Republicans for Rape

Below is the list of thirty legislators who were brave enough to stand up in defense of rape and vote against Senator Al Franken's anti-rape amendment to the 2009 Defense Appropriations bill. We applaud these courageous men! Roll over the portraits with your mouse to see the Senator's phone number, or click on a portrait to visit the Senator's contact page. We encourage you to send your kind words to these gentlemen!

http://www.republicansforrape.org/legislators/

smcfay said:

Below is the list of thirty legislators who were brave enough to stand up in defense of rape and vote against Senator Al Franken's anti-rape amendment to the 2009 Defense Appropriations bill. We applaud these courageous men! Roll over the portraits with your mouse to see the Senator's phone number, or click on a portrait to visit the Senator's contact page. We encourage you to send your kind words to these gentlemen!

http://www.republicansforrape.org/legislators/

Click to expand...

Riiiggghhhttttttt...... yeah, I'm sure these 30 members voted like this to "stand up in defense of rape."

Did you even read what the bill is? (I know the answer is no). Let's look at a summary of the case which led Franken to make this ammendment:

http://www.pressconnects.com/articl.../910150388/30-Republicans-Deny-Anti-Rape-Bill

"In 2005, a nineteen year old girl was raped by her Halliburton co-workers, but because of the small print in her contract, Jaime Leigh Jones was refused the right to sue Halliburton. After being raped , the workers held her in a container for 24 hours before allowing her out."

Now, here is the actual amendment.

To prohibit the use of funds for any Federal contract with Halliburton Company, KBR, Inc., any of their subsidiaries or affiliates, or any other contracting party if such contractor or a subcontractor at any tier under such contract requires that employees or independent contractors sign mandatory arbitration clauses regarding certain claims.

So, because the co-workers did it, and held her, she can sue the company? Where does it say that she is not able to sue the people that raped her? Say they killed her, does her signing this contract mean that the workers get a free pass and wouldn't be charged for murder too? If I work in a bank, and one of the other bank tellers commits a crime against me, should I sue/charge the person, or the company?

Further, she willingly signed the contract that stated she had to seek arbitration for certain claims against the company. So what? KBR is a gigantic company, why should the entire company have to be sued because of a few rotten apples in the company? Also, now the federal contracts these companies have with the government would become null and void if they have an employment clause like this where actions against the company are sent to arbitration, I'm not sure exactly what contracts Haliburton and KBR has with the Government (and I am by no means defending the shady ways of Haliburton execs being in bed with government and getting these contracts), but this bill means that the company flat out loses their contract with a clause like this... huh? Why does this make sense??


Here's a quote from Bob Corker, one of the 30 Senators who voted against the bill.


"This vote has been grossly misunderstood, oversimplified, and misreported. Senator Corker, the father of two daughters, believes what happened to Jamie Leigh Jones is abhorrent and that the culprits should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law; further, he agrees that rape, battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress should not be arbitrated, but the Franken amendment went far beyond the ill it was trying to remedy to encompass most possible employment claims," said Laura Lefler Herzog, communications director for Corker.


Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/19/defense-department-oppose_n_326569.html

I am by NO means defending KBR/Halliburton's response to this particular example, nor would I ever defend any kind of rape. But what right does the Federal Government have to impede in employee-employer contracts which are voluntarily signed? There's no way to know exactly what her contract said without scanning it and reading through all of it. But, there is a much much bigger contract you may have heard of, called the Bill of Rights, which allows her the right to press charges against those who committed a crime against her, which would be heard by an impartial jury.

Make sense? Or is this still the "evil republicans standing up in defense of rape" bill?

Ironslave said:

I am by NO means defending KBR/Halliburton's response to this particular example, nor would I ever defend any kind of rape. But what right does the Federal Government have to impede in employee-employer contracts which are voluntarily signed? There's no way to know exactly what her contract said without scanning it and reading through all of it. But, there is a much much bigger contract you may have heard of, called the Bill of Rights, which allows her the right to press charges against those who committed a crime against her, which would be heard by an impartial jury.

Make sense? Or is this still the "evil republicans standing up in defense of rape" bill?

Click to expand...

Good post. I am not sure how things work in the states, but in Canada but there are certain things that even signing a contract can protect a company from. In this case, I think their ant-arbitration clause would be shot down pretty quick. The difference between under-duress and voluntary is blurry at best when employment is involved.

I wholeheartedly agree that the senators who are voting against this are in noway supporting rape. This whole thing is ridiculous. IS is right on this one.

Good points IronSlave but Im just keeping this board active. In no way does this reflect my views.

An amendment that would prevent the gov. from working with contractors who denied victims of assault the right to bring their case to court.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/22/frankens-anti-rape-amendm_n_329896.html

smcfay said:

Good points IronSlave but Im just keeping this board active. In no way does this reflect my views.

Click to expand...

If it doesn't reflect your views, why create a topic called "republicans for rape" and accuse them of standing up in defense of rape?

Thats the name of the web page? you can delete it if it offends..I thought this board was open to free speech.

smcfay said:

I thought this board was open to free speech.

Click to expand...

Don't be thick.

Line said:

Don't be thick.

Click to expand...

I'd agree. Free speech is only open to those with an actual knowledge and understanding of a topic.

Unlike everywhere else we have standards.

smcfay said:

Thats the name of the web page? you can delete it if it offends..I thought this board was open to free speech.

Click to expand...

The forum is, and nobody is saying it is offensive, I'm sorry if you thought I was implying that... I'm just curious though why you made the topic if you don't agree with it? That's all... you didn't indicate anything otherwise.