President Donald Trump was accused of “jury tampering” after he reportedly threatened Republican senators not to vote to remove him from office in his impeachment trial. This article first appeared in Salon. A Trump confidant told CBS News that Republican senators were warned: “Vote against the president, and your head will be on a pike.” Trump, […]
Thirty years ago, in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, the Supreme Court held that “sex stereotyping” is forbidden by a federal law banning employment discrimination. “We are beyond the day,” Justice William Brennan wrote in the court’s plurality opinion, “when an employer could evaluate employees by assuming or insisting that they matched the stereotype associated with their group.”
Nevertheless, the Trump administration filed a brief last week asking the Supreme Court to bring back the day when an employer could evaluate employees by assuming or insisting that they matched the stereotype associated with their group.
The Trump Justice Department’s position in R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC wouldn’t nuke Price Waterhouse entirely. But it would severely weaken protections against sex discrimination, and give employers broad new authority to fire employees who do not comply with stereotypes about how people of a particular gender should appear.
It would do so, moreover, in service of the broader goal of denying civil rights protections to transgender workers. The thrust of the Trump administration’s position in Harris Funeral Homes is that, if existing law is broad enough to protect trans workers from discrimination, then that law must be rolled back — even if doing so will legalize a fair amount of discrimination against cis women in the process.
University of Arizona Lieutenant David Caballero will never forget the day he opened his computer to find an email from former student Jillian Corsie sitting in his inbox.
“It was October 28, 2015,” Caballero told HuffPost last week. “I’ll never forget that date.”
The veteran cop had just sat down at his desk and begun deleting the junk folder in his inbox when he came across something that caught his eye. It was an email from a woman he had crossed paths with more than a decade ago. Although he didn’t remember her, she remembered him.
“I’ve carried your card around in my wallet since the night we met,” Corsie wrote. “Ten years ago this month you interviewed me about a rape I experienced on campus. After an embarrassing and horrible interview for me, the [University of Arizona Police Department] deemed my experience ‘consensual.’”
Corsie told HuffPost that she was raped in 2005 by a male classmate in her dorm room during the first month of college. When she turned to her friends for help, most of them were wildly unsupportive. Her boyfriend didn’t believe her and thought she had simply cheated on him. Corsie later went to local police for help, but they told her “not to mix alcohol and beauty,” she said. The two patrol supervisors on duty that day, Caballero and another officer, concluded in their report that “a sexual assault did not occur.”
Caballero said he was stunned by Corsie’s email and the response he had given her that day 10 years ago. He immediately picked up the phone and called her.
That interaction sparked Corsie and co-director Amy Rosner to create their short film, aptly titled “Second Assault,” which HuffPost is exclusively premiering below. “Second Assault” is a documentary-style film that follows Corsie as she confronts the people who failed her after she reported her rape in 2005.
“The film is about my journey to confront a system that failed me, and also to confront the culture that we live in — and how that supports this idea of a second assault, which isn’t necessarily just what happens when you report, but also what happens when your friends and boyfriends and people around you don’t believe you,” Corsie told HuffPost in 2017 when she and Rosner were still crowdfunding.
In the film, Corsie confronts Caballero face-to-face and tells him about their interaction 10 years prior. Caballero, for his part, is open and honest about his missteps and points to a lack of trauma-informed training as a reason for his insensitive response.
“Having that conversation with him just allowed me to let go of all of the anger that I had been holding against him for more decades,” Corsie told HuffPost last week. “To have him ― without question, without meeting me, without knowing my motive ― show up and put himself on camera is a huge risk on his part. And I’m really grateful for what he did and what he continues to do.”
Caballero was so taken by Corsie’s letter that he shared her email with his entire team, telling HuffPost he wanted to make sure his officers “understood that their words matter.”
“Whatever I did, whatever I said back then needed to be corrected. It needed to be done in a way where I needed to take full responsibility for the response that we gave her back then,” Caballero said, adding that, at the time, they believed they were responding correctly with the training they had been given.
“Second Assault,” which premiered at multiple festivals last year, has won several awards, including Best Director at the Global Impact Film Festival and Audience Choice Award at the Julien Dubuque International Film Festival.
Rosner and Corsie hope the film starts a much-needed conversation about how the criminal justice system, and society as a whole, responds to sexual assault survivors.
“This conversation alone has had a ripple effect in both Jillian and David’s lives, and I think, if possible, we need to have these conversations more openly,” Rosner said.
These days, when Caballero sits down at his desk, he’s greeted by Corsie’s letter, which is framed and hung up on on his wall.
“Every day,” he said, “I look at Jillian’s letter and it reminds me words matter.”
Watch the exclusive premiere of “Second Assault” below.
SUBSCRIBE AND FOLLOW
Get top stories and blog posts emailed to me each day. Newsletters may offer personalized content or advertisements. Learn more
There was a problem processing your signup; please try again later
May 22, Day 45 of Trial
Wednesday’s session started with the testimonies of Catalan government officials and ended with the beginning of the “expert phase.”
– Jordi Martínez Soler, a social media advisor for the Parliament, explained that he managed Forcadell’s social media accounts in Autumn 2017 and explained the content of the tweets he tweeted during that time.
– Ricard Gené, who was part of the Catalan National Assembly (ANC)’s secretariat at the same time as Carme Forcadell, explained that the role of Forcadell, currently accused of rebellion, was as a ”representative and not an executive.”
“Forcadell was not involved in elaborating the ANC’s roadmap,” he said.
– Rosa Maria Sans, who is the head of management of the use of government facilities and equipment by non-profit organizations at the Catalan Department of Labour, Social Affairs and Families, explained how was his work during the 2017 Autumn.
The European Parliament approved on Thursday a law granting Britons the right to travel to the European Union without a visa after Brexit.
Britons will be able to stay in the EU visa-free for up to 90 days in any 180-day period. The text specifically states that the post-Brexit visa waiver will only be granted if the UK implements a similar measure for EU citizens.
Controversially, the law describes Gibraltar as a British “colony,” which the UK branded as “completely inappropriate” in a statement to Euronews on Wednesday.
The measure was approved with 502 votes for, 81 against and 29 abstentions. It now has to be adopted by the Council of Ministries and must be published in the Official Journal of the EU before April 12 in order to be effective should the UK leave the bloc without a deal on that date.
It reached parliament after being approved on Wednesday with 38 votes for and 8 against by the committee for Civil Liberties, Justice, and Home Affairs (LIBE) after weeks of stalled negotiations and after the removal on Monday of British MEP Claude Moraes as the rapporteur.
Moraes had opposed the addition of a footnote describing Gibraltar as a British “colony”. The motion was backed after he was replaced as rapporteur by Bulgarian MEP Sergei Stanislav in what Moraes blasted as “a misuse of our legislative duties.”
There are three main takes on Sajid Javid’s recent decision to revoke Shamima Begum’s British citizenship. The first is tabloid. (Good on yer, Saj!) The second is broadsheet. (Frightful! Uncivilised!) The third is merely cynical. The Home Secretary, this view has it, wins either way. If the courts uphold his decision, he gets the credit. And if they don’t, those limp-wristed, bleeding-heart, liberal elite judges get the blame. Either way, he wins – and up go his ratings in the ConservativeHome Cabinet League Table.
We are as world-weary as the next media outlet. So we suspect that the impact of this decision on his future leadership prospects will have floated across Javid’s mind. But one soon grasps, on trying to think it all through, that there is much more to his decision than that.
Let’s start by focusing on Begum herself – this exploited, warped, unrepentant, atypical and seemingly not-very-bright teenager who is evidently as much of a stranger to British norms as she is to the traditional, classical Islam. She fled Britain when she was 15, married a Dutch jihadi, and reportedly now has a baby, two of her children already being dead.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) announced Monday that it had filed a lawsuit in conjunction with the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) against a Florida sheriff’s office for unlawfully detaining and nearly deporting a U.S citizen.
Peter Sean Brown was born in Philadelphia and has lived in Florida for the last 10 years. According to the complaint, Brown reported to the Monroe County Sheriff’s Office in April for violating his probation for a low-level marijuana offense and was subsequently detained longer than was required at the request of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
ICE believed Brown was a Jamaican undocumented immigrant of the same name, and was intent on deporting him. Despite his repeated pleas that he was a U.S. citizen with a birth certificate and a Florida driver’s license, Monroe County jail officers told him he was being sent to a country he had only been to once on a cruise.
“I am and have always been a citizen of the United States,” Brown said in a video released by the ACLU. “I did not even realize what ICE was at the time and reading through it I realized it had something to do with immigration, and at that point, I made a comment of, ‘There must’ve been a mistake.’”
It was a mere scrap of fabric, deep blue and edged with lace. But when the legislator Ruth Coppinger drew it from her sleeve and held it up in the Irish parliament this week, the item of women’s underwear caused consternation among her colleagues.
Elsewhere, women took to the streets carrying lingerie. In Cork, dozens of thongs were laid on the steps of the courthouse. In Belfast on Thursday, protesters tied knickers to placards and chanted: “My little black dress does not mean yes.”
The trigger for protests across Ireland, and the eruption of fury on social media, was the words of a lawyer defending a man accused of rape in a trial in Cork.
Suggesting the complainant – 17-year-old woman – was “open to meeting someone”, Elizabeth O’Connell said: “You have to look at the way she was dressed. She was wearing a thong with a lace front.”
The defendant was acquitted in a unanimous verdict following deliberations by the jury lasting 90 minutes.
According to Fiona Ryan, a city councillor in Cork, anger over the defence counsel’s comments on 6 November took a few days to build.
“It didn’t blow up at first, it was almost a delayed reaction. But it festered,” she said. Ryan suggested staging a protest in Cork on Wednesday, eight days after the end of the trial, and was astonished when up to 500 people turned up to take part, many carrying items of underwear.
The countdown to the trial against Catalan political prisoners has already begun. This week itself ended the deadline for the defenses to ask for the revocation of the instruction, which will surely be dismissed by the Second Chamber of the Supreme Court. Thereafter, the trial court can present its conclusions from the investigations and the opening of the trial can be decreed.However, the prisoners’ defense will seek to block it until their appeals are resolved.
The defense estimates that the trial will begin in January.And that this could last for about two months, just before the campaign for local and European elections begin.However, they suspect that the Supreme Court could intend to initiate the trial in November in order to take the defense by surprise and undermine their strategy.
Until now, the opening of the trial has been delayed because the defense has appealed the instructions of Judge Llarena and the provisional orders of imprisonment. The recusations…
View original post 224 more words
If Kavanaugh’s nomination is successful then justice, truth and honesty is failing in the US.
Brett Kavanaugh is a political hack who should not have received the Court of Appeals appointment he has, and should have been rejected by the Senate committee as a nominee for Supreme Court without calling Christine Blasey Ford to testify,
He got his start helping special prosecutor Ken Starr investigate Bill Clinton, was part of the legal team that challenged the voter recount in Florida in 2000 and then worked for White House Special Counsel Alberto Gonzalez in the George W. Bush administration.
There are questions as to whether he was involved in discussions of warrantless surveillance, warrantless detentions and torture, and George W. Bush’s sweeping assertions of presidential authority in signing statements. Kavanaugh has said these issues weren’t part of his job, while the Trump administration has held back on releasing the documentary record of Kavanaugh’s service.
What Kavanaugh thinks about these questions goes to the heart…
View original post 438 more words