HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » iverglas » Journal
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 Next »


Profile Information

Member since: 2001
Number of posts: 38,549

Journal Archives

oh dear, now you'll have to find another one

Post #8

At Fri May 18, 2012, 09:58 AM you sent an alert on the following post:

No...My post was worse than that....


I hope my guess that this post has already been alerted on and approved will be wrong.

This individual replies to an OP (this post is explaining his first reply saying "who was he?" by asking the OP what caused "these women" -- obviously including the OP -- to "become raging misandrist". And he attributes women's views that he calls "misandrist" to being hurt by a man.

Kind of like asking an atheist whether they don't believe in a god because they were bitten by a Christian. Dismissive and rude. Contributes nothing to genuine discussion. Just rude.

Nothing said by the OP indicated that she is "raging misandrist". This is a foul insult and nothing more.

Just that simple, really. A personal attack, outside bounds.

A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Fri May 18, 2012, 10:17 AM, and voted 4-2 to HIDE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: People here are questioned about their motivations and influences all the time. i.e. "Why do you vote for Democrats?" "Are you influenced by political ads?" Sometimes scornfully, "Did you really believe what Obama said?" Big deal.

Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT and said: Alerted post is just one of several in this thread by the poster which are clearly intended to be provocative and derail intelligent discussion.

Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT and said: Name calling of any type cannot be tolerated. If you have questions about someones views, ask them but don't generalize and include an entire group of people just to deflect your ignorance. Now the thread has dissolved into nothing more than he said she said.It needs to be hidden.

Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given

Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT and said: I thought the post went beyond the somewhat more relaxed standards of politeness in GD. It also seemed dismissive of women who may indeed have experienced hurt and rejection because of their looks. Not all of us are cat walk models.

Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: This post doesn't seem inappropriate.

For Juror #1, and others who need basic lessons in civil discourse:


The post in question was NOT like asking "Why do you vote for Democrats?" "Are you influenced by political ads?" or "Did you really believe what Obama said?"

It was like asking "What intellectual disability of yours causes you to vote for Democrats?" or "Why are you so stupid that you believe political ads?" or "Which lie that Obama told did you believe?"

Does that help at all?

you're lucky you can get away with totally false statements like that

Be sure to bookmark my post. Some day, when you are struck by lightning and acquire a respect for the truth, you may want to frame it.

does not come close to what ugliness like yours induces in decent human beings.

feminism, temperance and prostitution

This had been my first thought for a discussion here when the group was proposed.

Those "moral crusades" women are apparently so fond of ...


An early figure in those crusades in the US: Frances Willard, who died in 1898.

Each year, as president of the WCTU, Willard published an address. In this long paper she proposed a plan of work and ideas for the betterment of society. Her messages always went beyond the issue of alcohol. During the year, she spoke and traveled and used her personal influence to accomplish the wide range of items on her agenda. At first, Willard campaigned for women's suffrage in a muted vocabulary, framing the issue in terms of giving women the ability to vote for "home protection." In this way, she gradually brought the WCTU along with her.

Her life as president of the WCTU was one of constant travel in the United States and Europe. Her style was winsome, evangelical, inspiring, and conciliatory. One biographer makes frequent mention of her ability to compromise and to slowly win her constituency over to her opinion. As she traveled around the country, she hired local secretaries to carry on her massive correspondence. She was said to keep six secretaries busy simultaneously. Material written in her own hand is voluminous but extremely hurried and virtually illegible.

Nothing concerning women escaped Willard's attention. She campaigned for change in prostitution laws, attacking grievous situations that were allowed to flourish. Prostitution in some lumber camps amounted to child slavery. The age of consent in twenty states was a mere ten years of age, and in one it was seven. According to Willard, the laws of purity were to be equally binding on men and women. The sexual crimes of men must not go unpunished. The men who patronized a prostitute should be equally guilty under the law as the prostitute who served him.

On the subject of rape, Willard wrote, "It is by holding men to the same standard of morality that society shall rise to higher levels, and by punishing with extreme penalties such men as inflict upon women atrocities compared with which death would be infinitely welcome. When we reflect that in Massachusetts and Vermont it is a greater crime to steal a cow than to abduct and <rape> a girl, and that in Illinois <rape> is not considered a crime, it is a marvel not to be explained that we go the even tenor of our way, too delicate, too refined, too prudish to make any allusion to these awful facts, much less take up arms against these awful crimes. We have been the victims of conventional cowardice too long."

Under Willard, the WCTU worked for the development of Traveler Aid to assist women in their attempt to remain pure while searching for work. They also established homes for the reclamation of prostitutes.

There was some pretty advanced thinking going on over a century ago (in reaction to some pretty horrific stuff that was going on as recently as that). And over the years since, the women doing it, and busting their bums to improve the lives of other women, have come to be dismissed as, yes, pearl-clutchers. They deserve a lot more attention and recognition for what they really were: brave and important social reformers, and feminists.

a little thread about the history of Canadian feminism ...

... and about moi.

I posted this some time ago in the Canada forum at old DU, where nobody here is likely to have seen it, and I thought it might fit here nicely, so I'm just going to copy and paste.

The background is that this is about the Persons Case -- the ruling that held that women in Canada were "persons" within the meaning of the 1867 Constitution for the purpose of appointment to the Senate. (Women already had the vote and could get elected to office, of course, there was just something about the historical meaning of "persons" that precluded them from appointment to the Senate.)

The case went to the Supreme Court of Canada, which ruled against the five women who had brought the action. At that time, it was possible to appeal from the SCC to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Britain, which had been the final arbiter of legal matters in the British colonies (and this appeal route was abolished shortly afterward). The ruling of the Judicial Committee in Edwards v. A.G. Canada is referred to as the Persons Case, and the women involved as the Famous Five.


Fri Jun-29-07 04:54 PM

So this is my thread. It's about me.

Hey, if I knew how, I'd make it a poll.

No, actually, it's about Canadian constitutional history. And me.

Anybody here know Viscount Sankey? Well, be not embarrassed. *I* was, that I didn't recognize the name when I was sent an email about him this week. I should know these things; it's actually kinda my job. I'm enormously embarrassed. And not just because ... but wait, more on that after.

The email I was sent explained how Viscount Sankey was the one who wrote the line about "The Golden Thread that runs through English law" that Rumpole was so fond of quoting at the Bailey -- about the presumption of innocence and the burden of proof and all that.

In articulating the ruling, Viscount Sankey made his famous "Golden thread" speech:

Throughout the web of the English Criminal Law one golden thread is always to be seen, that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoner's guilt subject to what I have already said as to the defence of insanity and subject also to any statutory exception. If, at the end of and on the whole of the case, there is a reasonable doubt, created by the evidence given by either the prosecution or the prisoner, as to whether the prisoner killed the deceased with a malicious intention, the prosecution has not made out the case and the prisoner is entitled to an acquittal. No matter what the charge or where the trial, the principle that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the prisoner is part of the common law of England and no attempt to whittle it down can be entertained. When dealing with a murder case the Crown must prove (a) death as the result of a voluntary act of the accused and (b) malice of the accused.

But after getting the email, I googled a bit more, and smacked my forehead and hung my head in shame at my negligent memory.

Several of his judgments in the House of Lords have landmark statements of law. Of particular note are his statements in Edwards v. Canada (Attorney General) in which a case was held about women being allowed in the senate. In the end, women were allowed being senators.

He wrote the decision in the Persons Case -- the Famous Five and all that.

And not only that -- I just don't seem to have realized the extent to which our whole Canadian universe revolves around that case, completely apart from the question of women's equality itself (I hadn't realized that case was the source of the "living tree" doctrine):

Edwards v. Canada (Attorney General) <1930> A.C. 124 also known as the Persons Case is a famous Canadian/British constitutional case where it was first decided that women were eligible to sit in the Senate. The case, put forward by the Famous Five, went all the way to the Privy Council and was a landmark case in many respects.

Opinion of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council

Viscount Sankey, writing for the committee, found that the meaning of "qualified persons" could be read broadly to include women, reversing the decision of the Supreme Court. The landmark ruling was handed down on October 29, 1929.

Living tree doctrine

To arrive that his conclusion, Sankey proposed an entirely new approach to constitutional interpretation that has since become one of the core principles of constitutional law in Canada.

The British North America Act planted in Canada a living tree capable of growth and expansion within its natural limits. The object of the Act was to grant a Constitution to Canada. Like all written constitutions it has been subject to development through usage and convention.

Their Lordships do not conceive it to be the duty of this Board -- it is certainly not their desire -- to cut down the provisions of the Act by a narrow and technical construction, but rather to give it a large and liberal interpretation so that the Dominion to a great extent, but within certain fixed limits, may be mistress in her own house, as the provinces to a great extent, but within certain fixed limits, are mistresses in theirs.

From this the approach became known as the living tree doctrine which requires "large and liberal" interpretation.

Viscount Sankey invented the "living tree", along with the large-and-liberal approach to constitutional interpretation. (All of which I work with daily ...)

And this is why we have, oh, same-sex marriage and minority language rights.

In Canadian law, the living tree doctrine is a doctrine of constitutional interpretation that says that a constitution is organic and must be read in a broad and liberal manner so as to adapt it to the changing times.

This is known as the Doctrine of Progressive Interpretation. This means that the Constitution cannot be interpreted in the same way as an ordinary statute. Rather, it must be read within the context of society to ensure that it adapts and reflects changes. If constitutional interpretation adheres to the Framer's Intent and remains rooted in the past, the Constitution would not be reflective of society and eventually fall into disuse.

The "frozen concepts" reasoning runs contrary to one of the most fundamental principles of Canadian constitutional interpretation: that our Constitution is a living tree which, by way of progressive interpretation, accommodates and addresses the realities of modern life. (from the same-sex marriage reference)

Of course, the right wing in the US hates us for our living tree:

It's almost impossible to read much commentary about the role of the courts without stumbling across arguments for more judge-made law, often couched in fancy rhetoric about "a living Constitution" or the alleged need to read the Constitution "in light of societal needs and evolving legal policy." (U.S. liberals aren't unique: In approving gay marriage, Canada's Supreme Court said, "Our Constitution is a living tree, which, by way of progressive interpretation, accommodates and addresses the realities of modern life."

So ... talk about yer civics lessons, eh?

But no; remember, this thread is about me.

I am the great-great-great-great-great granddaughter of Viscount Sankey's great-grandparents. My greatx4 grandmother and his grandfather were brother and sister.

So he is my second cousin four times removed. (I think.) Different generation, same set of ancestors.

Oh, he was a Labour peer (not hereditary) -- also served as Lord Chancellor under the Labour government 1929-35. And was apparently regarded as a class traitor in some quarters.

Now just exactly how cool is that??

Oleg Volk has been here before you ...


... and is no longer here. (Just click on the beside his name there.)

See also my reply there (among dozens on the subject over the years):

"We're here, we're queer -- and we're voting Libertarian"

In the Guns forum at the previous version of DU, the moderator ruled that posting approval of the Pink Pistols violated the terms of service of this website, which now read:

Don't be a wingnut (right-wing or extreme-fringe).

Democratic Underground is an online community for politically liberal people who understand the importance of working within the system to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of political office. Teabaggers, Neo-cons, Dittoheads, Paulites, Freepers, Birthers, and right-wingers in general are not welcome here. Neither are certain extreme-fringe left-wingers, including advocates of violent political/social change, hard-line communists, terrorist-apologists, America-haters, kooks, crackpots, LaRouchies, and the like.

Vote for Democrats.

Winning elections is important therefore, advocating in favor of Republican nominees or in favor of third-party spoiler candidates that could split the vote and throw an election to our conservative opponents is never permitted on Democratic Underground. ...

The Pink Pistols enemies list seems to have been taken off line. I posted about it here at DU:



The following organizations have lent monetary, grassroots or some other type of direct support to Anti-Gun organizations. In many instances, these organizations lent their name in support of specific campaigns to pass Anti-Gun legislation such as the March 1995 HCI "Campaign to Protect Sane Gun Laws." Many of these organizations were listed as "Campaign Partners," for having pledged to fight any efforts to repeal the Brady Act and the Clinton "assault weapons" ban. All have officially endorsed Anti-Gun positions.

For more details on these companies or groups, see the section on Anti-Gun Corporations/Corporate Heads, below.

This detailed information is being supplied, to make the owners of stocks, and users of products and services, totally aware, of whom these organizations or people are.

It would take many pages to print out; I assume it's just cribbed from the NRA's enemies list.

If you're a Methodist, you're there. If you belong to the ACLU or the American Bar Association, you're there. Most people at DU are probably there, one way or another.

College Democrats is there. The Women's National Democratic Club is there. The YWCA is there. The United Nations is there. The Union of American Hebrew Congregations is there. The Unitarian Universalists are there and the United Church of Christ is there. Physicians for Social Responsibility and PETA and People for the American Way are there.

... Their links page:

No Democratic links there. No links to anywhere I'd want to be going. Not even, oh, the Human Rights Committee. Not a single GLBT-focused/friendly kinda link at all.

I suspect you're getting my drift.

But hey, it's always nice to hear from the horse's mouth:

We work with the NRA. We are not "in bed with the NRA". I've told the legislative branch of the NRA (NRA-ILA) that they are far to willing to compromise on the rights of gun owners. Major gun-control bills were written with the support of the NRA (including the gun control ban of 1968)! The Pink Pistols have said it's time to stop supporting the giving away our rights as pieces of salami, until none are left, and get those rights back!

Go to Page: 1 2 3 4 5 Next »