sets limits on almost all the life choices they will make.

I wish that I could say that times have changed and that those types of messages were a thing of the past—but they are not. We hear them daily, and they seep into our consciousness—the judge who calls attention to the clothing of a young girl who was victimized, the scholar who suggests that girls aren’t good at math or science, and the pundits who describe a woman politician as not attractive enough (or the female newswoman as too attractive). They rob us of our freedom to be who we are, to make the most of our talents, and to select from an array of options when deciding how we want to live our lives.

Sexist comments are not harmless “slips of the tongue” or teasing remarks that we need to “get over.” Sexist comments are serious messages about women that help to define our culture, and we ignore them at our own risk.

Cynthia