Malawi lesbians engage in private ceremony: Report The Maravi Post “If used to prosecute women for their private consensual sexual relationships, the new law threatens the universal rights to privacy and freedom from discrimination.” UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, also stated: “Laws criminalizing people on grounds ...
In the two months since he was found guilty of using a webcam to spy on his roommate, Dharun Ravi has gone from being a symbol of anti-gay bias to being something of a folk hero, with rallies of his supporters urging the court to “Free Dharun.”
What may be most surprising is how many of those arguing in his defense are prominent gay rights advocates.
With Mr. Ravi set to be sentenced on Monday, many of them have argued against the jail sentence prosecutors have recommended. They say Mr. Ravi is being punished for the suicide of his roommate, Tyler Clementi, although he was not charged in it, and that pinning blame on him ignores the complicated social pressures that drive gay teenagers to kill themselves. As repugnant as his behavior was, they say, it was not the blatantly bigoted or threatening actions that typically define hate crimes. Some fear that a sentence that overreaches might provide tinder to anti-gay sentiment — a New Jersey talk radio host complained soon after the verdict of the “gay lobby” railroading Mr. Ravi.
While Mr. Clementi’s suicide in September 2010 galvanized public attention on the struggles of gay teenagers, the question of how to punish Mr. Ravi has revealed the deep discomfort that many gay people feel about using the case as a crucible.
“You’re making an example of Ravi in order to send a message to other people who might be bullying, to schools and parents and to prosecutors who have not considered this a crime before,” said Marc Poirier, a law professor at Seton Hall University who is gay and has written about hate-crimes legislation. “That’s a function of criminal law, to condemn as general deterrence. But I think this is a fairly shaky set of facts on which to do it.”
In an op-ed article in The Star-Ledger of Newark this month, Jim McGreevey, who resigned as governor after declaring himself “a gay American,” argued that Mr. Ravi’s conviction “showed how far we have traveled from the hateful, homophobic past.”
“The criminal justice system worked, this time for a gay victim,” Mr. McGreevey wrote. “But there was something disquieting about the prospect of retributive punishment being meted out on behalf of a gay young man.”
Mr. McGreevey, who now counsels prisoners, argued that jail time would neither rehabilitate nor send a message. “Perhaps the long trail of gay history inevitably leads to this call for punishment,” he wrote, “but it need not.”
The discussion itself is causing some gay rights advocates discomfort. Richard Kim, the executive editor of The Nation online, who wrote after Mr. Clementi’s suicide about his own experience growing up gay in New Jersey, said he was wary that expressing opposition to a prison sentence would make him appear to link hands with those who accuse gay men and lesbians of seeking “special treatment” with laws against bullying.
“That’s not my argument,” Mr. Kim said. Still, he added, he does not think the verdict against Mr. Ravi was justified, and he does not think he should serve jail time.
“I haven’t seen anything to convince me it has any deterrent effect,” he said.
Mr. Ravi set up a webcam to spy on Mr. Clementi three weeks into their freshman year at Rutgers University, after Mr. Clementi asked to have the room alone so he could be with a boyfriend he had recently met on a Web site for gay men.
Mr. Clementi’s suicide three days later prompted an outcry from celebrities and politicians, and pushed New Jersey to pass one of the nation’s strictest anti-bullying laws.
In court, prosecutors used an extensive electronic record to show how Mr. Ravi had sent Twitter and text messages declaring that he had seen his roommate “making out with a dude,” and encouraging others to watch. The jury convicted Mr. Ravi on all 15 counts, including invasion of privacy, hate crimes and tampering with evidence after he tried to cover up his Twitter trail.
Dan Savage, a gay columnist whose video campaign, “It Gets Better,” began in response to other suicides of gay teenagers just before Mr. Clementi jumped to his death from the George Washington Bridge, argued that simply locking up Mr. Ravi was a lost opportunity to talk about the other institutions and people “complicit” in Mr. Clementi’s death.
“What was he told about being gay growing up, by his faith leaders, by the media, by the culture?” Mr. Savage said. “Ravi may have been the last person who made him feel unsafe and abused and worthless, but he couldn’t have been the first. The rush to pin all the responsibility on Ravi and then wash our hands and walk away means we’re not going to learn the lessons of these kids.”
In an essay in Slate, J. Bryan Lowder urged against a prison sentence: “Unfortunately, we can’t lock the bully up, because the bully is in all of us.”
In the two months since he was found guilty of using a webcam to spy on his roommate, Dharun Ravi has gone from being a symbol of anti-gay bias to being something of a folk hero, with rallies of his supporters urging the court to “Free Dharun.”
What may be most surprising is how many of those arguing in his defense are prominent gay rights advocates.
With Mr. Ravi set to be sentenced on Monday, many of them have argued against the jail sentence prosecutors have recommended. They say Mr. Ravi is being punished for the suicide of his roommate, Tyler Clementi, although he was not charged in it, and that pinning blame on him ignores the complicated social pressures that drive gay teenagers to kill themselves. As repugnant as his behavior was, they say, it was not the blatantly bigoted or threatening actions that typically define hate crimes. Some fear that a sentence that overreaches might provide tinder to anti-gay sentiment — a New Jersey talk radio host complained soon after the verdict of the “gay lobby” railroading Mr. Ravi.
While Mr. Clementi’s suicide in September 2010 galvanized public attention on the struggles of gay teenagers, the question of how to punish Mr. Ravi has revealed the deep discomfort that many gay people feel about using the case as a crucible.
“You’re making an example of Ravi in order to send a message to other people who might be bullying, to schools and parents and to prosecutors who have not considered this a crime before,” said Marc Poirier, a law professor at Seton Hall University who is gay and has written about hate-crimes legislation. “That’s a function of criminal law, to condemn as general deterrence. But I think this is a fairly shaky set of facts on which to do it.”
In an op-ed article in The Star-Ledger of Newark this month, Jim McGreevey, who resigned as governor after declaring himself “a gay American,” argued that Mr. Ravi’s conviction “showed how far we have traveled from the hateful, homophobic past.”
“The criminal justice system worked, this time for a gay victim,” Mr. McGreevey wrote. “But there was something disquieting about the prospect of retributive punishment being meted out on behalf of a gay young man.”
Mr. McGreevey, who now counsels prisoners, argued that jail time would neither rehabilitate nor send a message. “Perhaps the long trail of gay history inevitably leads to this call for punishment,” he wrote, “but it need not.”
The discussion itself is causing some gay rights advocates discomfort. Richard Kim, the executive editor of The Nation online, who wrote after Mr. Clementi’s suicide about his own experience growing up gay in New Jersey, said he was wary that expressing opposition to a prison sentence would make him appear to link hands with those who accuse gay men and lesbians of seeking “special treatment” with laws against bullying.
“That’s not my argument,” Mr. Kim said. Still, he added, he does not think the verdict against Mr. Ravi was justified, and he does not think he should serve jail time.
“I haven’t seen anything to convince me it has any deterrent effect,” he said.
Mr. Ravi set up a webcam to spy on Mr. Clementi three weeks into their freshman year at Rutgers University, after Mr. Clementi asked to have the room alone so he could be with a boyfriend he had recently met on a Web site for gay men.
Mr. Clementi’s suicide three days later prompted an outcry from celebrities and politicians, and pushed New Jersey to pass one of the nation’s strictest anti-bullying laws.
In court, prosecutors used an extensive electronic record to show how Mr. Ravi had sent Twitter and text messages declaring that he had seen his roommate “making out with a dude,” and encouraging others to watch. The jury convicted Mr. Ravi on all 15 counts, including invasion of privacy, hate crimes and tampering with evidence after he tried to cover up his Twitter trail.
Dan Savage, a gay columnist whose video campaign, “It Gets Better,” began in response to other suicides of gay teenagers just before Mr. Clementi jumped to his death from the George Washington Bridge, argued that simply locking up Mr. Ravi was a lost opportunity to talk about the other institutions and people “complicit” in Mr. Clementi’s death.
“What was he told about being gay growing up, by his faith leaders, by the media, by the culture?” Mr. Savage said. “Ravi may have been the last person who made him feel unsafe and abused and worthless, but he couldn’t have been the first. The rush to pin all the responsibility on Ravi and then wash our hands and walk away means we’re not going to learn the lessons of these kids.”
In an essay in Slate, J. Bryan Lowder urged against a prison sentence: “Unfortunately, we can’t lock the bully up, because the bully is in all of us.”
In the two months since he was found guilty of using a webcam to spy on his roommate, Dharun Ravi has gone from being a symbol of anti-gay bias to being something of a folk hero, with rallies of his supporters urging the court to “Free Dharun.”
What may be most surprising is how many of those arguing in his defense are prominent gay rights advocates.
With Mr. Ravi set to be sentenced on Monday, many of them have argued against the jail sentence prosecutors have recommended. They say Mr. Ravi is being punished for the suicide of his roommate, Tyler Clementi, although he was not charged in it, and that pinning blame on him ignores the complicated social pressures that drive gay teenagers to kill themselves. As repugnant as his behavior was, they say, it was not the blatantly bigoted or threatening actions that typically define hate crimes. Some fear that a sentence that overreaches might provide tinder to anti-gay sentiment — a New Jersey talk radio host complained soon after the verdict of the “gay lobby” railroading Mr. Ravi.
While Mr. Clementi’s suicide in September 2010 galvanized public attention on the struggles of gay teenagers, the question of how to punish Mr. Ravi has revealed the deep discomfort that many gay people feel about using the case as a crucible.
“You’re making an example of Ravi in order to send a message to other people who might be bullying, to schools and parents and to prosecutors who have not considered this a crime before,” said Marc Poirier, a law professor at Seton Hall University who is gay and has written about hate-crimes legislation. “That’s a function of criminal law, to condemn as general deterrence. But I think this is a fairly shaky set of facts on which to do it.”
In an op-ed article in The Star-Ledger of Newark this month, Jim McGreevey, who resigned as governor after declaring himself “a gay American,” argued that Mr. Ravi’s conviction “showed how far we have traveled from the hateful, homophobic past.”
“The criminal justice system worked, this time for a gay victim,” Mr. McGreevey wrote. “But there was something disquieting about the prospect of retributive punishment being meted out on behalf of a gay young man.”
Mr. McGreevey, who now counsels prisoners, argued that jail time would neither rehabilitate nor send a message. “Perhaps the long trail of gay history inevitably leads to this call for punishment,” he wrote, “but it need not.”
The discussion itself is causing some gay rights advocates discomfort. Richard Kim, the executive editor of The Nation online, who wrote after Mr. Clementi’s suicide about his own experience growing up gay in New Jersey, said he was wary that expressing opposition to a prison sentence would make him appear to link hands with those who accuse gay men and lesbians of seeking “special treatment” with laws against bullying.
“That’s not my argument,” Mr. Kim said. Still, he added, he does not think the verdict against Mr. Ravi was justified, and he does not think he should serve jail time.
“I haven’t seen anything to convince me it has any deterrent effect,” he said.
Mr. Ravi set up a webcam to spy on Mr. Clementi three weeks into their freshman year at Rutgers University, after Mr. Clementi asked to have the room alone so he could be with a boyfriend he had recently met on a Web site for gay men.
Mr. Clementi’s suicide three days later prompted an outcry from celebrities and politicians, and pushed New Jersey to pass one of the nation’s strictest anti-bullying laws.
In court, prosecutors used an extensive electronic record to show how Mr. Ravi had sent Twitter and text messages declaring that he had seen his roommate “making out with a dude,” and encouraging others to watch. The jury convicted Mr. Ravi on all 15 counts, including invasion of privacy, hate crimes and tampering with evidence after he tried to cover up his Twitter trail.
Dan Savage, a gay columnist whose video campaign, “It Gets Better,” began in response to other suicides of gay teenagers just before Mr. Clementi jumped to his death from the George Washington Bridge, argued that simply locking up Mr. Ravi was a lost opportunity to talk about the other institutions and people “complicit” in Mr. Clementi’s death.
“What was he told about being gay growing up, by his faith leaders, by the media, by the culture?” Mr. Savage said. “Ravi may have been the last person who made him feel unsafe and abused and worthless, but he couldn’t have been the first. The rush to pin all the responsibility on Ravi and then wash our hands and walk away means we’re not going to learn the lessons of these kids.”
In an essay in Slate, J. Bryan Lowder urged against a prison sentence: “Unfortunately, we can’t lock the bully up, because the bully is in all of us.”
In the two months since he was found guilty of using a webcam to spy on his roommate, Dharun Ravi has gone from being a symbol of anti-gay bias to being something of a folk hero, with rallies of his supporters urging the court to “Free Dharun.”
What may be most surprising is how many of those arguing in his defense are prominent gay rights advocates.
With Mr. Ravi set to be sentenced on Monday, many of them have argued against the jail sentence prosecutors have recommended. They say Mr. Ravi is being punished for the suicide of his roommate, Tyler Clementi, although he was not charged in it, and that pinning blame on him ignores the complicated social pressures that drive gay teenagers to kill themselves. As repugnant as his behavior was, they say, it was not the blatantly bigoted or threatening actions that typically define hate crimes. Some fear that a sentence that overreaches might provide tinder to anti-gay sentiment — a New Jersey talk radio host complained soon after the verdict of the “gay lobby” railroading Mr. Ravi.
While Mr. Clementi’s suicide in September 2010 galvanized public attention on the struggles of gay teenagers, the question of how to punish Mr. Ravi has revealed the deep discomfort that many gay people feel about using the case as a crucible.
“You’re making an example of Ravi in order to send a message to other people who might be bullying, to schools and parents and to prosecutors who have not considered this a crime before,” said Marc Poirier, a law professor at Seton Hall University who is gay and has written about hate-crimes legislation. “That’s a function of criminal law, to condemn as general deterrence. But I think this is a fairly shaky set of facts on which to do it.”
In an op-ed article in The Star-Ledger of Newark this month, Jim McGreevey, who resigned as governor after declaring himself “a gay American,” argued that Mr. Ravi’s conviction “showed how far we have traveled from the hateful, homophobic past.”
“The criminal justice system worked, this time for a gay victim,” Mr. McGreevey wrote. “But there was something disquieting about the prospect of retributive punishment being meted out on behalf of a gay young man.”
Mr. McGreevey, who now counsels prisoners, argued that jail time would neither rehabilitate nor send a message. “Perhaps the long trail of gay history inevitably leads to this call for punishment,” he wrote, “but it need not.”
The discussion itself is causing some gay rights advocates discomfort. Richard Kim, the executive editor of The Nation online, who wrote after Mr. Clementi’s suicide about his own experience growing up gay in New Jersey, said he was wary that expressing opposition to a prison sentence would make him appear to link hands with those who accuse gay men and lesbians of seeking “special treatment” with laws against bullying.
“That’s not my argument,” Mr. Kim said. Still, he added, he does not think the verdict against Mr. Ravi was justified, and he does not think he should serve jail time.
“I haven’t seen anything to convince me it has any deterrent effect,” he said.
Mr. Ravi set up a webcam to spy on Mr. Clementi three weeks into their freshman year at Rutgers University, after Mr. Clementi asked to have the room alone so he could be with a boyfriend he had recently met on a Web site for gay men.
Mr. Clementi’s suicide three days later prompted an outcry from celebrities and politicians, and pushed New Jersey to pass one of the nation’s strictest anti-bullying laws.
In court, prosecutors used an extensive electronic record to show how Mr. Ravi had sent Twitter and text messages declaring that he had seen his roommate “making out with a dude,” and encouraging others to watch. The jury convicted Mr. Ravi on all 15 counts, including invasion of privacy, hate crimes and tampering with evidence after he tried to cover up his Twitter trail.
Dan Savage, a gay columnist whose video campaign, “It Gets Better,” began in response to other suicides of gay teenagers just before Mr. Clementi jumped to his death from the George Washington Bridge, argued that simply locking up Mr. Ravi was a lost opportunity to talk about the other institutions and people “complicit” in Mr. Clementi’s death.
“What was he told about being gay growing up, by his faith leaders, by the media, by the culture?” Mr. Savage said. “Ravi may have been the last person who made him feel unsafe and abused and worthless, but he couldn’t have been the first. The rush to pin all the responsibility on Ravi and then wash our hands and walk away means we’re not going to learn the lessons of these kids.”
In an essay in Slate, J. Bryan Lowder urged against a prison sentence: “Unfortunately, we can’t lock the bully up, because the bully is in all of us.”
Exchange Disaster Recovery - Protecting Exchange in a Virtual Environment Australian Techworld Creating and implementing a data protection and disaster recovery (D/R) strategy enables you to protect your organization's data against loss, recover it quickly in the event of a disaster, and comply with regulations and corporate policies.
Dems Want To Give New Meaning To The Phrase “If It Moves, Tax It” Canada Free Press Yes, Senator Chuck Schumer (D), who is always looking for some new way to get his grubby hand in the pockets of the doer class, is pushing for the “Ex-PATRIOT” act which says, essentially, “if it wants to move out of the United States, tax it.
The fierce competition for jobs has revealed some employers’ dirty trick to select who gets a foot in the door of their companies by asking jobseekers to reveal passwords to social media sites like Facebook. Employers then use this exceptional invasion of privacy as a screening tool for deciding who to hire for an open position.
Social media is not a new phenomenon, but what is new is the brazen attempt by employers to gain detailed insight into the private lives of jobseekers. There is no law prohibiting employers asking for passwords to social media accounts, even though Facebook has stated that giving out such privileged information breaks the terms of use for its website.
Several laws make it illegal for an employer to ask about age, marital status or pregnancy, citizenship, disability, drug use, smoking or drinking, religious beliefs and race. Employers may still attempt to indirectly inquire about these off-limit topics, but doing so is a clear violation of anti-discriminatory laws, according to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
When former Maryland corrections officer Robert Collins was asked to re-interview for a job after a leave of absence, Collins was asked for his social media passwords so the interviewer could look for incriminating pictures of gang affiliation. Collins reluctantly agreed, according to Mercury News, but later filed a lawsuit with the help of the American Civil Liberties Union.
Maryland may become the first state to outright ban the practice of employers snooping in the private lives of jobseekers after passing legislation prohibiting employers “... from asking current and prospective employees for their usernames and passwords to websites such as Facebook and Twitter,” according to the Baltimore Sun. In California, state Sen. Leland Yee is considering taking similar action.
Needing a job in a tough economy may be enough for job candidates to practically hand over the keys to their front door to convince prospective employers that they are indeed the right candidates for the job. Refusing to divulge social medial passwords or answer prohibited questions during a job interview is unfortunately likely to result in rejection.
As students graduate college and start looking for work, the odds of being confronted by requests for passwords is high. According to Tony Morrison of Mashable Social Media, the best way to deal with the situation is to politely inquire about the relevance of one’s social life and online profile to the job requirements. Depending on the answer, students may then decide if working for such an invasive and micromanaging company is in their best interests.
The fierce competition for jobs has revealed some employers’ dirty trick to select who gets a foot in the door of their companies by asking jobseekers to reveal passwords to social media sites like Facebook. Employers then use this exceptional invasion of privacy as a screening tool for deciding who to hire for an open position.
Social media is not a new phenomenon, but what is new is the brazen attempt by employers to gain detailed insight into the private lives of jobseekers. There is no law prohibiting employers asking for passwords to social media accounts, even though Facebook has stated that giving out such privileged information breaks the terms of use for its website.
Several laws make it illegal for an employer to ask about age, marital status or pregnancy, citizenship, disability, drug use, smoking or drinking, religious beliefs and race. Employers may still attempt to indirectly inquire about these off-limit topics, but doing so is a clear violation of anti-discriminatory laws, according to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
When former Maryland corrections officer Robert Collins was asked to re-interview for a job after a leave of absence, Collins was asked for his social media passwords so the interviewer could look for incriminating pictures of gang affiliation. Collins reluctantly agreed, according to Mercury News, but later filed a lawsuit with the help of the American Civil Liberties Union.
Maryland may become the first state to outright ban the practice of employers snooping in the private lives of jobseekers after passing legislation prohibiting employers “... from asking current and prospective employees for their usernames and passwords to websites such as Facebook and Twitter,” according to the Baltimore Sun. In California, state Sen. Leland Yee is considering taking similar action.
Needing a job in a tough economy may be enough for job candidates to practically hand over the keys to their front door to convince prospective employers that they are indeed the right candidates for the job. Refusing to divulge social medial passwords or answer prohibited questions during a job interview is unfortunately likely to result in rejection.
As students graduate college and start looking for work, the odds of being confronted by requests for passwords is high. According to Tony Morrison of Mashable Social Media, the best way to deal with the situation is to politely inquire about the relevance of one’s social life and online profile to the job requirements. Depending on the answer, students may then decide if working for such an invasive and micromanaging company is in their best interests.
The fierce competition for jobs has revealed some employers’ dirty trick to select who gets a foot in the door of their companies by asking jobseekers to reveal passwords to social media sites like Facebook. Employers then use this exceptional invasion of privacy as a screening tool for deciding who to hire for an open position.
Social media is not a new phenomenon, but what is new is the brazen attempt by employers to gain detailed insight into the private lives of jobseekers. There is no law prohibiting employers asking for passwords to social media accounts, even though Facebook has stated that giving out such privileged information breaks the terms of use for its website.
Several laws make it illegal for an employer to ask about age, marital status or pregnancy, citizenship, disability, drug use, smoking or drinking, religious beliefs and race. Employers may still attempt to indirectly inquire about these off-limit topics, but doing so is a clear violation of anti-discriminatory laws, according to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
When former Maryland corrections officer Robert Collins was asked to re-interview for a job after a leave of absence, Collins was asked for his social media passwords so the interviewer could look for incriminating pictures of gang affiliation. Collins reluctantly agreed, according to Mercury News, but later filed a lawsuit with the help of the American Civil Liberties Union.
Maryland may become the first state to outright ban the practice of employers snooping in the private lives of jobseekers after passing legislation prohibiting employers “... from asking current and prospective employees for their usernames and passwords to websites such as Facebook and Twitter,” according to the Baltimore Sun. In California, state Sen. Leland Yee is considering taking similar action.
Needing a job in a tough economy may be enough for job candidates to practically hand over the keys to their front door to convince prospective employers that they are indeed the right candidates for the job. Refusing to divulge social medial passwords or answer prohibited questions during a job interview is unfortunately likely to result in rejection.
As students graduate college and start looking for work, the odds of being confronted by requests for passwords is high. According to Tony Morrison of Mashable Social Media, the best way to deal with the situation is to politely inquire about the relevance of one’s social life and online profile to the job requirements. Depending on the answer, students may then decide if working for such an invasive and micromanaging company is in their best interests.
Facebook's Eduardo Saverin 'friends' Singapore to evade U.S. taxes newjerseynewsroom.com According to The Hill, Schumer and Democratic Senator Bob Casey of Pennsylvania have introduced the Ex-Patriot Act, where anyone with a net worth of $2 million or an average income tax liability of $148000 over the last five years who attempts to ...
Finland: DPA launches tool for companies to demonstrate accountability JD Supra (press release) by Asta Puraite on 5/17/2012 The Finnish Data Protection Ombudsman (DPO) released - on 24 April 2012 - an accountability tool entitled the 'Data Balance Sheet' (DBS) which aims to help companies and public bodies assess their data processing practices.
Only in Massachusetts can a sitting governor declare without blinking that people who want jobs in the new casino industry shouldn’t have to submit to a thorough background check.
It’s worse than that. Gov. Deval Patrick actually said: “While the importance of thorough background investigations is unquestioned … the highest levels of background checks and screening may not be necessary nor appropriate for every employee.”
How is it that “thorough” screening is important, but “thorough” doesn’t include checking to see whether the applicant is a convicted bookie?
We’re talking about the gambling industry. Lots of convicted bookies could easily apply their well-honed skills at our casinos, but I think this is an industry where certain job experience shouldn’t count for very much.
Patrick has never shied from expressing fondness for criminals. Recall his work at the Department of Justice fighting for the “civil rights” of prisoners to have fully inflated basketballs. And then he was a pen-pal with Ben LaGuer, a rapist who left for dead an elderly woman he violated for nearly eight hours. Patrick called him “thoughtful.”
Even on something as simple as privacy rights the guy has his head on backward. He’s never uttered a word about the myriad ways victims in Massachusetts, unlike almost every other state, are forced to reveal irrelevant confidential medical files to accused criminals, yet he openly advocates for “privacy rights” for criminals in their rap sheets and fought for stricter CORI laws so the public would have less access to information about rapists, robbers and drug dealers.
Maybe he’s right and casinos are better off hiring ex-cons as it will give them something to do as an alternative to crime. But what if he’s wrong? Legalized gambling is to criminals like heroin to a junkie. Thugs are already lined up to score – and the one-armed bandits aren’t even in production yet. Just imagine how much easier it will be when they don’t have to sneak in because they have employee name tags.
There’s gambling for fun – and then there’s gambling with people’s lives. All that money we think is coming to the Bay State when casinos open for business is staying right there in Connecticut and Rhode Island, where people have to reveal whether they’ve been convicted of stealing before they’re hired to take more people’s money in the name of entertainment.
Convicted criminals have a right to work, and maybe it’s appropriate to give some of them jobs in the gaming industry. But let it be after a full background check, including criminal records and drug testing. If a guy is truly reformed, he won’t mind telling the truth and explaining why he deserves a second shot. It’s the guy who hides his background that needs the most scrutiny. All the relevant research on employee screening talks about the importance of honesty in the application process, and the need to explore unexplained gaps in employment (whether due to incarceration or otherwise). Missing or misleading information should be seen as a significant red flag that deserves extra scrutiny, not a gubernatorial pardon.
In any other state, a governor’s decision to veto provisions that require careful screening of candidates for employment in the gambling industry would get the guy laughed out of office.
Not here – where the lemmings who can’t see past the “D” next to Patrick’s name far exceed those who think some things are more important than partisan politics.
Maybe Elizabeth Warren should get involved in this mess. She needs a way to get Scott Brown’s people off her back about her “Pow Wow Chow” problems, while retaining some attachment to the claim that she’s part Native American.
It’s clear Warren sincerely believes she has Cherokee blood somewhere in her DNA, and if sincerity were more important than hypocrisy, she’d be all set. But since even some of her ardent supporters have left the reservation after realizing she not only claimed a proud heritage but used it to her professional advantage, thus disadvantaging a true minority, she’s in a whole lot of trouble that no amount of rain dancing will cure.
Maybe she can use that 1/32 bit of Indian blood to offer herself up as new head of the casino Industry. Unlike affirmative action laws, she can legitimately take advantage of even an infinitesimally small bit of Native American heritage to boost her moral authority to take on a leadership role in a business seen as intimately connected to Native American culture.
Though she’s not from the right “tribe” for this neck of the world, she’ll be safe from politically motivated interrogators because Gov. Patrick made it legal for employees to hide their true backgrounds. Once she’s moved on to casinos, Brown’s people will back off the “Pow Wow Chow” controversy, happy to slide into victory in November without an opponent.
It’d be a win-win-win for Brown, Patrick and Warren – and who doesn’t want to start Massachusetts’ new gambling career with a trifecta?
Wendy Murphy is a leading victims rights advocate and nationally recognized television legal analyst. She is an adjunct professor at New England Law in Boston. She can be reached at
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
. Read more of her columns at The Daily Beast.
Only in Massachusetts can a sitting governor declare without blinking that people who want jobs in the new casino industry shouldn’t have to submit to a thorough background check.
It’s worse than that. Gov. Deval Patrick actually said: “While the importance of thorough background investigations is unquestioned … the highest levels of background checks and screening may not be necessary nor appropriate for every employee.”
How is it that “thorough” screening is important, but “thorough” doesn’t include checking to see whether the applicant is a convicted bookie?
We’re talking about the gambling industry. Lots of convicted bookies could easily apply their well-honed skills at our casinos, but I think this is an industry where certain job experience shouldn’t count for very much.
Patrick has never shied from expressing fondness for criminals. Recall his work at the Department of Justice fighting for the “civil rights” of prisoners to have fully inflated basketballs. And then he was a pen-pal with Ben LaGuer, a rapist who left for dead an elderly woman he violated for nearly eight hours. Patrick called him “thoughtful.”
Even on something as simple as privacy rights the guy has his head on backward. He’s never uttered a word about the myriad ways victims in Massachusetts, unlike almost every other state, are forced to reveal irrelevant confidential medical files to accused criminals, yet he openly advocates for “privacy rights” for criminals in their rap sheets and fought for stricter CORI laws so the public would have less access to information about rapists, robbers and drug dealers.
Maybe he’s right and casinos are better off hiring ex-cons as it will give them something to do as an alternative to crime. But what if he’s wrong? Legalized gambling is to criminals like heroin to a junkie. Thugs are already lined up to score – and the one-armed bandits aren’t even in production yet. Just imagine how much easier it will be when they don’t have to sneak in because they have employee name tags.
There’s gambling for fun – and then there’s gambling with people’s lives. All that money we think is coming to the Bay State when casinos open for business is staying right there in Connecticut and Rhode Island, where people have to reveal whether they’ve been convicted of stealing before they’re hired to take more people’s money in the name of entertainment.
Convicted criminals have a right to work, and maybe it’s appropriate to give some of them jobs in the gaming industry. But let it be after a full background check, including criminal records and drug testing. If a guy is truly reformed, he won’t mind telling the truth and explaining why he deserves a second shot. It’s the guy who hides his background that needs the most scrutiny. All the relevant research on employee screening talks about the importance of honesty in the application process, and the need to explore unexplained gaps in employment (whether due to incarceration or otherwise). Missing or misleading information should be seen as a significant red flag that deserves extra scrutiny, not a gubernatorial pardon.
In any other state, a governor’s decision to veto provisions that require careful screening of candidates for employment in the gambling industry would get the guy laughed out of office.
Not here – where the lemmings who can’t see past the “D” next to Patrick’s name far exceed those who think some things are more important than partisan politics.
Maybe Elizabeth Warren should get involved in this mess. She needs a way to get Scott Brown’s people off her back about her “Pow Wow Chow” problems, while retaining some attachment to the claim that she’s part Native American.
It’s clear Warren sincerely believes she has Cherokee blood somewhere in her DNA, and if sincerity were more important than hypocrisy, she’d be all set. But since even some of her ardent supporters have left the reservation after realizing she not only claimed a proud heritage but used it to her professional advantage, thus disadvantaging a true minority, she’s in a whole lot of trouble that no amount of rain dancing will cure.
Maybe she can use that 1/32 bit of Indian blood to offer herself up as new head of the casino Industry. Unlike affirmative action laws, she can legitimately take advantage of even an infinitesimally small bit of Native American heritage to boost her moral authority to take on a leadership role in a business seen as intimately connected to Native American culture.
Though she’s not from the right “tribe” for this neck of the world, she’ll be safe from politically motivated interrogators because Gov. Patrick made it legal for employees to hide their true backgrounds. Once she’s moved on to casinos, Brown’s people will back off the “Pow Wow Chow” controversy, happy to slide into victory in November without an opponent.
It’d be a win-win-win for Brown, Patrick and Warren – and who doesn’t want to start Massachusetts’ new gambling career with a trifecta?
Wendy Murphy is a leading victims rights advocate and nationally recognized television legal analyst. She is an adjunct professor at New England Law in Boston. She can be reached at
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
. Read more of her columns at The Daily Beast.
Cisco Study Reveals that IT Saying Yes To BYOD Zawya (registration) (press release) Data protection is the number one concern: Ensuring that only the right people have access to sensitive company and customer data is a top priority. Cisco offers a broad portfolio of mobility products and services to help service providers and ...
G8 leaders hope Greece remains in Eurozone Fin24 A German data protection official has warned Facebook investors that the site's starting $38 share price is based on practices that breach privacy rules, as the company fell flat on its market debut. The government has sent legislation to parliament to ...
SAA flies to Benin Fin24 A German data protection official has warned Facebook investors that the site's starting $38 share price is based on practices that breach privacy rules, as the company fell flat on its market debut. The government has sent legislation to parliament to ...
JOHANNESBURG - President Jacob Zuma has said while he respects the right to freedom of expression and artistic creativity, a controversial portrait of him has overstepped the marks of these constitutional rights.
Fierce debate erupted this week over Brett Murray's painting, The Spear, which depicts Zuma with his genitals exposed.
South Africans have shared different views on the artwork via social networks.
The president and the African National Congress (ANC), will approach the South Gauteng High Court on Tuesday, to ask for an urgent interdict against the Goodman Gallery and City Press newspaper,the presidency wants the artwork removed from the exhibition and the image deleted from the City Press website.
Lawyers for Zuma will argue that that the artwork breaches the president’s and the ANC’s constitutional rights to dignity and privacy.
The artwork sparked public outrage on Thursday, after the City Press published it last week.
In an affidavit to the newspaper, Zuma said the image depicts him as “a philanderer, a womaniser and one with no - respect”.
Zuma said he felt “personally offended and violated” when he saw the artwork.
Zuma's children also came to his defence on Saturday, calling the painting “vulgar”.
Meanwhile a member of the ministerial task team, which wrote the amended Films and Publications Act of 1996, said as much as art plays an important role in creating new views in society, there are boundaries.
Kobus van Rooyen said it is now up to the court to decide.
“Art, if it’s bona fide art, would always save a publication.”
But van Rooyen said if one questions privacy, dignity and freedom of speech, according to the Constitution, “there is always a balancing of rights”.
The Goodman Gallery insists that the controversial painting shows democracy at work.
The gallery's lawyer, Pamela Stein, said the gallery cannot give up its right to decide what art will hang on its walls.
“In this case, the ANC’s right to condemn the work is acknowledged as much as the artist’s right to display it.”
Murray’s Hail to the Thief II exhibition is on display at the gallery until 16 June.
JOHANNESBURG - President Jacob Zuma has said while he respects the right to freedom of expression and artistic creativity, a controversial portrait of him has overstepped the marks of these constitutional rights.
Fierce debate erupted this week over Brett Murray's painting, The Spear, which depicts Zuma with his genitals exposed.
South Africans have shared different views on the artwork via social networks.
The president and the African National Congress (ANC), will approach the South Gauteng High Court on Tuesday, to ask for an urgent interdict against the Goodman Gallery and City Press newspaper,the presidency wants the artwork removed from the exhibition and the image deleted from the City Press website.
Lawyers for Zuma will argue that that the artwork breaches the president’s and the ANC’s constitutional rights to dignity and privacy.
The artwork sparked public outrage on Thursday, after the City Press published it last week.
In an affidavit to the newspaper, Zuma said the image depicts him as “a philanderer, a womaniser and one with no - respect”.
Zuma said he felt “personally offended and violated” when he saw the artwork.
Zuma's children also came to his defence on Saturday, calling the painting “vulgar”.
Meanwhile a member of the ministerial task team, which wrote the amended Films and Publications Act of 1996, said as much as art plays an important role in creating new views in society, there are boundaries.
Kobus van Rooyen said it is now up to the court to decide.
“Art, if it’s bona fide art, would always save a publication.”
But van Rooyen said if one questions privacy, dignity and freedom of speech, according to the Constitution, “there is always a balancing of rights”.
The Goodman Gallery insists that the controversial painting shows democracy at work.
The gallery's lawyer, Pamela Stein, said the gallery cannot give up its right to decide what art will hang on its walls.
“In this case, the ANC’s right to condemn the work is acknowledged as much as the artist’s right to display it.”
Murray’s Hail to the Thief II exhibition is on display at the gallery until 16 June.
JOHANNESBURG - President Jacob Zuma has said while he respects the right to freedom of expression and artistic creativity, a controversial portrait of him has overstepped the marks of these constitutional rights.
Fierce debate erupted this week over Brett Murray's painting, The Spear, which depicts Zuma with his genitals exposed.
South Africans have shared different views on the artwork via social networks.
The president and the African National Congress (ANC), will approach the South Gauteng High Court on Tuesday, to ask for an urgent interdict against the Goodman Gallery and City Press newspaper,the presidency wants the artwork removed from the exhibition and the image deleted from the City Press website.
Lawyers for Zuma will argue that that the artwork breaches the president’s and the ANC’s constitutional rights to dignity and privacy.
The artwork sparked public outrage on Thursday, after the City Press published it last week.
In an affidavit to the newspaper, Zuma said the image depicts him as “a philanderer, a womaniser and one with no - respect”.
Zuma said he felt “personally offended and violated” when he saw the artwork.
Zuma's children also came to his defence on Saturday, calling the painting “vulgar”.
Meanwhile a member of the ministerial task team, which wrote the amended Films and Publications Act of 1996, said as much as art plays an important role in creating new views in society, there are boundaries.
Kobus van Rooyen said it is now up to the court to decide.
“Art, if it’s bona fide art, would always save a publication.”
But van Rooyen said if one questions privacy, dignity and freedom of speech, according to the Constitution, “there is always a balancing of rights”.
The Goodman Gallery insists that the controversial painting shows democracy at work.
The gallery's lawyer, Pamela Stein, said the gallery cannot give up its right to decide what art will hang on its walls.
“In this case, the ANC’s right to condemn the work is acknowledged as much as the artist’s right to display it.”
Murray’s Hail to the Thief II exhibition is on display at the gallery until 16 June.
JOHANNESBURG - President Jacob Zuma has said while he respects the right to freedom of expression and artistic creativity, a controversial portrait of him has overstepped the marks of these constitutional rights.
Fierce debate erupted this week over Brett Murray's painting, The Spear, which depicts Zuma with his genitals exposed.
South Africans have shared different views on the artwork via social networks.
The president and the African National Congress (ANC), will approach the South Gauteng High Court on Tuesday, to ask for an urgent interdict against the Goodman Gallery and City Press newspaper,the presidency wants the artwork removed from the exhibition and the image deleted from the City Press website.
Lawyers for Zuma will argue that that the artwork breaches the president’s and the ANC’s constitutional rights to dignity and privacy.
The artwork sparked public outrage on Thursday, after the City Press published it last week.
In an affidavit to the newspaper, Zuma said the image depicts him as “a philanderer, a womaniser and one with no - respect”.
Zuma said he felt “personally offended and violated” when he saw the artwork.
Zuma's children also came to his defence on Saturday, calling the painting “vulgar”.
Meanwhile a member of the ministerial task team, which wrote the amended Films and Publications Act of 1996, said as much as art plays an important role in creating new views in society, there are boundaries.
Kobus van Rooyen said it is now up to the court to decide.
“Art, if it’s bona fide art, would always save a publication.”
But van Rooyen said if one questions privacy, dignity and freedom of speech, according to the Constitution, “there is always a balancing of rights”.
The Goodman Gallery insists that the controversial painting shows democracy at work.
The gallery's lawyer, Pamela Stein, said the gallery cannot give up its right to decide what art will hang on its walls.
“In this case, the ANC’s right to condemn the work is acknowledged as much as the artist’s right to display it.”
Murray’s Hail to the Thief II exhibition is on display at the gallery until 16 June.
Merkel: Germany needs European market Fin24 A German data protection official has warned Facebook investors that the site's starting $38 share price is based on practices that breach privacy rules, as the company fell flat on its market debut. The government has sent legislation to parliament to ...
Earlier last week, the federal government announced that the Air Force might be dispatching drones to a backyard near you. The stated purpose of these spies in the sky is to assist local police to find missing persons or kidnap victims, or to chase bad guys.
If the drone operator sees you doing anything of interest (Is your fertilizer for the roses or to fuel a bomb? Is that Sudafed for your cold or your meth habit? Are you smoking in front of your kids?), the feds say they may take a picture of you and keep it. The feds predict that they will dispatch or authorize about 30,000 of these unmanned aerial vehicles across America in the next 10 years. Meanwhile, more than 300 local and state police departments are awaiting federal permission to use the drones they already have purchased – usually with federal stimulus funds.
The government is out of control.
If the police use a drone without a warrant to see who or what is in your backyard or your bedroom, or if while looking for a missing child the drone takes a picture of you in your backyard or bedroom and the government keeps the picture, its use is unnatural and unconstitutional.
I say “unnatural” because we all have a natural right to privacy; it is a fundamental right that is inherent in our humanity. All of us have times of the day and moments in our behavior when we expect that no one – least of all the government – will be watching. When the government watches us during those times, it violates our natural right to privacy. It also violates our constitutional right to privacy. The Supreme Court has held consistently that numerous clauses in the Bill of Rights keep the government at bay without a warrant.
Even when we don’t have an expectation of privacy, we do have a right to be left alone. But merely watching us in public isn’t enough for the police, as many street corner cameras are equipped with listening devices and tiny megaphones. We can expect that these devices will soon bark commands: “Put down that BlackBerry.” “Look to your right before crossing.” “Don’t kiss her; a car is coming.” Actually, Big Brother is coming, and he’s not smiling.
Big Brother is watching from the skies, as well as the streets. This started when the Department of Defense decided to offer help to police – and they are prepared to accept. Never mind that the military may not lawfully operate within our borders, except in the case of rebellion, and then only when publicly authorized by the president. Never mind that the military may not lawfully be used for law enforcement, except in the case of disaster, and then only when publicly authorized by the president. And never mind that this use of drones by the Air Force was not the result of legislation debated and enacted by Congress, but was done under the authority of the president alone.
Add to all this the use of drones to kill people. President Obama has argued that he can use drones to kill Americans overseas, whose deaths he believes will keep us all safer, without any constitutional due process whatsoever. His attorney general has argued that the president’s careful consideration of each target and the narrow use of deadly drones are an adequate substitute for due process. Of course, no court has ever ruled that way. The president’s national security adviser has argued that the use of drones is humane since they are “surgical” and only kill their targets. Of course, that’s not true, but it misses the point. Without a declaration of war, the president can’t lawfully kill anyone, no matter how humane his killing.
Become a member and support the TAC!
How long will it be before the Air Force and the police adopt the unconstitutional arguments of the president’s wrongheaded advisers and use the drones not only to spy but also to kill Americans in America?
The whole reason we have a Bill of Rights is to assure that tyranny does not happen here, to guarantee that the government to which we have supposedly consented will leave us alone. Do you think the government accepts that? Would you feel safe with a drone in your backyard? Would you feel like you were in America?
This entry was posted on Sunday, May 20th, 2012 at 3:12 am. It is filed under Featured.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Earlier last week, the federal government announced that the Air Force might be dispatching drones to a backyard near you. The stated purpose of these spies in the sky is to assist local police to find missing persons or kidnap victims, or to chase bad guys.
If the drone operator sees you doing anything of interest (Is your fertilizer for the roses or to fuel a bomb? Is that Sudafed for your cold or your meth habit? Are you smoking in front of your kids?), the feds say they may take a picture of you and keep it. The feds predict that they will dispatch or authorize about 30,000 of these unmanned aerial vehicles across America in the next 10 years. Meanwhile, more than 300 local and state police departments are awaiting federal permission to use the drones they already have purchased – usually with federal stimulus funds.
The government is out of control.
If the police use a drone without a warrant to see who or what is in your backyard or your bedroom, or if while looking for a missing child the drone takes a picture of you in your backyard or bedroom and the government keeps the picture, its use is unnatural and unconstitutional.
I say “unnatural” because we all have a natural right to privacy; it is a fundamental right that is inherent in our humanity. All of us have times of the day and moments in our behavior when we expect that no one – least of all the government – will be watching. When the government watches us during those times, it violates our natural right to privacy. It also violates our constitutional right to privacy. The Supreme Court has held consistently that numerous clauses in the Bill of Rights keep the government at bay without a warrant.
Even when we don’t have an expectation of privacy, we do have a right to be left alone. But merely watching us in public isn’t enough for the police, as many street corner cameras are equipped with listening devices and tiny megaphones. We can expect that these devices will soon bark commands: “Put down that BlackBerry.” “Look to your right before crossing.” “Don’t kiss her; a car is coming.” Actually, Big Brother is coming, and he’s not smiling.
Big Brother is watching from the skies, as well as the streets. This started when the Department of Defense decided to offer help to police – and they are prepared to accept. Never mind that the military may not lawfully operate within our borders, except in the case of rebellion, and then only when publicly authorized by the president. Never mind that the military may not lawfully be used for law enforcement, except in the case of disaster, and then only when publicly authorized by the president. And never mind that this use of drones by the Air Force was not the result of legislation debated and enacted by Congress, but was done under the authority of the president alone.
Add to all this the use of drones to kill people. President Obama has argued that he can use drones to kill Americans overseas, whose deaths he believes will keep us all safer, without any constitutional due process whatsoever. His attorney general has argued that the president’s careful consideration of each target and the narrow use of deadly drones are an adequate substitute for due process. Of course, no court has ever ruled that way. The president’s national security adviser has argued that the use of drones is humane since they are “surgical” and only kill their targets. Of course, that’s not true, but it misses the point. Without a declaration of war, the president can’t lawfully kill anyone, no matter how humane his killing.
Become a member and support the TAC!
How long will it be before the Air Force and the police adopt the unconstitutional arguments of the president’s wrongheaded advisers and use the drones not only to spy but also to kill Americans in America?
The whole reason we have a Bill of Rights is to assure that tyranny does not happen here, to guarantee that the government to which we have supposedly consented will leave us alone. Do you think the government accepts that? Would you feel safe with a drone in your backyard? Would you feel like you were in America?
This entry was posted on Sunday, May 20th, 2012 at 3:12 am. It is filed under Featured.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Intervention team ends R320m Limpopo tender Fin24 A German data protection official has warned Facebook investors that the site's starting $38 share price is based on practices that breach privacy rules, as the company fell flat on its market debut. The government has sent legislation to parliament to ...
Google gets approval for Motorola deal Fin24 A German data protection official has warned Facebook investors that the site's starting $38 share price is based on practices that breach privacy rules, as the company fell flat on its market debut. The government has sent legislation to parliament to ...
Greece tourism hit by euro crisis Fin24 A German data protection official has warned Facebook investors that the site's starting $38 share price is based on practices that breach privacy rules, as the company fell flat on its market debut. The government has sent legislation to parliament to ...
Old vs new tech Fin24 A German data protection official has warned Facebook investors that the site's starting $38 share price is based on practices that breach privacy rules, as the company fell flat on its market debut. There will be a "substantial decrease" in the price ...
Obama hails progress on euro crisis Fin24 A German data protection official has warned Facebook investors that the site's starting $38 share price is based on practices that breach privacy rules, as the company fell flat on its market debut. There will be a "substantial decrease" in the price ...
A Facebook user is suing Facebook for violation of privacy issues. As a class-action suit, the amount the complainant believes Facebook should owe is $15 billion.
It’s sometimes scary to think about just how much of your personal information Facebook holds. Too much, apparently, for a Facebook user who is suing the company in a class-action suit over violating its users’ privacy. Facebook is being accused of tracking data on its users even after users have logged out of the site.
“This is not just a damages action, but a groundbreaking digital-privacy rights case that could have wide and significant legal and business implications,” said David Straite, a partner at Stewarts Law, in an emailed statement to Bloomberg.
This lawsuit, filed on the 17th in San Jose, California, includes 21 other lawsuits also accusing Facebook of invading user privacy. According to the filing, by the U.S. Wiretap Act every Facebook user is owed up to $10,000 for over $100 per count of violation. Between Facebook’s over 800 million users, that’s somewhere in the ballpark of $15 billion that Facebook would owe. Considering Facebook’s impressive IPO, it’s… probably not entirely out of the realm of possibility, but $15 billion is a hard figure to swallow.
A Facebook user is suing Facebook for violation of privacy issues. As a class-action suit, the amount the complainant believes Facebook should owe is $15 billion.
It’s sometimes scary to think about just how much of your personal information Facebook holds. Too much, apparently, for a Facebook user who is suing the company in a class-action suit over violating its users’ privacy. Facebook is being accused of tracking data on its users even after users have logged out of the site.
“This is not just a damages action, but a groundbreaking digital-privacy rights case that could have wide and significant legal and business implications,” said David Straite, a partner at Stewarts Law, in an emailed statement to Bloomberg.
This lawsuit, filed on the 17th in San Jose, California, includes 21 other lawsuits also accusing Facebook of invading user privacy. According to the filing, by the U.S. Wiretap Act every Facebook user is owed up to $10,000 for over $100 per count of violation. Between Facebook’s over 800 million users, that’s somewhere in the ballpark of $15 billion that Facebook would owe. Considering Facebook’s impressive IPO, it’s… probably not entirely out of the realm of possibility, but $15 billion is a hard figure to swallow.
Action Line: Children's Online Privacy Protection Act at issue in suit against ... Tulsa World RJ, Tulsa Rock You! has settled charges brought by the Federal Trade Commission in US District Court in California that it violated the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) Rule. In the settlement, it will pay a $250000 civil penalty and ...
Al Hamli: "The hybrid [insolvency] law will be tailored for local circumstances" Zawya (registration) By Sona Nambiar The UAE is expected to finalize a new Financial Restructuring and Bankruptcy Law by the end of 2012, according to a statement by Dr. Hadef Bin Jouan Al Dhaheri, the UAE Minister of Justice. The provisions of the new draft law apply more ...
It is no great revelation to state that Jamaica has many difficult and intractable problems. However, I am convinced that for several of them, if not most, there are logical and methodical approaches that can be taken to claw our way out of them if we would only recognise that we have a crisis and act as though we are serious.
Case in point: Why don't we take the commissioner of police seriously when he outlines the points of weakness in our legislation and laws that militate against effective crime fighting and crime reduction?
He has been specific, for example, pointing out the weaknesses in the Evidence Act, which virtually allows suspected lotto scammers when corralled by the police, to secure bail even though the police have cause to have them detained.
a crisis
The terrorist attacks on the US homeland on September 11, 2001, and the deaths of more than 3,000 innocent persons instantly heralded a crisis for that country. The now infamous USA Patriot Act was one major response to that crisis, as it sought to secure and create a safer country by granting new and extraordinarily sweeping powers to both domestic law enforcement and international intelligence agencies.
In just 30 days, this legislation gained passage in the normally partisan and vexatious US Congress. Even though the law has been criticised for some of its apparent unconstitutional aspects, and even as the debate continues, the law has been continually ratified even during this Obama administration. They had a crisis and they took action.
No one should advocate for knee-jerk legislation that tramples on or curtails the rights of any Jamaican citizen. Making effective laws that are also constitutionally sound may present a challenge, but not one that is beyond our capacity to overcome.
potent weapons
Jamaica's Proceeds of Crime Act and the Terrorism Prevention Act are potent weapons that can be used against criminals. However, if enabling amendments to the rules of evidence, use of video-teleconferencing and proven forensic methods are not allowed to be coupled with good police work, the crisis of crime will continue to sweep over us.
The commissioner has repeatedly called on the Government to speedily amend the Evidence Act. Other voices such as those of the Office of the Contractor General, the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and members of civil society have tabled approaches that an intelligent Parliament, working in the interest of the people, should be able to consider and convert into law.
It will require a greater time commitment on the part of our parliamentarians, but in this moment of exigency, who would be averse to the Parliament sitting up to three days per week?
We have a crisis that demands action. We must act as though we are serious.
CHRISTOPHER PRYCE
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
Public employees don’t lose all privacy rights just because they work for the government. But that privacy is subject to limitations.
Recent case: Teacher Ari Marken was accused of sexually harassing a student. The student’s mother complained and an investigation followed.
The investigator concluded that Marken violated district sexual harassment rules, based on his own statements, finding that some of the allegations “more likely than not did occur.” Marken was reprimanded.
Another parent later sued, seeking disclosure of the investigation file. Marken sought to keep it confidential. His request was denied based on the public’s right to know, which outweighed his privacy rights. (Marken v. Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District, Court of Appeal of California, 2nd Appellate District, 2012)
Like what you've read? ...Republish it and share great business tips!
Attention: Readers, Publishers, Editors, Bloggers, Media, Webmasters and more...
We believe great content should be read and passed around. After all, knowledge IS power. And good business can become great with the right information at their fingertips.
If you'd like to share any of the insightful articles on BusinessManagementDaily.com, you may republish or syndicate it without charge.
The only thing we ask is that you keep the article exactly as it was written and formatted. You also need to include an attribution statement and link to the article.
Public employees don’t lose all privacy rights just because they work for the government. But that privacy is subject to limitations.
Recent case: Teacher Ari Marken was accused of sexually harassing a student. The student’s mother complained and an investigation followed.
The investigator concluded that Marken violated district sexual harassment rules, based on his own statements, finding that some of the allegations “more likely than not did occur.” Marken was reprimanded.
Another parent later sued, seeking disclosure of the investigation file. Marken sought to keep it confidential. His request was denied based on the public’s right to know, which outweighed his privacy rights. (Marken v. Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District, Court of Appeal of California, 2nd Appellate District, 2012)
Like what you've read? ...Republish it and share great business tips!
Attention: Readers, Publishers, Editors, Bloggers, Media, Webmasters and more...
We believe great content should be read and passed around. After all, knowledge IS power. And good business can become great with the right information at their fingertips.
If you'd like to share any of the insightful articles on BusinessManagementDaily.com, you may republish or syndicate it without charge.
The only thing we ask is that you keep the article exactly as it was written and formatted. You also need to include an attribution statement and link to the article.
Social media prompt Congress to revisit online privacy legislation Boston Globe “As Facebook goes public, it's obvious that a lot of its value is dependent on the compromise of the privacy of teenagers,” said US Representative Edward Markey, who authored the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act in 1998.
Delivering Tomorrow's Backup and Recovery Infrastructure Australian Techworld The data protection market has changed considerably over the past decade. During this time, the market witnessed a fundamental shift away from relying solely on tape for backup and recovery to using disk-based backup solutions to address challenges ...
“A woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy is a vital part of the right to privacy guaranteed by the Tennessee Constitution. As this right is inherent in the concept of ordered liberty embodied in the Tennessee Constitution, we conclude that the right to terminate one’s pregnancy is fundamental.”
“Nothing in this Constitution secures or protects a right to abortion or requires the funding of an abortion. The people retain the right through their elected state representatives and state senators to enact, amend, or repeal statutes regarding abortion, including, but not limited to, circumstances of pregnancy resulting from rape or incest or when necessary to save the life of the mother.”
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Server: Microsoft-IIS/6.0
P3P: CP="CAO CUR ADM DEVa TAIi PSAa PSDa CONi OUR OTRi IND PHY ONL UNI COM NAV DEM"
Last-Modified: Sat, 19 May 2012 22:56:44 GMT
X-Processing-begin: MOC-WN0326, on site DN (2012-05-19 18:56:44:312)
Content-Type: text/html
X-Processing-finished: MOC-WN0326, on site DN (2012-05-19 18:56:44:437)
Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
Date: Sat, 19 May 2012 22:56:44 GMT
Transfer-Encoding: chunked
Connection: keep-alive
Connection: Transfer-Encoding
xmlns:meebo="http://www.meebo.com" lang="en" xmlns:fb="http://www.facebook.com/2008/fbml">
TN man's fight to stop embryo donation set stage for abortion rights | The Tennessean | tennessean.com
Advertisement
You will be redirected to the page you want to view in seconds.
5:13 PM, May. 19, 2012
In 2000, Chief Justice E. Riley Anderson, seated, and, from left, Justice Frank F. Drowota III, Justice Adolpho A. Birch Jr., Justice William M. Barker and Justice Janice M. Holder ruled in a 4-1 decision that the “right to terminate one’s pregnancy is fundamental.” Barker was the lone dissenter.
Occupy Nashville Keep up with the protests at Legislative Plaza and the legal battles surrounding them.
New Life Lodge A woman's death while in the facility's care has raised questions about oversight, overcrowding — and just how many patients there have died.
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Server: Microsoft-IIS/6.0
P3P: CP="CAO CUR ADM DEVa TAIi PSAa PSDa CONi OUR OTRi IND PHY ONL UNI COM NAV DEM"
Last-Modified: Sat, 19 May 2012 22:56:44 GMT
X-Processing-begin: MOC-WN0326, on site DN (2012-05-19 18:56:44:312)
Content-Type: text/html
X-Processing-finished: MOC-WN0326, on site DN (2012-05-19 18:56:44:437)
Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
Date: Sat, 19 May 2012 22:57:04 GMT
Transfer-Encoding: chunked
Connection: keep-alive
Connection: Transfer-Encoding
xmlns:meebo="http://www.meebo.com" lang="en" xmlns:fb="http://www.facebook.com/2008/fbml">
TN man's fight to stop embryo donation set stage for abortion rights | The Tennessean | tennessean.com
Advertisement
You will be redirected to the page you want to view in seconds.
5:13 PM, May. 19, 2012
In 2000, Chief Justice E. Riley Anderson, seated, and, from left, Justice Frank F. Drowota III, Justice Adolpho A. Birch Jr., Justice William M. Barker and Justice Janice M. Holder ruled in a 4-1 decision that the “right to terminate one’s pregnancy is fundamental.” Barker was the lone dissenter.
Occupy Nashville Keep up with the protests at Legislative Plaza and the legal battles surrounding them.
New Life Lodge A woman's death while in the facility's care has raised questions about oversight, overcrowding — and just how many patients there have died.
“A woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy is a vital part of the right to privacy guaranteed by the Tennessee Constitution. As this right is inherent in the concept of ordered liberty embodied in the Tennessee Constitution, we conclude that the right to terminate one’s pregnancy is fundamental.”
“Nothing in this Constitution secures or protects a right to abortion or requires the funding of an abortion. The people retain the right through their elected state representatives and state senators to enact, amend, or repeal statutes regarding abortion, including, but not limited to, circumstances of pregnancy resulting from rape or incest or when necessary to save the life of the mother.”
“A woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy is a vital part of the right to privacy guaranteed by the Tennessee Constitution. As this right is inherent in the concept of ordered liberty embodied in the Tennessee Constitution, we conclude that the right to terminate one’s pregnancy is fundamental.”
“Nothing in this Constitution secures or protects a right to abortion or requires the funding of an abortion. The people retain the right through their elected state representatives and state senators to enact, amend, or repeal statutes regarding abortion, including, but not limited to, circumstances of pregnancy resulting from rape or incest or when necessary to save the life of the mother.”
“A woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy is a vital part of the right to privacy guaranteed by the Tennessee Constitution. As this right is inherent in the concept of ordered liberty embodied in the Tennessee Constitution, we conclude that the right to terminate one’s pregnancy is fundamental.”
“Nothing in this Constitution secures or protects a right to abortion or requires the funding of an abortion. The people retain the right through their elected state representatives and state senators to enact, amend, or repeal statutes regarding abortion, including, but not limited to, circumstances of pregnancy resulting from rape or incest or when necessary to save the life of the mother.”
