Posted on 06/28/2003 5:43:06 AM PDT by Libloather
In Albany, Rape, Punch-Outs, and Shutdowns Are All a Baffling Blur
Fri Jun 27,12:24 PM ET
By Wayne Barrett Village Voice Writer
Lost in the media bombast about the Albany rape arrest of Michael Boxley, chief counsel to Assembly Speaker Shelly Silver, were the surprising comments of state Democratic chair Denny Farrell, who also heads the powerful Assembly Ways and Means Committee. In an appearance on NY1 on June 12—a day after the arrest—Farrell tried to parrot the silver line, insisting that he "shouldn't be making any comments" and that this was now in the hands of the criminal justice system.
But the ever garrulous Farrell, also the longtime boss of the Manhattan Democratic Party, couldn't stop himself, prodded by the persistent Davidson Goldin. "There are two people that have been horrendously damaged by what occurred," he wound up adding, "and I am a friend of one of them." Since Boxley was actually accused in 2001 of raping another assembly staffer—who, unlike the one in the current case, decided not to bring criminal charges—it was not initially clear if Farrell was talking about the other alleged victim, or if he was making Boxley a victim.
Farrell clarified that in a Voice interview: "I meant Michael, but I was remembering that he is innocent until proven guilty. I was trying to say that I shouldn't be commenting about it because he is my friend. I am not saying they are equal in their guilt. There is no way to have this conversation and not end up having to pick a side." Farrell contended that if Boxley were ultimately acquitted, he would still be damaged by all the publicity. "I don't think anyone should be picking sides who are close to them," he concluded.
Had the chair of the state GOP, Sandy Treadwell, made similar comments about a high-level Republican operative tagged twice with the same charge, New York feminists would be on the rhetorical warpath. But New York NOW president Rita Haley declined to comment directly on the Farrell quote, agreeing only to answer questions in the abstract. "The victim in this situation," Haley said, "is not the perpetrator. And while we are sympathetic to the fact that it is difficult for men to imagine that someone they like might be a rapist, they need to understand that rape is a crime of control and not of sex." Asked what response she would have liked to see come from those who worked with Boxley, Haley replied, "To begin with, there should be more of an expression of sympathy toward the actual victims, which are the two women."
Raising the possibility that Farrell might have been offended by Boxley's well-publicized bust in the assembly chamber, Haley said: "If there were concerns about racist treatment, those should have been addressed separately from the lumping together of the accused and the victim. To even talk about the two of them in the same breath is something I would not like to see."
Andrea Parrot, a Cornell University professor who specializes in the study of violence against women, said Farrell's statement was "inappropriate" and "imprudent," adding that "it doesn't acknowledge sensitivity for the trauma that the survivor is experiencing. It is not an inappropriate feeling, but it is an inappropriate statement." A pivotal player in the selection of Manhattan judges, Farrell may have taken his cue on this from Silver, who was quoted in the Post as saying that the rape incident was "unfortunate for everybody involved." Voice e-mails to Hillary Clinton, Charles Schumer, Jerry Nadler, and Carolyn Maloney produced no response, while Virginia Fields told the Voice that she didn't think Farrell "was trying to equate" the damage to the two, insisting that "he wouldn't be that insensitive."
(Excerpt) Read more at story.news.yahoo.com ...
Ya think?
And once again, the atrocity of political correctness rears its ugly head by mealy-mouthed, self-serving politicans who cannot even bring themselves to say a discouraging word about a serial rapist.
I have read this statement all through high school and my mandatory college psych classes I was forced to take (engineering was my major, but you had to take these electives).
Always the same line: "rape is about power, not sex"
Rape is horrible, de-humanizing, and evil. Surely, the violence and control are part of the crime. But there is something nefarious and wrong to dismiss the sexual aspect of it.
Why have people done this?
Where was Haley during Clintoon's continuing criminal enterprise?
I would say this is unbelievable, but in today's "protect the RATs world" (Condit-Foster), not even murder is condemned.
Voice e-mails to Hillary Clinton (news - web sites), Charles Schumer, Jerry Nadler, and Carolyn Maloney produced no response, while Virginia Fields told the Voice that she didn't think Farrell "was trying to equate" the damage to the two, insisting that "he wouldn't be that insensitive."
Please Ping this BIG story far and wide.
Until that pesky little stain on Monica's dress was tested, Clinton was NOT GUILTY, as well.
Nobody ever got the chance for a DNA test on poor Juanita, Gennifer Flowers, Gracen, Willey or numerous others.
Are RATs in general, serial rapists?
So drunk with untouchable power they feel they will never pay the price?
The democrats are not a political entity. They are a criminal gang.
And absurd. Erect penis. Vagina. Ejaculation. Not about sex. Okay...
I mean, I understand that it is also about control, and/or violence, and/or power, and/or whatever issues come into play in the mind of the perp or the victim. But surely all of these things are properly expressed as adjectives modifying the word "sex."
I think the PC terminology(which has been around for awhile, now) grows out of the connection between feminism and the "slut" aspect of the sexual revolution. "Sex is good. Sex is freedom. We don't judge people's sexuality. But rape is bad. Since sex is good and rape is bad, rape must not be sex."
Feminism has always had to deal with this gingerly, since the number one sexual fantasy for females has historically been rape fantasy.
1.When forced sexual contact is initiated by a democrat, it is not a horrible crime, as it most certainly would be if it were to be comitted by a Republican. It is actually a Sacrament in the Liberal Church of America.
2. The democrats' many forced sexual contactees are thus, not technically victims. Rather, they have been offered the unique gift of an opportunity for personal growth.
This of course, is doubly true if the forced sexual contactee is very much younger, or if the forced contact is homosexual in nature.
"Why have people done this?"
Why? Because the sexual act is viewed as being good in itself, and prohibitions against it are viewed as being oppressive in nature. If they were to allow that the sexual act itself can be bad and a form of exploitation and oppression, the entire modern sexual project would become much less believable.
As if spoken like a true (puke) liberal.
I'm surprised to find an admission like this in, of all papers, the Village Voice.
America's Fifth Column ... watch PBS documentary JIHAD! In America
http://video.ire.org/10650.ram (Requires RealPlayer)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.