Suit: Woman offered 14-year-old sex, drugs on flight

Looks like the airlines who won't let a male sit beside an unaccompanied child on flights, because they believe all men are perverts, should consider either dropping their sexist policies or do likewise for females based on the following story. BA was recently successfully sued by a man who was rightly quite offended by their request to move from sitting beside his pregnant wife, who could not sit in the middle seat, because there was a child in the seat beside him.  Sexism is wrong and the policy needs to be terminated or applied equally to both genders.MJM

 

July 13, 2010 7:26 AM | 7 Comments | UPDATED STORY

 

A Chicago area father claims in a lawsuit that Southwest Airlines failed to protect his teenage son from an older female passenger who made sexual advances and offered him illegal drugs during a flight two years ago.

The incident occurred on a July 2008 flight from Chicago's Midway Airport to Orlando, according to the lawsuit filed Monday in Cook County Circuit Court.

The boy, who was 14 at the time, asked flight attendants to switch his seat multiple times but "was emphatically told no," the lawsuit said.

"This was a little boy who was flying alone who was really, you know, in the care and custody of that airline," the family's attorney, Jeffrey Deutschman, said in a telephone interview. "They failed to protect him. They allowed an individual to get intoxicated on that flight. That person was harassing my client sexually as well as trying to give him drugs. He was a very scared little boy."

A spokesman for Southwest Airlines declined comment on the lawsuit.

The boy, who was flying to Florida to visit relatives, was so frightened by the experience that he refused to return home by himself, so his father flew down to accompany him home, according to Deutschman.

The family is asking for more than $50,000 for the "personal injury" that the boy sustained while on the flight.

--Cynthia Dizikes

http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/07/suit-woman-offered-14-year-old-sex-and-drugs-on-flight.html?obref=obnetwork

In the UK ~ Shared Parenting Bill presented in the House of Commons

14 July 2010

A Private Members Bill on shared parenting was tabled yesterday in the House of Commons by Brian Binley, Conservative MP for Northampton South.

The legislation would provide for the making of Shared Parenting Orders following separation or divorce and to create a legal presumption that such Orders enhance the welfare of the child unless certain exceptions apply. It would also provide appropriate safeguards for cases where shared parenting is not the best solution.

Critics argue that the current the law too often has a divisive impact on families, treating one parent as the sole carer and the other as the sole financial provider. 

Shared parenting legislation is increasingly common elsewhere in the world. Australia, France, Denmark, Belgium and a number of US states are examples.

Mr Binley said: "Shared Parenting legislation is vitally important for all involved, especially the children. Very often court orders are made without the knowledge of the importance of a father's involvement and my bill will make sure that neither parent is shut out from the child's life when sadly a relationship breaks down. I don't need to underline the importance of both parents in a child's life.

"A significant proportion of the social problems in today's society are a result of when a child doesn't have the love and support of both parents where safe. I hope that this bill will go some way to help this, which will only be good for society." 

The Bill will be debated in the House of Commons next summer.

http://www.familylaw.co.uk/articles/shared-parenting-bill-presented-in-the-house-of-commons

also:

Brian Binley MP for Northampton South has tabled a Private Member’s Bill which calls for the making of shared parenting orders to enhance the welfare of a child.

The purpose of the Bill is to provide for the making of shared parenting orders and to create a legal presumption that such orders enhance the welfare of the child unless certain exceptions apply and for connected purposes.

Brian said: “Shared parenting legislation is vitally important for all involved, especially the children.” 

“Very often Court Orders are made without the knowledge of the importance of a father’s involvement and my bill will make sure that neither parent is shut out from a child’s life when sadly a relationship breaks down.”

“I don’t need to underline the importance of both parents in a child’s life. A significant proportion of the social problems in today’s society are a result of when a child doesn’t have the love and support of both parents.”

“I hope the Bill will go some way to help this which can only be good for society.”

The Bill is supported by 10 other MP’s and includes: Dr Therese Coffey, Douglas Carswell, Phillip Hollobone, Christopher Chope, Peter Bone, Mark Reckless, Caroline Dineage, Mark Pritchard, Harriett Baldwin and David Nuttall.


http://cornerstonegroup.wordpress.com/2010/07/14/news-flash-brian-binley-mp-tables-shared-parenting-orders-bill/

Barbara Kay: The multicultural approach to justice

My observations on the sentence for a Muslim woman who strangled her child.

Justice Sal LoVecchio is typical of Canadian judges who, through feminist training, think of themselves as the new white knights out to save and empower females from the brutish males of the world. This translates to 90% sole physical custody to moms and statistically relevant, much lighter sentencing for females as compared to men for the exact same crime. The Latimer case is very apropos to compare.

Given the woman is a Muslim, is this the judicially, politically correct way to cover up an honour killing? A 300 pound Muslim felt threatened by a 14 year old girl and strangled her with a viciousness to suck the life out of her own child. Children suffer far greater negative consequences in the custody of single moms. In this case, and as is shown by USA government stats one of those outcomes is killing of a child by the mom in far greater numbers than by the biological father. The child had many strikes against her including being a Muslim, with an apparent controlling mother, who was single, and living in a modern secular country like Canada. The judge and apologists for this woman do no favours to children in similar circumstances. How do we let these kinds of people into the country?

This needs to be appealed and a sentence imposed equivalent to Robert Latimer. He also had no right to kill his child, despite what he thought was compassion, and this woman gets a free ride by a very naive and obsequious judge.MJM

Barbara Kay  July 16, 2010 – 8:47 am

 

In 2007 Aset Magomadova, at the end of her tether in dealing with a troubled and by her account troublesome 14-year old daughter, strangled the girl to death with a scarf.

Let it be noted, before going any further into this story, that to kill a healthy human being by strangulation, you have to cut off their air supply for 2.5 to 3 minutes. They lose consciousness and go limp long before they are at risk of dying. So you really can’t argue that you have strangled someone in self-defence or by accident or in a moment’s confusion or loss of control. If a person dies after you have had your way with a scarf around her neck, you can be sure the intention behind the attack was not benign.

And now to the sentencing of Aset Magomadova. Calgary Court of Queen’s Bench Justice Sal LoVecchio convicted the mother of manslaughter, acquitting her on the original charge of second-degree murder, and pronounced a sentence of…probation. No jail time. Dead daughter. Mother killed her. No jail time.




In his 25-page decision, the judge said that “Showing mercy does not mean we disapprove of the act. It simply means sometimes a particular situation may demand a slightly different solution.” (my emphasis)

Apparently Magomadova’s lawyer really got to the judge with an account of the defendant’s “catastrophic” background in war-torn Chechnya, where her husband was killed in conflict while she was pregnant with a son who later was born with Muscular Dystrophy.

I would venture to say that many killers have a “particular situation.” Robert Latimer springs to mind. Robert Latimer was a white Canadian male of European extraction, so perhaps his “particular situation,” that of watching his profoundly disabled daughter Tracy, a victim of Cerebral Palsy, suffer the agonies of the damned for years in spite of every possible medical intervention available (which amounted to, in Latimer’s words, “mutilation and torture”), could not quite compete with the sad tale of a Muslim widow from Chechnya with an irritating daughter and a son with Muscular Dystrophy.

Latimer was convicted of second degree murder, but the judge in his second trial opted for leniency on the grounds that he acted from “compassion,” ordering a light sentence of one year in jail and one under house arrest. Not good enough for the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, which insisted on the full weight of the law being applied, namely a life sentence. Latimer pleaded to the Supreme Court of Canada that he had had no choice but to end her suffering. Nope, the Supreme Court said, Latimer had other options and a ten-year sentence was not “excessive.”

Well, the Magomadova case is going to the Court of Appeal. Let us keep a careful eye on their appraisal of Judge LoVecchio’s multicultural approach to justice. And if it should go to the Supreme Court, even more so.

This LoVecchio judgment was simply outrageous. In an earlier musing, the judge opined that Aset Magomadova was not a danger to society. Well,  she was a danger to an individual who was helpless to escape her rage – her very own daughter. And what message does his “sentence” of probation send to other parents from other countries, war-torn or not, who believe that they have the power of life and death over their children?

Read more: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/07/16/babara-kay-the-multicultural-approach-to-justice/#ixzz0trbWeRxF

Dave Nash - Running for the kids - Hope, BC

Running for the kids

Published: June 23, 2010 2:00 PM

Dave Nash is running across Canada to gain support and awareness for an Equal Shared Parenting Private Members Bill, Bill C-422. Bill C-422 would reform the Divorce Act, and help put children’s best interests forward by making Equal Shared Parenting the normative determination by courts dealing with situations of divorce involving children. For more information, you can visit his website crosscanadarunforthechildren.com. Michelle Gazely photo

http://www.bclocalnews.com/fraser_valley/hopestandard/lifestyles/97011004.html

Runner crossing Canada for kids’ right to parents

Dave Nash is on a trek across Canada to support Mr. Vellacott's PMB C-422 for equal shared parenting in Canada's federal parliament.  He is currently in Winnipeg.  I had sent the following note on facebook and would want anyone in the Thunder Bay - Sault Ste. Marie area who can be involved to get in touch with me to see if efforts can be coordinated.



"It's about 1400 km's from there to Sault Ste. Marie, which at your current pace (an impressive 60 km's per day) puts you in the Soo about Aug. 4. I will be in MN around then but as you get closer and the day is more firm I will send out releases to local media, including Marathon, (300 KM's south of Thunder Bay) which has a radio station and ... See moreNewspaper to let them know. I will also see if a local Hotel in the Soo will provide accommodation and some meals . One of the owners is a bicycle marathoner having cycled from Egypt to South Africa. Is there anyone else in the Marathon - Soo area who can provide ground support? Its a lot of territory. 700 Km's Thunder Bay to the Soo through rugged wilderness with few communities in between. South of the Soo to Sudbury its just over 300 KM's and far less rugged with more smaller communities."


There is no cell phone service for anyone using GSM devices between the Sault and Thunder Bay so communication for Dave, other than hardline will be spotty. I note he uses an Iphone from his Facebook postings, which means GSM - as no CDMA (Bell/Telus)  service can use this cell. I use the new Bell GSM network on my iPhone but it terminates just a few Km's north of the Soo. South of the Sault it is better and should be usable most of the distance to Sudbury.  I have travelled the Sault-Thunder Bay route more times than I care to remember and it is rugged, lonely and with few communities.  It would be important to have ground support. Cross country bicycle trekkers describe the hills between Thunder Bay and Marathon as difficult as in the mountains. They are steep and frequent.


It is about 700 KM's from Winnipeg to Thunder Bay and the same from the latter to the Soo. Another 700 km's puts you to the 401 highway in Toronto but Dave will go Highway 17 through Ottawa which adds about 790 km's  From where he is now to Ottawa will be close to 2,200 km's, slightly more than his current distance from the start to Winnipeg. They say it takes forever to get across Ontario compared to other Provinces. It most assuredly does.


Let me know if there are any hardy souls able to help in this (Thunder Bay-Soo)  difficult and long stretch of Ontario.MJM

By JASON HALSTEAD, Winnipeg Sun 

Last Updated: July 12, 2010 10:05pm

An Ontario man is pounding the pavement from coast to coast to highlight the plight of non-custodial parents and their kids.

David Nash, 38, of Guelph, Ont., started his Cross Canada Run For The Children June 1 in Victoria and had made it to Winnipeg by Monday.

Nash had targeted the Guinness record of 72 days for crossing Canada on foot, a goal he always knew was near impossible, but said it’s really all about the symbolism of the number.

“The reason I picked it was to make a political statement about the failings of the system,” Nash said. “Seventy-two days is what a child will get with their non-custodial parent each year, and that’s if they’re fortunate.”

Nash said he hopes his journey can help spark change to Canada’s laws which he said pit parents against one another. Nash has shared custody of his nine-year-old son Mason with his ex-wife.

“We need to have a system in place that encourages divorcing parents to work together to put an equal-parenting arrangement together for the best interest of their children,” he said. “We currently have a system that encourages parents to fight one another for the custody of their children and it’s all to the detriment of the children.”

Nash said a private member’s bill is currently before Parliament that would amend the Divorce Act with the presumption of equal parenting. He said he hopes his trek will push politicians to act.

“Most Canadians don’t realize how bad the system is until they’ve been put through it,” Nash said.
“I’m not doing this for fathers’ rights, I’m doing this for children’s rights. I believe children deserve the right to have an equal relationship with both of their parents.”

Nash said he’s received plenty of aid and encouragement from supporters and communities along the way as he’s averaged about 60 kilometres per day.

For more information, visit Nash’s website crosscanada-runforthechildren.com.

http://www.winnipegsun.com/news/canada/2010/07/12/14693036.html

The World Cup Abuse Nightmare and Mendacity in the UK Government

The following story is instructive in that putting a feminist in the role of Chief Feminist of the UK, won't change anything whether you are a socialist like Harriot "the harridan" Harmon or a "so called" conservative like  Theresa Mary May, the current UK Home Secretary  and  Minister for Women and Equality. Feminist ideology trumps political affiliation. May is a former speaker at The Fawcett Society a feminist organization who uses misleading statistics to highlight false comparisons between the genders.

The hard line feminist bureaucrats in the British Women and Equality office seemed  to have convinced the new Minister to go along with the ruse followed dutifully by eunuch's in the Police and elsewhere. Similar things occur in the Canadian Status of Women agency and if the end justifies the means it does not preclude lying.  I'm surprised the latter didn't produce a report on a massive outbreak of DV when Canada's hockey team  beat the USA for Olympic gold in February this year. It would not have been true but heck think of the headlines in the MSM and all the gullible corporations and citizens who sop this up and assuage their guilt by donating money to DV shelters. Its great marketing and that is what it is all about - women as victims, men as brutes - and more importantly money. MJM

NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE   

    

Christina Hoff Sommers 

July 10, 2010 4:00 A.M.

The World Cup Abuse Nightmare 

Myths about domestic violence not only libel the vast majority of men; they also put truly at-risk women at greater risk.

 

Do brutal attacks on women by their husbands or boyfriends surge during the World Cup? According to a May 25 press release by England’s Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO), “cases of domestic abuse increase by nearly 30% on England match days.” The shocking 30 percent figure was from a study prepared and publicized by the British Home Office. Determined to stem the assaults, officials flooded pubs and the airwaves with graphic warnings. “Don’t let the World Cup leave its mark on you,” warned a poster distributed by the West Yorkshire Police. It showed the bare back of a cowering woman marked by bruises, cuts, and the imprint of a man’s shoe. News stories with titles such as “Women’s World Cup Abuse Nightmare” informed women that the games could uncover, “for the first time, a darker side to their partner.”

Many Americans will recall a similar scare surrounding Super Bowl Sunday in January 1993. Newspapers and television networks reported that the incidence of domestic violence increased by 40 percent during the annual football classic. Journalists were soon talking of a “day of dread” and referring to the game as the “abuse bowl.” Experts held forth on how male viewers, intoxicated and pumped up with testosterone, could “explode like mad linemen, leaving girlfriends, wives, and children beaten.” During its telecast, NBC ran a public-service announcement urging men to remain calm during the game and reminding them they could go to jail if they attacked their wives.

In that roiling sea of media credulity, Ken Ringle, a reporter at the Washington Post, did something no other reporter thought to do: He checked the facts. He quickly discovered that there was no evidence linking football and domestic violence. The source for the 40 percent factoid was a mistaken remark by an activist at a press conference in Pasadena, Calif. Today, what has come to be known as the Super Bull Sunday hoax, is a staple in discussions of urban legends. Could the World Cup Abuse Nightmare be a copycat fraud?

“A stunt based on misleading figures,” is the verdict of BBC legal commentator Joshua Rozenberg and producer Wesley Stephenson. They recently investigated the alleged link between the televised World Cup games and violence in the home for their weekly program Law in Action. On June 22 — day twelve of the 2010 World Cup — they aired the story. It included an interview with a prominent Cambridge University statistician, Sheila Bird, whom they had asked to review the Home Office study and its finding of a 30 percent increase in domestic abuse. She found it to be so amateurish and riddled with flaws that it could not be taken seriously. The 30 percent claim was based on a cherry-picked sample of police districts; it failed to correct for seasonal differences and essentially ignored match days that showed little or no increase in domestic violence. Professor Bird also noted that improved police practices can lead to increased reports of violence but do not necessarily indicate more violence. A telltale sign that something is amiss in the Home Office is that it also disseminates the claim that “one in four women will be a victim of domestic violence.” That impossibly high figure may be the result of a rather expansive definition of “domestic violence” — which includes not only physical and sexual violence but also emotional and “financial” abuse.


The BBC Law in Action program also unearthed a serious study by the London Metropolitan Police Authority that contradicted the “official” 30 percent finding. But thanks to a sensational media campaign sanctioned by the Home Office, the reasonable and credible findings of the Metropolitan Police went unnoticed.

On June 27, England suffered a humiliating defeat by Germany. A few days later, news stories reported a “shocking” surge in domestic assaults in some districts. According to the Telegraph, “Kent police said it witnessed a 400 percent rise in domestic abuse” on the day of the loss. But as the BBC investigators warned, percentages can be misleading when the raw numbers are small. There were 26 incidents in south Kent on the day of the rout, compared to an average weekend total of six. Newspapers also carried stories of a spike in Lancashire reported by an ambulance service. But, according to Detective Inspector Derry Crorken of the local police force’s public protection unit, “We have not seen a big rise in callouts during or after the football compared to other weekends.” For the time being, excited reports by British journalists on this topic should be discounted heavily.

In the past 17 years, despite occasional efforts, no one has been able to link the Super Bowl to domestic battery in the United States. A major study in 2007, by two University of Alabama researchers, examined 2,387 crisis-call records over a three-year period. The authors also interviewed abused women and shelter staff. Their conclusion: “The widely held belief that more women seek shelter during ‘drinking holidays’ such as New Year’s and the Super Bowl was unsubstantiated.”

Rozenberg and Stephenson interviewed me for their BBC story because I had written about the U.S. Super Bowl fiction in my 1994 book, Who Stole Feminism? Why, they wanted to know, do such myths have such strong appeal? It is easy to understand why the American version resonated so powerfully in 1993. At the time, the “women are victims, men are brutes” style of feminism was all the rage. Many middle-class women — whose chances of being assaulted by their husbands were close to zero — were riveted by ominous pronouncements like this one from Gloria Steinem’s 1992 bestseller, Revolution from Within: “The most dangerous situation for a woman is not an unknown man on the street, or even the enemy in wartime, but a husband or lover in the isolation of their own home.” It was in 1993 that the National Coalition against Domestic Violence circulated a brochure claiming that half of married American women would face violence from their mate and that “more than a third are battered repeatedly every year.” The Super Bowl story was a handy bandwagon for this popular but twisted creed.

The motives behind the British scare are harder to fathom. It was not the work of feminist hard-liners but rather of a network of government bureaucrats, social-service workers, police personnel, and public officials — including the new home secretary, Theresa May. History offers many examples of depraved societies pretending they are better than they really are. England, an enlightened and humane country, is perversely fascinated by stories that falsely depict its citizens as corrupt and degenerate. Those behind the exaggerated crisis are not going to recant in the face of mere facts. When the BBC investigators presented Carmel Napier, the deputy chief constable of Gwent, with the evidence that the study she and her colleagues were promoting was specious, she replied: “If it has saved lives, then it is worth it.”


In fact, it does harm. The BBC’s Law in Action also interviewed Davina James-Hanman, director of the AVA (Against Violence & Abuse) Project. She was concerned that the World Cup scare could place truly at-risk women in harm’s way. She explained that a woman in a violent relationship is often eager to blame external factors as the cause of the attacks. “It worries me that their safety planning may be affected by this focus on the World Cup . . . that she’s maybe getting the message that if she just hangs on until the World Cup is over everything will be okay.” Surely women at risk for violence are best served by truth. By allowing sensational half-truths and untruths to flourish, officials not only channel scarce resources into dubious programs, they also diminish public trust.

There is another serious reason why countries such as the United States and Britain should not exaggerate the victim status of their female citizens. Horrific and systematic abuses of women occurring in other parts of the world demand our attention. In May, while British officials were preparing for the “expected” explosion of domestic battery from World Cup watchers, the Islamic Republic of Iran was granted a seat on the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women. Human-rights activists protested, pointing out Iran’s appalling record of tyranny, cruelty, and injustice to women. Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad shot back that Iranian women are far better off than women in the West. “What is left of women’s dignity in the West?” he asked. “Is there any love and kindness left?” He then declared that in Europe almost 70 percent of housewives are beaten by their husbands.

That was a self-serving lie. British women, with few exceptions, are safe and free. Iranian women are not. But the lurid posters of women’s beaten bodies and bloody T-shirts (one with the legend “strikeher” emblazoned above a big zero) and bogus statistics give wings to such lies. How that helps women coping with real abuse in Britain, the United States, or anywhere else remains a mystery.

http://article.nationalreview.com/437888/the-world-cup-abuse-nightmare/christina-hoff-sommers

— Christina Hoff Sommers is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. She is the author of Who Stole Feminism? and The War against Boys, and the editor of The Science on Women and Science.