Rape is already a crime according to American law. American law has evidence procedures and punishments.
The college seeks --the wimmins studies commissars of that college seek-- to go around those procedures laws and punishments. They do this by saying the college is a private club that the accused voluntarily joins. Like a golf club is a private club.
But since college is not just a private club but rather a very publicly funded vector into economic and social etc success, duke can not legally create burdens that go above the surrounding laws of the land --especially if these burdens fall on only certain classes, races and genders more than others.
Remember, rape is already against the law according to american law. This duke thing is not about rape or sexual assault. It is about discriminatorially putting tariffs on men who joined the duke club (a club the college calls private but which is actually a publicly funded institution).
Not to mention the duke "rape" policy's premise is rooted in assumptions which rely on gender behavior _stereotypes_, sexist curricula and sexist interpretations of men and wimmins (sexist, regardless of how well couched) and therefore the premise violates duke's or any colleges' PC hate speech codes. The gender behavior _stereotypes_ and sexist curricula etc which (undergird the duke 'rape' bylaws) create a hostile, discriminatory psychology damaging environment for all men whether accused of a breech of by-law etiquette (eg duke "rape") or not.
Pro fem will say that american society is unfairly stacked against rape accusers and therefore duke "rape" by-laws are necessary since wimmins can't just go to state authority and receive 'justice'. But that is simply a made up contention. (Made up by political activists, note.) There is plenty of evidence that american society is governed by a ceiling painting that is actually very much biased in _favor of females_. It is also irrelevant.
[Some dame above] or whoever said "the duke punishments for "rape" are more lenient than the polices'.
Ludicrous sophistry. The duke punishments(confiscating tuition, blackballing from certain career paths etc) are for made up crimes--_NOT RECOGNIZED BY THE STATE_ as rape-- which duke's wimmins studies religion simply calls "rape". Any punishment for duke "rape" is more harsh than any the state COULD impose _since the state couldn't impose any for "duke "rape""_. If a real crime was committed the school would call the state authorities.
I don't know how to do or even say what I'm getting at above. But that is still the approach one would take when suing. Duke (like any college) favors itself a club which wants people to sign away their constitutional rights; the new rights duke then seeks are unconstitutionally biased based on race and gender. Duke (like any college) pretends it is private and therefore able to create what ever membership criteria it wants. But it is actually a public institution which people must go through to achieve crucial goals which can only be achieved through that institution and also it is publicly funded and therefore subject to the actual laws of the land.
Just like a state can't make a law that subverts a larger federal law, a college can not take away constitutionally protected rights just by hiding behind this shiftable lie that college is a private club.
[A new] plan [to hide the accused rapist's identity] would prevent other victims of serial rapists from coming forward.
Miss Harman said the move would 'turn the clock back' and send a 'devastating message' to rape victims that they should not be believed.
'By making rape defendants anonymous you are going to make it harder to bring rapists to justice.'
feminist pressure groups, ...said it would tip justice and public opinion in favor of the defendants.
Did anyone think to ask her for evidence for those claims?
The answer of course is 'no'.
...Reason number 17 million, six hundred and forty five thousand, 7 hundred and 42 why democracy is no good.
Also the purpose of anglo world juris prudence is not to make it easier for the accuser of any crime. The point is to protect the citizens --especially innocent ones-- from unfair burden and conviction and state tyranny. So therefore even if the bald faced contention by Harmon et al was accurate in and of itself (which it is not and has no legitimate evidence) it doesn't matter anyway for the purpose is to protect the innocent from state power not to make it "easier" for wimmin or any accusers.
Did anyone think to say that in rebuttal to her?
Again, the answer of course is 'no'.
...Reason number 17 million, six hundred and forty five thousand, 7 hundred and 43 why democracy is no good.
A lot of WNs see anything white culture has done as a cosmic-ordained truth that must be spread virulently as god's ordination. (It is all part of the conformity module that makes the conservative male a conservative at the bio determinist level.)
Since feminism (nee chivalry) is a white culture thing it is therefore an example of white "betterness".
(Note that conservatives have now embraced 1970's divorce culture as their white male battle cry, along with other feminist rally-cries such as gender legal appointments etc. Note what the west imposes in iraq and afganistan: female judges shipped in from the west.)
[Some conservative guy] saw a Frontline documentary on sex slavery.
Lo fucking L.
Behold a conservative.
What did CNN and MSNBC tell you about sex slavery? Better wait for sweeps month though so you'll get better low angle camera work. You dolt.
You mean "fuck her".
You have conformed to the feminist definition of rape, like the git you inherently are for genetic reasons.
Why should "Men'sRightsActivists" be concerned about that conformity to feminist/chivalrous epistemology: "Rape" [in Capital note, LOL, you dolt].
I'm far more concerned about boys in western culture than whores from the 3rd world. And too boot, the boys in western culture (be they under the single fem parent or in the compulsory eduction system) did not aspire to this system in any way, unlike whores who are low IQ lying whores (probably vicious too --though weaklings) for genetic reasons (similar to your daughter as I mentioned).
Boys are not low IQ whores who aspire to giving blow jobs for a living being catered to by a species that constantly defers to their needs and desires.
You should immolate at once. It is the chivalrous thing to do.
The phony men rights groups are there to trick noobs into falling into the wrong group. It attempts to "hijack" the naive and make them useful idiots.
The phenom is seen with the pro feminist 'men's rights' groups (where males are admonished for not helping females solve their problems), that popped up after real anti feminist men's rights groups started to appear.
People are mostly not self aware; they respond to inner compulsions
That expos`e against aspects of WN doesn't change the fact that the jews are parasitic racists. They exploit the goy as useful idiots accordingly. Whether jews know this or not about themselves and the dynamic they are a part of is irrelevant to the fact that that is the way it all goes down in the eyes of "Darwinism".
I as a white male certainly know about this racism every time I go to a doctor or lawyer or govt building. ...I'd be better off as an Amer Indian going to the cavalry doctor to have my bow arm healed.
And WWII was not fought to stop hitler from "invading the world-in the name racism and eugenics" (falsely defined as "putting people-in camps"). You idiot sheep. Americans and anglos were just as racist as the germans (if not more so) and had a policy of racist culling-expansion long before hitler made one annexation speech about the pined for austro hungarian empire (a living memory grievance from WWI). You dolts for genetic reasons.
(The jew mode average IQ(112?) is higher than the average of whiteness(99)--the moron disaster that classical liberalism (and civilization in general) keeps alive. 112 to 99: Almost 1 standard deviation[ca 15 IQ points] --the same between blacks and whites [blacks at 87, whites at 99]. If white belief is so and so against blacks cause the blacks are dumb what should the whites allow the jews to do to whites, I ask.)
A salient feature about the SC nom is that she is a bushite when it comes to wiretapping and the like (jew hypocrit). This is the 2nd obvious time obama put a chicken hawk in posts: Both that saber rattling ass dick holbreck** (jew) and now her. But I would never ever say she was ugly --she has been hurt enough by the non self aware horde she seeks to get back at. I might say she's got matt broderick's eyes/genes. (And she does.)
(**Obama appointed holbreck on the day obama was sworn in, with special-called press conference about it (a message to someone). Or was it the night he was elected that he held a special press conference about it!!?? Everyone knows I aint the conspiracy monger type but that strains credulity! The republicans won't point it out 'cause they are glad he put a war hawk on the job.)
This frog minister situation... Her salient feature is pure hypocrisy. Painting with a broad brush/stereotyping men; sexism and state run discrimination; denial of core left tenet of "nurture syndromes --often institutional/systemic(ie culture wide prejudices)-- make people the losers they are"; and more hypocrisies I am too weak to see without reading the thing again. Somebody else should point them out, staying on message.
And then there is the media's hypocrisy, where they will black ball a bob metzger (WAR : "white aryan resistance") type outright but then put the prejudiced bigots-towards-men-- feminists-- on the toob saying that it needs to be seen so people will know. BS! Just Black Ball the feminists outright too.
User LSP is very very correct when he says that classical liberalism --capitalism and the utopian runt parade (as though the Georgian court and English parliament back then weren't already runty enough)-- are the root problem and the reason "we" can't get ourselves out of this mess. The fact you all can't see it for yourselves(even after it is explained) doesn't bode well.
...What's the best thing that ever happen to a wimmin's self esteem?... Morning Wood. (Yes you may use that joke for a reasonable remittance of royalty.)