GOP Defending Rapists?

Bigfella · 10-16-2009, 18:29 PM

In recent weeks there has been tremendous criticism (including from numerous WAB members) of those in France & the US who would allow Roman Polanski to go unpunished for his 1977 rape.

What then are we to make of the 30 Republican Senators who apparently think it is OK for corporations to protect their employees from some of the consequences of raping somebody. In a sane world these Senators would be held up to all the anger & ridicule directed at Polanski's defenders. In a sane world that is.

The first link is to a segment on the 'Daily Show' that pretty much nails it.

Jon Stewart Lambastes 30 Republican Senators Who Voted to Sanction Rape | BuzzFlash.org

Quote:

Senator Al Franken’s Anti-Rape Amendment Closes Government-Corporate Loophole

By Jessica Corsi

In a strange legal loophole, American companies—including those that receive government contracts such as Halliburton—can require their employees to sign contracts waiving their right to bring a civil trial against fellow employees that rape or otherwise sexually assault them. This egregious loophole was first spotlighted when Jamie Leigh Jones, a former contractor for one-time Halliburton subsidiary KBR, spoke out against her gang raped by fellow contractors, which took place on the 4th day of her job for KBR in Baghdad in 2005. Her contract and similar contracts block an employee from bringing suit in court by requiring binding arbitration out of court, rendering this private arbitration the victim’s only legal option. Shamefully, U.S. law allowed for this and the U.S. government paid hefty sums to the companies that invented and maintained these contracts.

Senator Al Franken (D-MN) pushed through an amendment on October 7 that takes a step toward closing this loophole. This amendment prohibits the U.S. government from contracting with companies that prevent their employees from accessing the U.S. justice system regarding rape and sexual assault claims. The main issue is that allowing private companies to present their employees with these contracts is repugnant to society’s interests in preventing and prosecuting rape and all violence against women. Using U.S. money to enlist the services of such companies flies in the face of laws against rape and violence against women and the Constitutional right to one’s day in court.

Strangely, 30 Republican senators opposed this amendment, and the amendment’s only opponents were Republicans. The amendment is an important and yet small and glaringly obvious move towards combating rape. Senators such as Jeff Sessions (R-AL) opposed what he called government interference in private contracts, arguing that “[t]he Congress should not be involved in writing or rewriting private contracts. That’s just not how we should handle matters in the United States Senate.” This statement is a mischaracterization of the amendment. What the amendment does not do—but what some yet to be proposed piece of legislation should do—is prohibit these types of contracts when they interfere with civil suits regarding egregious crimes such as rape that all members of society are invested in eradicating. The amendment allows such contracts to persist; it simply bars government funding for companies that continue to contract in this manner. Thus, the claim that the private right to contract is interfered with rings hollow. But more importantly, there should not be and arguably is not a right to contract out of one’s right to bring a civil suit against rapists. No one would think that we should allow contracts barring suit for attempted murder, brutal beatings, child abuse, pedophilia, or other crimes we consider heinous. Why would be allow contracts that prohibit bringing rape and sexual assault into our justice system?

While work remains to be done to get rid of these types of contracts altogether on the grounds that they are repugnant to society’s interests in combating rape, it is certainly the right move for the U.S. government to stop funding companies that obstruct justice and sanction violence against women through these binding arbitration clauses. It is also a small victory in developing government regulation regarding the interaction between private companies and human rights.

Senator Al Franken’s Anti-Rape Amendment Closes Government-Corporate Loophole | Human Rights

gunnut · 10-16-2009, 18:55 PM

1. What was this amendment attached to?

2. Was she forced to sign a contract waiving her right?

**Parihaka** · 10-16-2009, 19:47 PM

W.T.F.?? Since when can a company contract superceed national law? Who the feck voted that stupendous idiocy in in the first place?

gunnut · 10-16-2009, 19:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Parihaka

W.T.F.?? Since when can a company contract superceed national law? Who the feck voted that stupendous idiocy in in the first place?

The law was not superceded. She merely signed away her right to sue. I signed away my right to sue my former employer upon my layoff, in exchange for extra pay. I didn't have to sign that paper. She didn't have to either.

citanon · 10-16-2009, 23:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gunnut

The law was not superceded. She merely signed away her right to sue. I signed away my right to sue my former employer upon my layoff, in exchange for extra pay. I didn't have to sign that paper. She didn't have to either.

Right, this is purely a civil issue. It does not affect criminal prosecutions.

ZekeJones · 10-19-2009, 00:42 AM

Arbitration should deal with beefs with the company, such as unpaid wages or unsafe working conditions. It shouldn't cover criminal matters such as Rape or other physical abuses.

zraver · 10-19-2009, 00:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Parihaka

W.T.F.?? Since when can a company contract superceed national law? Who the feck voted that stupendous idiocy in in the first place?

It does not supersede the law, criminal acts still get prosecuted. Almost every American adult is party to a binding arbitration contract. Home mortgages, credit cards, insurance plans, and even conditions of employment are subject to them. Biding arbitration is usually faster than the courts and less expensive both Congress and the Court have upheld it time and again.

However it does have its down side when its Joe Average vs big business. Joe is likely to not need a lot of binding arbitration so his ability to bring repeat business to the arbitrator is limited, Where as big business will bring claim after claim and who likes to bite the hand that feeds them. In this area binding arbitration is in need of reform. Possibly by compiling a pool that gets assigned cases randomly so that the companies have no choice in who they get.

highsea · 10-19-2009, 16:39 PM

The OP misrepresents the current law. The victim could still sue the individuals who perpretrated the crime, just not the company (assuming they signed the waiver of liability).

gunnut- the amendment was tacked onto the defense Appropriations Bill for FY01.

The Supreme Court has already ruled that someone can't sue under Federal Civil Rights laws for rape, so I don't know what Federal law the victim could sue under. I don't think there are any Federal Laws against rape, since criminal law is under State jurisdiction- e.g. there is no Federal Law against murder.

The law now holds the company liable for the acts of individuals, which is a great big can of worms. I can see companies like Boeing and Lockmart being blocked from contracts under the law for actions completely outside the workplace.

Also, it takes away arbritation as an option for the victim, and forces them into the courts as their only recourse. Something that can be drawn out for years and years as long as the company is willing to throw lawyer money at the problem.

pate · 11-15-2009, 02:01 AM

Seriously, you are using Jon Stewart as a reference?

10-16-2009, 18:55 PM	#2 (permalink)
gunnut *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 01-27-06 Location: DPRK, Democratik People's Republik of Kalifornia Posts: 16,047 Country:	1. What was this amendment attached to? 2. Was she forced to sign a contract waiving her right? __________________ "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

10-19-2009, 00:42 AM	#6 (permalink)
ZekeJones Patron Join Date: 07-28-08 Posts: 185	Arbitration should deal with beefs with the company, such as unpaid wages or unsafe working conditions. It shouldn't cover criminal matters such as Rape or other physical abuses. Last edited by ZekeJones; 10-19-2009 at 00:58 AM.. Reason: spelling

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread:

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
GOP base still wild about Palin	nebula82	American Politics	0	09-29-2009 11:29 AM
GOP State Parties Outraise Dems	Ironduke	American Politics	1	04-04-2008 09:48 AM
Democrats Hugely Outvoting GOP	Ironduke	American Politics	0	02-07-2008 06:11 AM
GOP Plants Flag on New Voting Frontier	Gio	American Politics	1	11-22-2004 10:26 AM

10-16-2009, 19:47 PM	#3 (permalink)
Parihaka Global Moderator Join Date: 11-10-04 Posts: 13,142 Country:	W.T.F.?? Since when can a company contract superceed national law? Who the feck voted that stupendous idiocy in in the first place?

10-19-2009, 16:39 PM	#8 (permalink)
highsea *Defense Professional* Join Date: 12-10-04 Location: Seattle, WA Posts: 4,405	The OP misrepresents the current law. The victim could still sue the individuals who perpretrated the crime, just not the company (assuming they signed the waiver of liability). gunnut- the amendment was tacked onto the defense Appropriations Bill for FY01. The Supreme Court has already ruled that someone can't sue under Federal Civil Rights laws for rape, so I don't know what Federal law the victim could sue under. I don't think there are any Federal Laws against rape, since criminal law is under State jurisdiction- e.g. there is no Federal Law against murder. The law now holds the company liable for the acts of individuals, which is a great big can of worms. I can see companies like Boeing and Lockmart being blocked from contracts under the law for actions completely outside the workplace. Also, it takes away arbritation as an option for the victim, and forces them into the courts as their only recourse. Something that can be drawn out for years and years as long as the company is willing to throw lawyer money at the problem.

11-15-2009, 02:01 AM	#9 (permalink)
pate Contributor Join Date: 07-05-08 Location: I've got my helmet on; you can't tell me I'm not in space! Posts: 692 Country:	Seriously, you are using Jon Stewart as a reference?

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)