DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Even Greener Pastures
HTML https://evengreener.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: General Discussion
*****************************************************
#Post#: 13733--------------------------------------------------
Violence against women, a white, English problem
By: NealC Date: March 27, 2019, 6:25 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Joe Biden, vice President of Barack Obama, Democratic front
runner for 2020:
"Biden called on Americans to “change the culture” that dates
back centuries and allows pervasive violence against women.
“It’s an English jurisprudential culture, a white man’s culture.
It’s got to change,” he said."
Yes, because violence or even prejudice against women are simply
unknown in Black or Asian societies, and English law has always
been powerless to stop it, Hell it probably even instigated a
lot of it.
It is a Damn shame that anything white or European or Christian,
for that matter, had anything to do with the founding of this
country.
With so much white guilt, how does he not just kill himself? He
would be doing the democrats a favor.
#Post#: 13735--------------------------------------------------
Re: Violence against women, a white, English problem
By: Alharacas Date: March 27, 2019, 8:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Neal, while I agree that violence against women is by no means
restricted to white people, it is true, isn't it, that English
laws were largely made by white men?
As to those laws instigating violence against women, I'm not
qualified to have an opinion, knowing as little about either US
or British laws as I do. I do know, however, that up until about
a hundred years ago (and in some respects even much longer),
laws in Germany were indeed responsible for quite a lot of
violence against women.
And perhaps you (or Steven?) could put me right on one aspect of
US (and British) laws: I was under the impression that both in
the US and in the UK, in case a man was accused of having raped
a woman, the woman's background, dress, consumption of
drugs/alcohol and the history of her past and current sexual
relationships would be minutely examined. If this is either not
true at all, or has changed at some point, I'll rest my case. :)
#Post#: 13736--------------------------------------------------
Re: Violence against women, a white, English problem
By: Truman Overby Date: March 27, 2019, 10:06 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Alharacas link=topic=929.msg13735#msg13735
date=1553695198]
I was under the impression that both in the US and in the UK,
in case a man was accused of having raped a woman, the woman's
background, dress, consumption of drugs/alcohol and the history
of her past and current sexual relationships would be minutely
examined.
[/quote]
It used to be the case but I'm pretty sure that that sort of
background is not admissible these days. I've read that it would
only be admitted if there were a pattern on the part of the
woman of falsely accusing men of r a p e.
I don't what relevance it is to say that white men wrote the
laws. What law in US or English jurisprudence makes r a p e
legal?
#Post#: 13738--------------------------------------------------
Re: Violence against women, a white, English problem
By: NealC Date: March 27, 2019, 12:12 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Alharacas, you are right and I am not arguing that laws needed
to be changed to include women and minorities. We have made
those changes.
My argument is our heritage -- especially coming from English
jurisprudence (and dare I say, through them from the Romans),
created a robust and healthy system of law and justice that was
easily changed to mold to modern times. It was white men who
changed the laws, freed the slaves, enfranchised women,
guaranteed civil rights. My further argument is that the legal
jurisprudence we inherited from England in the 1600's was far
superior to much of what was going on in the world at the time,
and in some ways superior to what I still see in the world. The
idea that oppressing women is somehow a white issue is entirely
preposterous.
Biden is old, and white, and he thinks that in order to become
president he has to appeal to the far left in his party. He is
the worst sort of lizard, willing to change anything about
himself if it makes him more appealing to whatever liberal
wackadoos are currently in ascendance. I think he will find if
the way to appeal to them is to eviscerate our heritage he is
going to have a serious backlash.
It is my hope that he is crowned by the Democrats as the nominee
in a manner similar to Hilary. That would be wonderful.
#Post#: 13743--------------------------------------------------
Re: Violence against women, a white, English problem
By: SHL Date: March 27, 2019, 2:01 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Alharacas link=topic=929.msg13735#msg13735
date=1553695198]
Neal, while I agree that violence against women is by no means
restricted to white people, it is true, isn't it, that English
laws were largely made by white men?
As to those laws instigating violence against women, I'm not
qualified to have an opinion, knowing as little about either US
or British laws as I do. I do know, however, that up until about
a hundred years ago (and in some respects even much longer),
laws in Germany were indeed responsible for quite a lot of
violence against women.
And perhaps you (or Steven?) could put me right on one aspect of
US (and British) laws: I was under the impression that both in
the US and in the UK, in case a man was accused of having raped
a woman, the woman's background, dress, consumption of
drugs/alcohol and the history of her past and current sexual
relationships would be minutely examined. If this is either not
true at all, or has changed at some point, I'll rest my case. :)
[/quote]
Yes Alharacas, the British Common Law was entirely made by men.
The reason is Britain had (and to a far lesser extent still has)
an aristocracy, which they celebrate more or less to this day,
which was 100% male-dominated. British Common Law has to be
distinguished from the French Napoleonic Code, which you and the
rest of Europe have. The British Common Law was Judge made law
through judicial precedent, a concept that did not and still
doesn’t exist in continental European judicial systems. A Common
Law Judge was always a member of the British Royal Class, hence
highly respected. So, if a British Judge said something was the
law, it was the law. He was a Nobelman. You had to respect him,
like a king. That`s why Judges get the respect they do in the US
to this day. Visit a US courtroom and you`ll see a stark
difference from one in Germany. Here, only Judges get to wear
the black rode ( a symbol of power). The lawyers are not allowed
to: male lawyers have to wear suits but women wear what they
want. American Judges are guarded by armed guards with loaded
guns, called Bailiffs (at least one per courtroom, sometimes
two). I`ve visited German courts and it´s totally different. The
lawyers wear black robes too, so there is parity between the
Judges and the attorneys. The Judges have no armed guards in
Germany. You don`t show respect for the Judge in Germany by
standing up when he or she enters the room (as is often the case
in the US, not always depending on the Judge). US Judges sit
higher on comfortable benches looking down on the audience,
again a sign of power and control, much like a King in Britain.
In Germany they often just sit at a table like everyone else.
(They are variables, but this is what I observed).
In Europe Judges tend to be mostly considered just a notch above
simple clerks. There, law making bodies, legislations make
laws, not Judges. But Common Law countries are different, which
is why we have the concept of case prescedent-an appellate court
(3 Judges, maybe more) decide what a law means -words mean
whatever the Judges say they mean- and their job is the
interpret the laws of the legislature and Constitution, the
supreme law of the country, and decide what those words mean
too. That´s how they make laws, through interpretation. Common
Law jurisdiction have always had legislatures too, it´s only
that the Judge`s role was much more powerful in Common Law
jurisdictions. Only a superior court or a legislature could
overrule a Judge made law under the Common Law. British Common
Law was exported to all its ex-colonies. That´s not how it works
under the Nepolanic Code where Judges just decide the case
before them, and their decisions are not binding on anyone
outside the court. When you study law, say in the US, you study
case law, Judge-made law, not the actual laws themselves. You
only study the laws as seen and interpreted by the Judges
looking at them and their decisions about the laws and what they
mean.
Germany rather liked the notion of allowing a Constitutional
Court (das Verfassungsgericht) to declare certain laws as
Verfassungswidrig (unconstitutional and thus invalid), but that
was after the war and was borrowed from the US Common Law
tradition.
In the US, national abortion rights are the result of Judge made
law (from 1973). These were not laws made by elected officials.
The same is true of same sex marriage rights (nationwide). These
were all US Constitutional Court decisions. The were a few
States that allowed same sex marriage before the Supreme Court
Judge-made law on the subject, but they were in the minority.
For example, Mississippi would have never in a 1000 years have
allowed same sex marriage if it hadn`t been forced on them by
the US Supreme Court. They wouldn`t have allowed blacks equal
rights in 1000 years if it weren`t forced on them by federal
law. And, no surprise they were one of all states (except
Louisiana) that adopted and stuck to British Common Law probably
better than any other State.
My opinion is that the British Common law, along with most of
their tradition, were appallingly stupid, bigoted, and in most
cases flat out nonsensical. The British had a habit of exporting
their really dumb laws to their colonies and then when the
colony gained independence one way or another, the British would
run home and abandon the former colonies leaving them their dumb
Common Law law tradition. As soon as the would be back to
Britain they usually changed their own laws to update them,
leaving the colonies to fend for themselves with no guidance and
sometimes it taking years to do away with some of the nonsense
the Brits left them with. Under British Common Law is was
considered illegal to commit suicide (figure that one out, but
they invented penalties anyway for it- an ignominious burial and
the forfeiture of all your property to the king). Sodomy (any
homosexual activity) was illegal under the British Common Law
(which is why Jamaica, Nigeria, Guyana, India and all African
countries still have it, except South Africa). No rhyme or
reason for it. It was just the Common Law. (Yet Britain repealed
its anti-sodomy laws in 1967). It was considered impossible for
a woman to r a p e a man (which is absurd). Husbands couldn’t r
a p e their wives (now changed since 1979 in California). And
the list of idiocy the Common Law produced just goes on and on.
One of the funniest examples of the British Common Law was the
definition of when a man was considered an adult (and ceased
being a child). Funny, since everyone pretty much agrees now,
even in the US, that the age of majority is 18. The British
Common Law age was 21 (which is why the US has a 21 year old
drinking age). Ever wonder what´s so special about that magic
age 21? It goes right back to British Common Law (the European
Continent never had this). It was the age by which a young
knight was considered strong enough to be able to lift his armor
without the need of help. Brilliant. What genius dreamed that
one up? Of course, the Brits quickly dropped that silly law, but
left their colonies with it, and left them figure it out
themselves. The age 21 as having any legal meaning is a pure
British Common Law import. And that age still exists in many of
Britain`s ex-colonies.
But back to your original question, in California (I can`t speak
to the laws of other States because I don`t know anything about
them), no, a woman`s sexual history, or prior behavior, say a
prior drug use, would not be admissible in a **** trial where
she claimed victim status. Those things would just be considered
irrelevant and highly prejudicial.
#Post#: 13746--------------------------------------------------
Re: Violence against women, a white, English problem
By: Truman Overby Date: March 27, 2019, 2:33 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
From Steve: "Under British Common Law is was considered illegal
to commit suicide" "No rhyme or reason for it."
Well, yes, there was a rhyme and reason for it. Law is, as
surely you know, informed by religion. In this case
Christianity. It was considered then, and indeed still is by
many, as an offense against God to kill oneself. The Divine
Order, if you will. God made you and God will decide when your
life ends. Second, it was considered an offense against the
community. It harms the community. And thirdly, it violates the
natural law by going against the self-preservation instinct that
all living things possess. I didn't make this up and you may not
agree with it, but these are the theories that informed the law.
#Post#: 13747--------------------------------------------------
Re: Violence against women, a white, English problem
By: SHL Date: March 27, 2019, 2:48 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Beard Brain link=topic=929.msg13746#msg13746
date=1553715228]
From Steve: "Under British Common Law is was considered illegal
to commit suicide" "No rhyme or reason for it."
Well, yes, there was a rhyme and reason for it. Law is, as
surely you know, informed by religion. In this case
Christianity. It was considered then, and indeed still is by
many, as an offense against God to kill oneself. The Divine
Order, if you will. God made you and God will decide when your
life ends. Second, it was considered an offense against the
community. It harms the community. And thirdly, it violates the
natural law by going against the self-preservation instinct that
all living things possess. I didn't make this up and you may not
agree with it, but these are the theories that informed the law.
[/quote]
Whatever the jusitification, Jerry, Britain dropped the law
against suicide or attempted suicide a long time ago. And oddly
(and I don`t thing anyone really knows why) the US never adopted
that part of the British Common Law. My guess is that we never
had a King. It´s never been illegal to either commit suicide in
the US or to attempt it. Not in any State. It´s just an oddity
I doubt anyone can explain. Assisting suicide has been illegal
until recently where those laws were changed (California,
Oregon, maybe a few others). But that´s an entirely different
matter.
I do think it´s pretty hilarious when Continental Europe had the
brains to say an adult was an 18 year old, all the while the
British Common Law was saying it was 21 because that was the age
a knight in the 16th century (or maybe earlier) was strong
enough to put his steel armor on without help. That was very
logical. ???
#Post#: 13748--------------------------------------------------
Re: Violence against women, a white, English problem
By: SHL Date: March 27, 2019, 2:54 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Neal,
Oh and everyone knows Biden is a terrible choice in 2020 and
would be a total loser. That`s no secret. He`s too old anyway.
We just have to find the right candidate for there to be any
hope at saving the country from more damage after 2020 (we just
have to wait 18 more months).
#Post#: 13749--------------------------------------------------
Re: Violence against women, a white, English problem
By: NealC Date: March 27, 2019, 3:23 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.html
Most polls have Biden clearly in the lead, closely followed by
Sanders with Harris third.
Congratulations you are the first one I have ever heard to think
English Common Law was "stupid, bigoted and nonsensical". Of
course, you remain you. I can see where by today's standards
the law of 1600 was biased in favor of males, but the framework
of civil rights, trial by jury of peers, assumption of innocence
were all there.
#Post#: 13750--------------------------------------------------
Re: Violence against women, a white, English problem
By: SHL Date: March 27, 2019, 3:53 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=NealC link=topic=929.msg13749#msg13749
date=1553718219]
HTML https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.html
Most polls have Biden clearly in the lead, closely followed by
Sanders with Harris third.
Congratulations you are the first one I have ever heard to think
English Common Law was "stupid, bigoted and nonsensical". Of
course, you remain you. I can see where by today's standards
the law of 1600 was biased in favor of males, but the framework
of civil rights, trial by jury of peers, assumption of innocence
were all there.
[/quote]
I oppose jury trials. In criminal cases we need to do what
Germany does. Have 3 professional Judges and two lay-Judges
(called „Schöffen), who participate in the trial and can ask
questions. Then they allow „Nebenkläger/innen)“ who sort of act
as intervenors in the case, and are usually made up of members
or a member of the victim`s family and have lawyers representing
them in what is called a „Nebenklage“. The participate in the
case too and sort of help the prosecution, but speak for the
victim. That´s in criminal cases usually, but my lawyer friend
in Germany said she does a lot or representing of victims of
domestic violence (almost always women) in a Nebenklage. Their
role is to be involved in the case, ask questions of witnesses,
and generally assist the DA (Staatsanwalt/anwältin) at trial,
because sometimes the DA`s don`t that great a job. It´s a great
system. But they don`t have juries like the US does. Juries are
a waste of time. And most are too stupid to serve anyway. Watch
„To Kill a Mockingbird“ and see how well the jury trial system
worked there.
In civil cases, the idea of having a jury is complete madness.
Classic US madness. And, of course Germany has a presumption of
innocence, like every EU country. That´s just basic common
sense.
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page